[0:00] The pledge of allegiance

[0:06] to the flag of the United States of

[0:08] America

[0:29] Um

[0:31] Dan Dval are in pre are present.

[0:35] Um and we are going to head right into

[0:41] it. Informational discussion on the

[0:43] following budget discussions. Um three

[0:47] different funds are going to be

[0:48] discussed. Uh general fund, mitigation

[0:51] fund, water reclamation fund, and this

[0:54] is I'm assume going to be the treasurer.

[0:57] So, I guess you you're going to sit

[1:00] there and do it.

[1:00] >> Yeah.

[1:01] >> Okay. All right.

[1:03] >> Uh, take it away.

[1:05] >> Great. Well, I don't know if we're going

[1:07] to have it on the screen or possibly.

[1:10] >> I think so.

[1:11] >> Okay.

[1:12] Well, we can wait a second.

[1:19] We get it. That That's promising.

[1:25] Well, as we're getting as we're getting

[1:27] there, I'll just give a brief uh

[1:29] preview. So, tonight is the mic on.

[1:32] >> Yeah.

[1:39] » Oh,

[1:39] >> look at that. All right.

[1:41] >> You've got some power. [laughter]

[1:44] >> We'll see if I could uh manipulate it.

[1:46] Um so, tonight we'll be going over the

[1:49] uh general fund, the mitigation fund,

[1:52] and the treatment fund budgets. uh you

[1:54] were provided copies of all these slides

[1:58] as well as some additional information

[2:01] uh in your packets last week. I've

[2:04] gotten some questions from some council

[2:06] members and have responded uh to them uh

[2:09] with those individual questions, but uh

[2:12] any other questions we have as we go

[2:14] along tonight uh you know it is work

[2:16] session so you know please uh you know

[2:20] just speak up on those.

[2:22] So, the uh first part of the of the

[2:25] general fund, we'll go over the general

[2:27] fund budget first. Uh I've made some

[2:30] notes that I'm going to skip through

[2:32] right now. You probably looked over

[2:34] those and most of those will be uh

[2:37] referred to as we go through the budget

[2:39] itself. So as we look at the

[2:42] spreadsheets for the budget, uh what you

[2:45] have in the first three columns are the

[2:48] uh three actual uh revenues for fiscal

[2:53] year 23, 24, and 25. And then in the uh

[2:59] fourth and fifth columns you have the

[3:01] current fiscal year 26 budget and the

[3:05] actual fiscal year 26 figures through

[3:08] February of uh this year. So eight

[3:12] months of the current fiscal year and

[3:14] then the final column is the fiscal year

[3:17] 27 proposed budget which we will be uh

[3:21] referring to through most of the night.

[3:23] So as you start through the general

[3:25] fund, the first two pages are the

[3:28] revenues. Uh the first item being the

[3:30] real property tax revenue. Uh the rate

[3:33] is being uh proposed at 2977 cents which

[3:38] is the current rate. Uh this is actually

[3:42] slightly over the constant yield rate

[3:44] but uh historically that is the rate

[3:47] that's been set. uh by setting it at

[3:51] 0.2977

[3:54] uh it will generate an additional

[3:56] $82,000 in real property tax. That's

[3:59] because the assessed values of

[4:00] properties in Chesapeake Beach have

[4:03] increased about $27 million.

[4:06] So you know that because the increase

[4:09] assessment keeping the rate the same

[4:11] generates additional revenue. So, you

[4:13] see the real property tax revenue uh

[4:17] estimated $3.2 million

[4:20] uh for fiscal year 27

[4:24] under the admission amusement taxes. And

[4:26] I won't go through all the items, but

[4:28] I'll highlight, you know, some of the

[4:29] ones that have changed the most. Uh that

[4:32] is being projected at 2,18,000

[4:36] or $2.1 million in the budget. Uh the

[4:40] emission amusement taxes have increased

[4:42] about 400,000

[4:44] uh from fiscal year estimated for fiscal

[4:47] year 26.

[4:49] Um

[4:51] so I've increased that budget line item

[4:54] by uh 400,000.

[5:01] Uh going down to the operating property,

[5:04] uh that is uh tax on Verizon and BG&E.

[5:08] Uh you can see that is at $88,000.

[5:12] Uh we set that rate uh tax on those

[5:15] properties at a $139 per $100 of

[5:18] assessed value. Uh the property

[5:21] continues to go up each year and this is

[5:23] property held by Verizon and BGE on the

[5:26] public rightway.

[5:29] Uh going down to permits, fees, and

[5:32] penalties. Uh you see that at $20,000.

[5:36] We've actually broken that out uh from

[5:39] prior years. Included in there was the

[5:41] rental license fees and we've if you

[5:45] look at the line item under that uh

[5:48] we've taken $40,000 which is about what

[5:51] we've been collecting on the rental fees

[5:55] uh each year and put that in the

[5:57] separate category. That was at the

[5:59] request of a uh council member to show

[6:01] that separately and public has actually

[6:04] asked for that as well.

[6:07] Uh interest on savings you see a

[6:09] decrease there. Uh that is because we're

[6:12] using uh you know some of our surplus to

[6:15] fund the water park project. So uh the

[6:19] assumption there is that we are going to

[6:22] earn about three and a quarter percent

[6:24] on the reserves we have of about 15

[6:27] million. So that comes to 487,500.

[6:32] Uh cable TV uh cable franchise fees, you

[6:37] see a slight decrease, which is you know

[6:40] kind of been the uh trend that we see as

[6:44] people move from cable TV services into

[6:47] direct TV and some of the other uh

[6:50] providers. the franchise fee that we get

[6:53] from that uh decreases.

[6:57] Uh speed camera revenue, I'm projecting

[7:00] that to increase. Uh we're in the

[7:02] process of negotiating a new contract

[7:04] with a a camera company uh to do the

[7:08] administration of that which would

[7:10] provide additional revenues to the town

[7:12] over what uh we are currently getting

[7:15] which as you can see is you know about

[7:19] 12 thou about 20,000 anticipated for

[7:22] this year and has been about in that

[7:24] range in the prior years.

[7:28] Um, jumping down to state income taxes,

[7:31] we're seeing about a 6% increase in uh,

[7:35] state income taxes over a three-year

[7:38] average. Uh, it's actually been higher

[7:40] than that this year. So, I projected

[7:42] that at 1 million uh, 987,000.

[7:48] Uh, highway users revenue is at 579,000.

[7:53] Uh, which is current estimate from the

[7:55] state. uh they will be providing usually

[7:58] a updated one after the general

[8:00] session's complete but it should be in

[8:03] that range.

[8:05] um state aid for police protection uh at

[8:09] 50,360

[8:12] which is where we are now. Again, that's

[8:15] another uh source that I'll get updated

[8:18] figures before uh the budget's adopted,

[8:21] but it won't uh vary significantly from

[8:24] that amount.

[8:26] Um the other revenue sources uh you see

[8:31] transfers in from fund balance for the

[8:33] water park of 16.9 million. Uh these are

[8:38] revenues that you know were you know

[8:40] surplus funds as well as the sale of the

[8:43] bonds that we will not be using in

[8:45] fiscal year 26 that will roll over into

[8:48] 27

[8:50] as well as the uh general or I'm sorry

[8:54] the state bond bills for the water park

[8:56] and 1.1 million. We won't recognize that

[9:00] until fiscal year 27 either. Total those

[9:03] together is $18 million. And on the

[9:06] expenditure side of the uh general fund

[9:09] budget, you'll see that $18 million

[9:11] figure being used uh for the

[9:13] construction costs on the other side. Um

[9:18] the other transfer in a fund balance of

[9:21] 1,898,000

[9:23] is the amount of surplus funds that are

[9:26] being put into the general fund to

[9:28] balance the budget. Um and you know a

[9:32] large portion of that is you know for

[9:34] capital projects that uh we're

[9:36] anticipating doing u which I'll go

[9:39] through the capital projects as we get

[9:41] into the expenditure side of the budget

[9:43] as well. So when you take all those

[9:46] revenues into consideration and the fund

[9:48] balance carryover

[9:51] uh the total revenue or budget will be

[9:54] 29 million26,000.

[9:59] So, I'll stop there if you want and you

[10:02] know answer any questions on the revenue

[10:04] side if you have any.

[10:06] >> Any anybody have any questions on the

[10:08] revenue side?

[10:10] >> I have a question.

[10:12] >> Yep.

[10:13] >> Um the tripling of the amount of revenue

[10:19] for speed cameras, are we changing

[10:22] anything? Is that the plan or what what

[10:26] brought that? [sighs and gasps]

[10:28] Uh we're not changing anything as far as

[10:30] what we are charging per violation. Uh

[10:35] apparently when the town entered into

[10:37] the agreement with the current vendor

[10:40] for uh those speed cameras, we basically

[10:43] wrote on the uh Calvert County contract,

[10:47] >> which uh under that contract, the town

[10:50] pays a certain amount per month to that

[10:53] vendor, which is for each camera that

[10:55] the town has. And there's three cameras

[10:58] and they charge us $3,900 per camera. So

[11:03] that's roughly $12,000

[11:05] a month that we uh are charged for the

[11:11] vendor charges us for running the

[11:12] cameras. Uh we make about $10,000 a

[11:17] month in revenue

[11:19] uh from violations that we collect. So

[11:23] we don't make any money because we pay

[11:25] the vendor more than what we are

[11:27] collecting.

[11:29] Um that contract has expired

[11:32] and there's other uh vendors out there

[11:35] that have different uh cost structures

[11:38] for how they charge for the operation of

[11:40] the cameras. Uh and you know so instead

[11:44] of paying a fixed amount for the camera,

[11:47] you could pay them to process the

[11:49] violations and they will charge. So, if

[11:51] the cameras, it's a $40 ticket. Is it

[11:54] 40? Yeah, $40 ticket. Uh, you know, the

[11:58] fees for processing it, uh, in the

[12:02] contracts that I've seen I have have at

[12:04] other jurisdictions, you know, charge

[12:06] like $15 for a violation. So, the vendor

[12:10] gets 15, the town would get the

[12:12] difference about $25.

[12:15] So, it's not charging any of the

[12:18] violators anymore. It's just how we are

[12:20] sharing the monies that that are

[12:22] collected with the vendor. So that's how

[12:24] we generate the additional amount of

[12:26] revenue.

[12:27] >> Okay. So the speed is staying the same.

[12:30] >> Y

[12:30] >> and the price per violation is staying

[12:34] the same and the only thing anticipated

[12:38] for change is

[12:40] >> admin costs.

[12:41] >> Yep. when the when we were I believe

[12:44] under negotiation with uh we're looking

[12:47] at other companies that have or not

[12:49] other companies other towns that have

[12:51] actually bid out their speed camera

[12:54] services recently and are possibly going

[12:56] to ride on one of those contracts if it

[12:59] is comparable to our contracts.

[13:02] >> Okay. And

[13:02] >> which would generate the sharing as I

[13:05] just explained.

[13:07] >> Understood.

[13:09] >> Thank you.

[13:10] >> Yep. Good question.

[13:12] I have a couple questions. Yeah. Um

[13:17] line item for um [clears throat]

[13:21] our site rental. It says in the notes

[13:25] move to utility fund. Um doesn't seem to

[13:29] be any revenue for 24 25

[13:34] um 26. Was it uh moved be prior or do we

[13:41] not have any revenues coming into that?

[13:44] >> Because it was it was uh moved into the

[13:47] utility fund at the end of fiscal year

[13:50] 23. So when we get to utility fund

[13:53] budget at next month's meeting, you'll

[13:56] see terror site revenues in there for 24

[14:00] going forward.

[14:01] >> Okay. So, it's just it's still showing

[14:04] here because, you know, we're showing

[14:05] the actuals back to 23 and that's where

[14:08] it was in 23.

[14:09] >> Gotcha. Okay. Uh, one other question.

[14:12] Um, you mentioned a million something

[14:18] for um balancing the budget and other

[14:21] revenue sources.

[14:22] >> Yes.

[14:23] >> Um, what was that exact number and what

[14:27] number is that lumped into?

[14:30] Um it's actually by itself under uh

[14:32] under other revenue sources. The second

[14:35] item down account 430135

[14:39] >> and it's 1,898,

[14:41] Got it.

[14:42] >> 139.

[14:44] >> Okay. Thank you. Mhm.

[14:48] >> Is is that number coming out of the

[14:50] capital improvement budget that we did

[14:53] not expend or

[14:55] >> um it's just prior year surplus that uh

[14:59] you know the town has. We have over $15

[15:02] million in surplus uh and [snorts] uh

[15:06] that is being pulled from that in order

[15:08] to balance the budget. So it's being

[15:11] used to cover the expense side of the

[15:14] budget. And then the capital

[15:17] expenditures I look at as capital

[15:19] expenditures I think it's like $3.9

[15:21] million.

[15:23] So 1.2 million of that is being uh

[15:27] covered with current year's revenue or

[15:30] fiscal year 27 revenues and the other

[15:32] 1.8 is being covered from uh savings.

[15:37] It's a way to look at it.

[15:40] So in this budget, did you assume a

[15:43] reconciliation of our capital

[15:44] improvement budget?

[15:47] >> What do you mean by that?

[15:48] >> Like this fiscal year, fiscal year 2026,

[15:51] there's lots of money that went

[15:54] unexpended

[15:55] >> on capital improvements.

[15:57] >> Um that wasn't included in that

[16:00] estimated 15 million or so of reserves.

[16:03] that number will probably increase to

[16:08] 17 or 18 million because [clears throat]

[16:10] I would anticipate there's probably two

[16:12] to three million of unspent capital

[16:14] items uh this year that will roll over.

[16:18] So that will increase our uh surplus.

[16:22] >> Okay. So but as of today and this budget

[16:25] that revenue is still available and not

[16:30] accounted for here.

[16:32] >> Correct. Yeah. So if you want to expend

[16:34] it by the end of [snorts]

[16:36] 26, June of 30th, then it won't roll.

[16:40] >> Unlikely we will have time. But yes.

[16:43] That is

[16:44] >> why I'm asking.

[16:46] >> Yes.

[16:55] All right. So as we um go into the

[17:00] expenditure side um you know some of the

[17:04] I've reformatted some of the uh expenses

[17:08] within departments I've added in some uh

[17:11] new line items which I thought you know

[17:14] after looking over the budget over the

[17:15] last year would made more sense. So some

[17:19] of the account names might be a little

[17:21] different on a few of them and then lump

[17:25] you know I've carved out a separate

[17:27] department for recreation which some of

[17:29] their salaries and seasonal staff and

[17:31] costs are moved into there out of wreck

[17:35] ops or whatever other line items they

[17:37] were in. I've also added a new uh

[17:41] section for uh committees so that you

[17:44] know they would all be in one place

[17:46] instead of kind of spread out within the

[17:48] budget. So I'll point those out uh as we

[17:52] go through as well. Um so at the bottom

[17:56] of the first page uh it starts out with

[18:00] the salary and benefits and these are

[18:02] for the general government staff. uh

[18:05] there is a separate salary schedule

[18:07] which I believe we do that in a closed

[18:09] session uh last year uh to show the

[18:13] breakdown you know between each employee

[18:16] and what's included in there but in

[18:19] general uh throughout the uh departments

[18:24] uh there's about a 5.7%

[18:26] uh increase uh which uh the cost of

[18:29] living January over January of uh 25 to

[18:34] 26 six is currently 2.7%. So about 2.7%

[18:39] of that is factored in as a uh cost of

[18:42] living and then there's a average of

[18:45] about a 3% uh merit in there. So when

[18:49] you look at you know the different

[18:52] salaries department yeartoyear you know

[18:55] that's you know going to be part of the

[18:57] differences in there for for most

[18:59] departments. as we get into the

[19:01] treatment plant that will be a little

[19:03] different and we'll touch base on that

[19:06] and what's uh you know going on in their

[19:08] salaries uh when we get to the treatment

[19:11] plant budget.

[19:14] So at the top of the next page we start

[19:16] getting into uh operating costs.

[19:20] [snorts] Uh again I won't touch on all

[19:22] the items just you know some of the ones

[19:25] that have some changes. So the audit uh

[19:27] it was bid out three years ago. It does

[19:30] have a increase each year. Uh so that's

[19:33] increased to 34,000 and the cost of that

[19:36] spread out amongst the different funds.

[19:39] So you see the increase here to 8,500

[19:42] for the general fund.

[19:45] Uh legal counsel which includes costs

[19:48] for the town attorney. uh the board of

[19:51] appeals, the lobbyist,

[19:53] uh it's estimated 120,000

[19:57] uh planning and zoning uh increase in

[20:01] the uh hours for the planner. So you see

[20:05] an increase under the planning and

[20:07] zoning under engineering.

[20:11] uh that cost is actually uh decreased

[20:15] and the reason for that is uh we're

[20:18] costing the uh cost of the engineer to

[20:21] the projects he's working on. So if he's

[20:24] working on the water park, it's gone

[20:25] water park. If he's working on uh you

[20:29] know other projects uh goes there. So in

[20:32] doing analysis it looks like you know

[20:35] the cost for general works about 60,000

[20:38] projects that aren't underway. uh other

[20:40] general follow-up work

[20:44] um

[20:49] so under printing and publications

[20:52] uh had that as a two $12,000 decrease

[20:56] and you know it it looks more in line

[20:59] with the prior years and I was trying to

[21:01] figure out why we had $18,000 allocated

[21:04] this year and looks like we had put

[21:06] $8,000 in there for newsletter which I

[21:09] don't know if we're doing that or not.

[21:10] So, I don't know whether to leave that

[21:12] in there or not. Uh so, currently it's

[21:15] not included.

[21:17] Um

[21:19] under

[21:21] uh bank and credit card fees that was

[21:24] previously called professional fees,

[21:26] which I don't really consider bank and

[21:28] credit card fees professional fees, so I

[21:30] changed the name uh there. Um, and it

[21:35] was budgeted 67,000 this year, but we

[21:38] did have a public relations fee

[21:41] consultant included in there. Again, I

[21:44] don't know if that's something that's,

[21:45] you know, we didn't do this year.

[21:47] Haven't done it yet, and I don't know if

[21:48] that's going to be included, so I did

[21:50] not put it in.

[21:52] Um,

[21:54] the health department, uh, we are paying

[21:58] rent there. It hasn't been budgeted in

[22:01] the past in the past, but it has been

[22:03] incurred in the last two years. So, you

[22:06] know, figure that's something that we do

[22:09] need to budget for. Um, grants to local

[22:14] organizations.

[22:16] Um, currently, uh, it's budgeted 76,000.

[22:21] Uh, most of the items, uh, included in

[22:24] there. And let me see if we got it. Here

[22:31] there's the 76,000 in the in the right

[22:34] column. So most of the organizations

[22:37] are the same uh and funded at the same

[22:40] levels this current year with the

[22:42] exception of Chesapeake Beach Railway

[22:45] Museum. We've increased that from 1,500

[22:48] to 5,000.

[22:50] Uh and then we've added SmartCon in

[22:53] there, which is an organization we uh

[22:56] provided some funding for this year and

[22:59] then the Chesapeake Health for the

[23:01] birthing center at 50,000.

[23:04] Um

[23:05] the smaller amounts with the exception

[23:08] of the railway as it's highlighted

[23:10] there. I'm waiting on final allocation

[23:12] from the mayor. We are reaching out some

[23:15] of those organizations to um you know

[23:18] see what their needs are because we

[23:20] haven't gotten a lot of feedback from

[23:22] them or requests for this year. So they

[23:25] may change before um you know the next

[23:28] draft of the budget that you get.

[23:32] Um

[23:36] [gasps] I guess we'd go back to special

[23:38] events. So, special events budget um you

[23:42] see it's increased from 195,233.

[23:47] Uh some of the notes on the right here

[23:50] will let you know tell you where some of

[23:52] those figures come from. I believe about

[23:55] 12,000 or so uh events that we've done,

[23:59] but they've been costed to the

[24:01] recreation operation line item of the

[24:03] budget. and we're trying to uh there's a

[24:07] lot of things lumped into that account.

[24:09] So, we are trying to

[24:12] uh move them out into their own line

[24:15] items. So, you see the ones highlighted

[24:19] uh say move from rec ops and then there

[24:22] is some other uh um events that have

[24:27] been added in there as well. So, you

[24:30] know, it looks like a a larger increase

[24:33] uh from 195 233, but some of those were

[24:36] allocated elsewhere. Uh there are some

[24:39] newer ones and some additional funding

[24:42] for existing ones.

[24:45] Um

[24:47] go back to

[24:50] the

[24:53] deputy.

[24:55] Um so at top of uh page three uh you see

[24:59] the police deputy and residents line

[25:01] item uh the 1,454,000

[25:06] is the estimate we received from the

[25:08] sheriff's office. There is a detailed

[25:10] breakdown in your packet. I won't and

[25:12] also up on the screen but I won't refer

[25:15] back to that. um you know they reconcile

[25:19] that at the end of each year and then

[25:21] either give us a credit back or um you

[25:24] know charge us additional uh for fiscal

[25:27] year uh 25 we did get a credit back that

[25:32] was uh about I think it was about

[25:34] 100,000 less that got credited against

[25:37] our bills for the current year.

[25:40] Uh we added a new line item in for

[25:43] satellite uh for a satellite police

[25:46] office. Apparently they had a satellite

[25:48] office at Fishing Creek which no longer

[25:51] exists. Um and so they are looking for

[25:56] uh a new location. Uh so we've put money

[26:00] in there to possibly rent space uh for

[26:04] them, but you know there could be other

[26:06] options to do that as well. Uh but

[26:09] that's a a figure that was put in there

[26:12] based on you know renting a space at

[26:15] current rates. Uh for that

[26:19] uh North Beach Volunteer Fire Department

[26:22] uh allocated uh 50,000 donations same as

[26:26] it's been for you know at least the last

[26:28] five years.

[26:31] uh the uh salary and benefit line items.

[26:35] These are for public works and we also

[26:37] had some items here that were for

[26:39] recreation. So you could see the payroll

[26:42] taxes, recreation and recreation ops

[26:44] salary. I've noted that they've been

[26:46] moved to a separate budget uh item. So

[26:50] you can see I kept the prior years here

[26:53] so you could see where they were in

[26:56] prior years. And then when we get down

[26:57] to the wreck uh department line items,

[27:00] you'll see that we moved it down there.

[27:03] Uh salary and wages for public works uh

[27:07] you know 605,000.

[27:10] That one's a larger increase because

[27:11] there is a additional staff full-time uh staff

[27:18] want to say a uh

[27:21] labor beginning, you know, someone at

[27:23] the beginning of the the scale. uh going

[27:27] into that department or it's being

[27:29] proposed. And then you see the uh

[27:33] payroll related uh taxes and benefits

[27:37] for them. Uh when you get under public

[27:40] works supplies, first item is the

[27:42] gasoline and tolls.

[27:44] Um that has gone up uh you know

[27:47] currently because of uh different

[27:50] allocation. We're now allocating 80% of

[27:53] the gas uh charge. This is for the

[27:56] vehicles to uh public works and 20% to

[28:01] the utility fund. It was at 5050. Uh Jay

[28:05] has asked you know looked at that and uh

[28:08] thinks that the breakdown should be 8020

[28:11] instead of 5050. So that's where part of

[28:14] the increase is there. Uh with the price

[28:16] of gas going up now that may have to be

[28:19] increased uh you know if it stays up

[28:21] high. So we may need to put additional

[28:23] money there.

[28:26] under the public works contracted

[28:28] services and fees. Um the holiday lights

[28:32] [clears throat] is at 175,000. That

[28:34] includes the uh current contracts for

[28:38] the electrician and basically the

[28:41] installer for all of the lights and

[28:44] company that does the maintenance

[28:45] windmill farms of 130,000.

[28:48] Uh new displays for the coming year at

[28:51] 35,000 then additional 10 for

[28:54] miscellaneous costs.

[28:57] uh trash removal service uh possible 8%

[29:01] increase which built into their

[29:02] contract. Uh brings it up to 681,000.

[29:07] Uh trash removal uh cans at Kellum's

[29:10] Field is a new line item. Uh and if you

[29:13] need to, Jake could elaborate a little

[29:15] further on this if you have questions,

[29:17] but it's uh new service to pick up uh

[29:21] you know trash from the cans at Kellums

[29:23] and throughout the town. And I can't

[29:24] remember how many cans there are, but

[29:26] there are quite a few of those. And you

[29:28] know, this seemed to be an efficiency

[29:30] request uh uh to do this.

[29:35] Um

[29:38] so most of the other items to get down

[29:41] to snow and ice removal, you know, are

[29:43] pretty much in line with uh prior years.

[29:46] Under the snow and ice removal, you

[29:48] know, obviously 26 was an unusual year.

[29:51] you know, we're over budget there.

[29:53] Currently at 110,000 vers versus 50,000

[29:56] budget. Uh prior years were a lot less

[29:59] than that. Um so, you know, kind of

[30:02] split the difference and put it in at

[30:04] 70. Hopefully, we'll have a you know,

[30:07] another uh easy year in fiscal year 27,

[30:12] but you know, [clears throat]

[30:14] we definitely have to allocate just in

[30:16] case.

[30:18] At the uh top of the next page, we get

[30:20] into the recreation line items. And

[30:23] here's where, you know, we've uh

[30:25] generated uh you know, some accounts

[30:28] separately for the recck department. So,

[30:30] the wreck operation salary is the office

[30:33] staff uh that forms the recreation

[30:37] uh recreational uh duties.

[30:40] uh the seasonal wages for Kellums or for

[30:43] the seasonal staff that that works at

[30:46] the Kellums for the events that happen

[30:48] there. That was previously costed under

[30:50] wops. Uh which again, you know, I felt

[30:53] that we should break out and show it so

[30:55] you know, it'd be easier to see what

[30:57] we're spending uh on those costs. and

[31:00] similar to

[31:02] uh the seasonal Bayfront Park staff. So,

[31:05] that was under a different line item,

[31:07] but it was had had a different uh name

[31:11] to it, which I didn't really think uh

[31:14] told you what it was for. Uh so, we put

[31:18] that into a separate line item and then

[31:20] they have direct department has their

[31:22] own breakout for their taxes and

[31:25] benefits that you could see under there.

[31:28] Um it's blank for all the actuals in

[31:30] prior years because those were all shown

[31:32] under the public works figure and within

[31:35] the public works department

[31:39] uh for the subcommittees uh you know I

[31:42] mentioned before you know these were

[31:43] spread out throughout the budget in

[31:45] various places so I've uh went and

[31:49] combined them one place so that they're

[31:51] easy to see. Uh there was a new one

[31:54] added for the walkability committee of

[31:56] $10,000.

[31:58] Uh the other ones uh the opioid

[32:01] awareness uh committee the green team

[32:04] and seabbox were uh you know already

[32:07] existing

[32:09] uh accounts

[32:12] uh new line item under debt service uh

[32:15] which is 500,000 you know by the middle

[32:18] of May or you know we'll know what that

[32:21] actual figure will be uh but you know

[32:24] I'm estimating it to be about 500,000

[32:26] that's the annual ual debt service that

[32:28] will be on the water park. Uh debt

[32:31] service that will be going to market in

[32:35] May. Uh and that's based on a 15-year

[32:39] payback starting fiscal year 27 through

[32:42] fiscal year 42

[32:45] under capital expenditures for the water

[32:48] park. That's where you see the 18

[32:50] million which is the actual construction

[32:52] cost. The operating budget will be

[32:54] presented uh at the May work session. Uh

[32:59] we're working on that now. It'll be the

[33:01] first year it's operational again in I

[33:04] guess three years. So uh you know we're

[33:06] kind of starting from scratch again and

[33:09] you know generating that budget. So it's

[33:10] taking a little longer. Uh saddle

[33:13] replacement is something that was

[33:15] requested by the public works director

[33:18] and when I'm done I think he could

[33:20] probably add little or add more

[33:22] information

[33:24] uh regarding to what that request is

[33:26] for.

[33:28] And then last item is the capital

[33:30] expenditures

[33:33] which uh yeah is 3,867,000.

[33:37] So under the fiscal year 27 column you

[33:41] could see what those projects are and

[33:43] I'll go through them briefly. So um you

[33:47] know the asphalt overlay and road

[33:48] repairs these are the HU highway user

[33:52] funded projects. So it's the road work

[33:54] that we do within the town. Um we

[33:58] currently have about $1.4 million in

[34:02] reserve funds [clears throat] you know

[34:03] that we've accumulated over the years

[34:05] that we haven't used yet.

[34:07] So what I did is I took that 1.4 million

[34:12] allocated over the next five years and

[34:14] then added in the uh projected

[34:18] uh annual

[34:20] HQR benefit that we'll get which you

[34:23] know I had touched on

[34:25] uh on the revenue side. So for fiscal

[34:28] year 27

[34:32] that was 579,000.

[34:34] So, I just said, "Okay, for the next

[34:37] five years, we're going to get somewhere

[34:39] in that range. Plus, we have the 1.4

[34:42] million uh surplus

[34:45] uh of highway users revenue funds. I

[34:47] divide that equally, and that's how we

[34:49] get the 879,000

[34:51] a year for five years.

[34:54] Uh the 261 connectivity trail connection

[34:58] and design, uh that's the estimate that

[35:01] we have from Mexican Associates. uh you

[35:05] know to do the design work. You know,

[35:07] you all know the conversations that have

[35:09] been had with that. It could be more, it

[35:12] could be less. We could be getting state

[35:14] highway users money to help fund that.

[35:17] We might not be getting highway users

[35:19] revenue. So, I've just put it in to the

[35:22] budget for for discussion purposes that

[35:26] [clears throat]

[35:26] that the design is there if we want to

[35:29] pay 100% of it. Um, you know, we could

[35:34] decide where we go from there. Uh, the

[35:36] railway trail extension. Um, I had again

[35:40] gotten ballpark estimates from Mecan

[35:43] Associates of what it would cost to

[35:45] actually design uh the railway trail. He

[35:50] said 150,000.

[35:52] And then the estimated construction cost

[35:55] is 2 million. So, I've broken out the uh

[36:00] assumed that the design would take place

[36:02] in 27, probably take, you know, a while

[36:05] to do the design. Uh we may be able to

[36:08] start construction during 27. So, I put

[36:11] a half a million dollars in 27 to start

[36:15] construction and then that would go over

[36:18] two years. You know, as we get closer,

[36:20] maybe it would only be a year. So the

[36:22] two million construction cost is spread

[36:24] out over three years.

[36:27] Uh the sign and wfairing projects uh I

[36:31] believe that's for the trails as well uh

[36:34] kept at 25,000.

[36:36] The uh boardwalk sidewalk railway trail

[36:39] maintenance uh we budget that at 100,000

[36:42] a year. So that just continued that for

[36:45] the five years. uh coastal resiliency if

[36:48] it happens doesn't isn't projected until

[36:51] fiscal year 28. Uh storm drainage

[36:55] improvements again is uh an item that we

[36:58] budgeted 100,000 a year for. Uh there

[37:01] are uh improvements to the town hall for

[37:05] the chamber conference room and lobby at

[37:07] 85,000.

[37:09] uh town hall sidewalk flooring and

[37:12] carpet at 60 and property improvement

[37:16] behind the town hall which basically the

[37:18] house that we purchased I don't know it

[37:20] was a couple years ago uh if we want to

[37:23] do some improvements there uh that's at

[37:26] 50,000

[37:28] uh the truck replacement in the toolk

[37:31] are requests from the public works

[37:33] director uh at 70 and 90,000

[37:37] and

[37:40] the

[37:41] Veterans Park bricks. Can you help me

[37:44] with that one, Jay? Is that replacing

[37:46] the existing bricks or

[37:50] >> including that? Um, and maybe some

[37:52] different technologies and also some

[37:54] benches and some general maintenance.

[37:58] » And then we get into the Kellum's Park.

[38:01] Again, this this is, you know, we've got

[38:03] the concept planned for the park. We had

[38:07] about 10 or 12 line items in past

[38:09] budgets that we were like piece mealing

[38:12] together. So going forward, it looks

[38:15] like we're going to be dealing with the

[38:16] concept design, refining that uh putting

[38:20] those uh designing the full concept and

[38:24] putting the building plans together. So

[38:27] it's anticipated that that would uh

[38:30] start in 27 and then the construction

[38:34] cost is estimated at $5 million. So

[38:37] again allocating part of the

[38:39] construction is happen in uh 27 and then

[38:44] proceed forward through 28 and 29 and

[38:48] maybe it'll be sooner uh maybe it will

[38:51] need to be stretched out.

[38:54] Um

[38:56] the last two items are the veterans park

[39:00] upgrades uh of 50,000

[39:04] that includes late speakers and concrete

[39:07] repairs. And then there's the uh kayak

[39:11] launch at 50,000 which previously was

[39:15] thought to be done with POSOS funding

[39:17] but as we research POSOS funding there

[39:20] really isn't any POSOS monies available

[39:23] to do any projects at the county. Um so

[39:27] if we're going to do that it would need

[39:29] to be done oursel and therefore uh

[39:31] that's why it's being budgeted as the

[39:33] capital project.

[39:36] Um, so I think that's the main capital

[39:39] projects and I think that's the last

[39:43] item within the budget, right?

[39:46] >> Yep.

[39:50] » A lot. But if you have any questions,

[39:52] we'll answer those. A lot of questions.

[39:55] >> Any questions? Go ahead, Jamie.

[39:57] >> I have a few questions. Um,

[39:59] [clears throat] I'll I'm going to go

[40:00] through I'm gonna go page by page if you

[40:02] don't mind. Um,

[40:03] >> tell her where tell us where we're

[40:05] starting.

[40:05] >> Right. So, starting on at the top where

[40:08] it says legal counsel, the last six is

[40:10] 620600.

[40:12] It talks about Bank of America fees at

[40:15] 18,000 under legal fees. Is this just US

[40:19] >> actually board of appeals?

[40:20] >> Board of Appeals. Okay. Somebody told me

[40:22] it was Bank of America. That's what I

[40:23] was saying.

[40:24] >> That is Yeah,

[40:26] >> I was like, that's why I Why are we

[40:28] paying Bank of America there? Okay,

[40:30] perfect question. Thank you.

[40:32] Um um okay and then I just had a

[40:35] comment. Are we I I do see throughout

[40:37] Comcast coming up quite a bit. Are are

[40:40] we going to explore uh like think big as

[40:42] well as an opportunity to upgrade uh the

[40:45] town's infrastructure? I mean we're going all over the community. Uh

[40:49] there might be an opportunity to

[40:51] decrease our utility costs uh and go

[40:53] fiber uh at the same time. As I was

[40:55] looking throughout a couple uh a couple

[40:58] of these, um I did have a question. Uh

[41:01] if you go about halfway down the same

[41:03] page, uh 624800, it says health

[41:06] department rent. Um

[41:10] what is that? I don't I don't know where

[41:12] that's that's at.

[41:13] >> Could you help me on that?

[41:15] >> So, we have an agreement with the health

[41:19] department to share space. So we cost

[41:21] share the space that they have over

[41:23] where the old library was.

[41:25] >> So they're in a smaller space. They're

[41:27] currently renovating to move into to

[41:29] take over the space where the library

[41:31] was, but there are a lot of uh town

[41:33] residents who seek medical services

[41:35] there.

[41:36] >> Okay. Okay. I didn't know that. That's

[41:37] awesome. Okay. Thank you. Um

[41:42] [clears throat]

[41:44] do we have any clarity on the trash

[41:46] services for Kellums in the town, Jay?

[41:49] like what like what that frequency is

[41:50] going to look like.

[41:52] >> I plugged in some money and I'm working

[41:54] on some prices, but basically we used to

[41:56] have a trash person and the the biggest

[41:59] role was they were semi-retired. The

[42:01] town didn't pay them benefits. They were

[42:03] able to work weekends, which when the

[42:05] water park opens and everything, it's

[42:07] our biggest demand. So, I want to look

[42:08] at somehow going back to there if we can

[42:11] find the right person, the right thing,

[42:13] cuz we have 40 trash cans now that we

[42:15] empty throughout town. We do three

[42:17] trashs a week, which is great. and we

[42:18] have the staff, but I going to have to

[42:21] start bringing them in on weekends again

[42:23] to do up and down 260, do the rail

[42:25] trails, the parking lot. So, I'm just

[42:26] exploring. I think it's more cost

[42:28] beneficial in the town to get a better

[42:30] product if we can find the right

[42:31] individual to do it. We used to have one

[42:34] Allen Brown and if he's listening, I

[42:35] thank you for doing what you did for

[42:37] many years. But, um, he was a perfect

[42:39] fit for it. And

[42:40] >> so, I want to explore that. I think

[42:41] it'll be more cost effective

[42:43] >> to have a lower level person designated

[42:45] to do that.

[42:46] >> Okay. Thank you. Sure.

[42:48] >> Um and then I'll flip over to the

[42:50] [clears throat] capital uh capital

[42:52] budgets page.

[42:56] Um

[42:57] so I'll [clears throat] start from the

[42:59] bottom and work my way up, but um the

[43:02] Veterans Park has two $50,000

[43:05] uh uh pieces in here. Um, so there was a

[43:09] meeting uh a few weeks ago related to

[43:12] the revitalization of uh or whatever

[43:15] acronym or verb we want to put in front

[43:16] of that um of of Veterans Park because

[43:19] if you go over there I mean it's a

[43:20] beautiful park. It's stunning when you

[43:22] come down and see the bay. But if you

[43:24] actually get up close, there's a lot of

[43:25] wear and tear because it's, you know,

[43:27] next to the water and and it's showing

[43:30] its age and and there was some

[43:31] conversations about um how to um honor

[43:36] uh uh veterans more appropriately. Um so

[43:38] there was like a little group that met

[43:40] and there's some conversations that are

[43:41] ongoing. However, because of that, uh I

[43:45] think we wanted to pause. There's

[43:47] actually a question around restoring

[43:48] bricks and even finding out who's on the

[43:50] current bricks. So, I don't think we

[43:52] want to uh have any funding in there

[43:54] right now for uh specifically for

[43:56] bricks, but I would ask Jay like what do

[43:59] we what what would you need I know as we

[44:02] have to have that conversation maybe

[44:04] repurposing this for the design that we

[44:07] would like to do versus um

[44:11] putting it in here for Rex.

[44:15] >> Sure. So, I think the original 50,000

[44:17] where it says lights and when it's when

[44:20] the mayor first became mayor, we went

[44:21] back over there. It used to have lights

[44:23] in the fountain. They used to have a few

[44:25] things that we were going to try to

[44:26] restore. The second 50,000. I'm not 100%

[44:29] sure if that was allocated just to the

[44:31] bricks or something else.

[44:32] >> Just to the bricks.

[44:34] So, that may have

[44:35] been from the original plan to replace

[44:37] the bricks and now we may moving may be

[44:40] moving to something different.

[44:42] >> Okay. So, I'm wondering then if that's

[44:44] where we would maybe look to

[44:46] >> you want to remove it or just have it

[44:48] say veteran park revitalization instead

[44:51] of specifying bricks.

[44:53] >> I would probably swap it to that so we

[44:55] can use it for the design discussions.

[44:57] Uh and and that and it's not to I don't

[44:59] mean to catch the council or anybody

[45:01] offguard. It literally was a

[45:02] conversation we just had and there's a

[45:04] lot of things we had to it wasn't ready

[45:06] to be presented. So, um but obviously

[45:08] we're at budget time. So, um, yeah, I

[45:10] think just swapping it to that and we

[45:13] can partner use it for

[45:15] >> I think that makes a lot of sense.

[45:17] >> Yeah. Um, and then I'm I'm so sorry. I I

[45:20] went um I skipped one piece on the

[45:23] council member. What is it we want to

[45:24] do? Change the name or you lump it

[45:26] together with the other 50,000. You

[45:28] could just um I think you could probably

[45:31] just remove the bricks and lump it in

[45:34] with the

[45:36] veteran park upgrades and make that

[45:38] 100,000.

[45:38] >> Yeah. So you don't have two line items.

[45:42] I'm not an accountant, but that sounds

[45:44] simple. So um and I'm sorry, I I did

[45:48] make a mistake on um on the grants

[45:52] piece in there um to local

[45:54] organizations. Mayor, if you remember,

[45:56] uh I'm going to advocate for the Bucks a

[45:58] little bit here. There was discussions

[46:00] about a one-time increase, uh to 10,000

[46:03] versus 5,000. And the the purpose was

[46:06] they were going to uh purchase the

[46:10] concussion pads that go on all the

[46:12] helmets for all the teams uh moving

[46:15] forward. And I and I think they were

[46:16] going to cost all share a piece of that,

[46:18] but uh I would encourage us just for a

[46:21] one time. Uh, I know we I know it's

[46:23] pretty steady across the board.

[46:24] Everybody's around the 5,000 mark, but

[46:26] for a one time to to support youth

[46:29] safety, um, increasing that from 5,000

[46:32] to 10,000,

[46:34] >> I think that's fine.

[46:36] Get that down.

[46:37] >> I think they missed their 5,000 payment

[46:39] like two years ago anyway.

[46:42] >> Yeah. And there's some nuances to it

[46:43] where it was only allowed for like

[46:46] scholarships. Um, and I I think

[46:48] collectively as a town, you like safety

[46:50] equipment is a very important thing in a contact sport. So, allowing them to

[46:54] do that uh would be really nice. But,

[46:56] okay, thank you. Uh, that's all I have.

[46:58] Thanks.

[47:00] >> Anybody else? Eric, you got anything?

[47:05] » We probably should have something in

[47:06] here for uh goals over at Kellum. Soccer

[47:10] goals.

[47:11] >> We're going to hold you hostage. Maybe

[47:12] we can put uh maybe we can put a a

[47:14] singular line item in, you know, for

[47:17] like $5,000 for soccer goals at Kellum's

[47:21] Park.

[47:23] >> Where' that go?

[47:25] >> It goes when the capital

[47:29] Yeah.

[47:29] >> Yeah. When you vote for the capital, I

[47:32] got it included. think that I propose

[47:34] that we add a line item

[47:36] under the already two existing KMS Park

[47:40] items that says uh soccer goals $5,000

[47:46] bullet point

[47:48] >> or that line item

[47:52] » I don't think it needs its own line

[47:54] idle. Yeah, it should have its own line

[47:56] item, so it gets done. It's [laughter]

[47:58] >> like,

[47:59] >> well, it was already captured in the

[48:02] revitalization plan.

[48:04] >> There you go.

[48:07] >> Own line item. He wants to see

[48:10] >> No, he wants to see not vote for the

[48:13] other one.

[48:14] >> Um, we might actually also have funds

[48:16] this year to where we could explore

[48:18] that. But, um,

[48:19] >> I would appreciate it if there if it had

[48:21] its own line item.

[48:24] Oh, really?

[48:26] [laughter]

[48:28] I'll add a separate line item.

[48:31] >> Thank you, Mr. Treasure.

[48:32] >> The Are you done, Eric?

[48:36] [laughter]

[48:36] >> The uh

[48:37] >> John,

[48:38] >> I'm just thinking about that.

[48:39] >> Yeah.

[48:40] >> I'm just thinking about the satellite.

[48:43] Um, so they lost their satellite office

[48:46] over here, the sheriff's department. And

[48:49] I was wondering what the purpose of that

[48:51] property is that we purchased over here.

[48:54] Like what could that be a satellite

[48:56] office possibility once we refurbish

[48:59] that or

[49:00] >> I think there a lot of things that are

[49:01] possible but their need is more

[49:03] immediate than what we would be able to

[49:05] produce if we refurbished the place that

[49:08] we have behind us. And the idea is to

[49:11] bring um a satellite office that's more

[49:14] front-facing because when they were back

[49:16] in Fishing Creek, a lot of people didn't

[49:17] know that they were there.

[49:18] >> I didn't either.

[49:19] >> Um so the idea is to have space

[49:22] potentially where the health department

[49:24] is in that same complex

[49:27] >> that would have signage and then it

[49:30] would be a place where Chesapeake Beach

[49:31] residents would be able to go and

[49:33] interface with the police department

[49:35] instead of having to drive all the way

[49:37] down to Prince Frederick.

[49:38] >> Gotcha. Okay. So maybe more of a longer

[49:41] term idea could be to restore that

[49:44] building.

[49:45] >> Well,

[49:45] >> or do we have another purpose for that?

[49:48] >> I think at this point there has not been

[49:51] anything determined

[49:53] uh for the use of that building. The

[49:54] only thing I've heard is reports from

[49:56] staff that have actually been in it,

[49:57] which I have not, is that it's in very

[50:00] rough shape and uh it probably needs to

[50:03] be Okay, Wendy just gave me the high

[50:06] sign back here. She went like this. Um,

[50:08] >> we have 50,000 in there for that this

[50:11] year, right? Did we do anything?

[50:15] >> We talked about um engaging like an

[50:17] architect to figure out like what our

[50:19] options are and I'll [clears throat]

[50:20] defer to Jay about some of the

[50:22] conversations that happened in the past

[50:24] when they actually acquire the property.

[50:26] >> So, just just inform the council, it's

[50:29] an older house, has lead paint and

[50:31] asbestous and it may not be cost

[50:33] effective to

[50:35] rebuild. So, I think the 50,000 has been

[50:38] rolled over um year after year to

[50:40] actually demo it and just have open

[50:42] green space until we have a plan.

[50:44] >> Dog park.

[50:46] >> Just want to throw that out there.

[50:49] [laughter]

[50:50] >> Get a dog park.

[50:52] >> All right. Uh yeah, I think that's it

[50:54] for now. Thanks. [clears throat]

[50:55] >> Great. Councilman Laura,

[51:00] » you did a very good job answering most

[51:02] of my questions. I just

[51:04] >> Good.

[51:05] >> Yeah.

[51:06] I have all these notes and and none of

[51:09] them are needed for the most part. Um

[51:14] I'm going to do like Jamie and start

[51:18] just go page by page.

[51:22] >> He's just not close to it.

[51:30] » Take your times.

[51:35] I would like to see the newsletter come

[51:37] back if that's something possible. So,

[51:39] I'll just make that comment.

[51:50] » Printed newsletter. You mean printed

[51:52] newsletter?

[51:53] >> Yeah,

[51:53] >> I like that idea.

[51:55] >> Yeah, I think that would be great. Um

[51:57] especially we've been going through this

[51:58] history stuff for our project and it's

[52:01] very difficult to locate

[52:04] >> um recent history.

[52:06] >> Agreed.

[52:06] >> Because the newspaper went away.

[52:08] >> I like that idea.

[52:23] Unspent ARPA funds. Where where's that

[52:26] going from fiscal year 2026?

[52:30] >> So [clears throat] technically there are

[52:31] no unspent ARPA funds. Uh they've all

[52:34] been spent. So um I'm looking at that as

[52:39] surplus funds. It's okay.

[52:41] >> Unreserved surplus funds that could be

[52:43] used for whatever purpose you want. So

[52:46] >> we should probably start stop talking

[52:48] about ARPA funds because we don't want

[52:51] anyone to think that we have ARPA funds.

[52:53] [laughter]

[52:54] >> Right. Right. I I know the story behind

[52:56] that. They were spent on something else

[52:59] but but tracked as ARPA. So, okay. So,

[53:03] now we're just going to go back to

[53:04] tracking them as surplus.

[53:06] >> Yep.

[53:13] » Why is the trash increasing by 8%.

[53:17] >> Uh, it's built into their contract.

[53:20] >> An 8% increase each year.

[53:22] Um, I'm not exactly sure what that

[53:25] amount is, but there is a increase built

[53:28] in there. I'm not have to look at it

[53:31] again.

[53:33] >> Okay.

[53:34] >> See exactly what, you know, if it's

[53:36] spelled out, but that was what the

[53:37] increase was the prior year.

[53:40] >> I would guess based on the increase in

[53:42] cost of fuel that they're going to be

[53:44] losing money on that.

[53:46] >> They might have a fuel adjustment in

[53:47] there, too, because I've seen cont.

[53:49] >> Was there a fuel adjustment as well?

[53:50] >> There might be. I I don't know, but I

[53:52] do.

[53:53] >> Can you take a look at that? Take a look

[53:55] at those contracts.

[53:56] >> Y

[53:56] >> appreciate that.

[53:57] >> Yeah, that would make it more

[53:58] reasonable, but a 8% increase is a

[54:02] pretty huge increase. Um, generally

[54:05] speaking,

[54:09] um, and then a, uh, the $35,000,

[54:13] uh, trash pickup. I just can we get a

[54:18] picture whenever we do make that

[54:20] contract, which I agree with that

[54:22] contract. Um just to make sure that all

[54:25] areas are covered. Um that that would be

[54:29] great. And really

[54:33] um getting some community input on that

[54:35] would also be good because

[54:38] myself I'm not home anymore during the

[54:40] summer during the day but my neighbors

[54:42] are.

[54:45] Just an idea there.

[54:48] Um,

[54:55] we have the street [snorts] sweeping

[54:58] landscaping contract that we're

[55:00] reducing.

[55:02] And I guess I'm just wondering why.

[55:05] >> I don't think it was reducing it. I

[55:06] think that note that it is quarterly uh

[55:09] was from when we did go to

[55:13] quarterly. Apparently, we're only doing

[55:14] it quarterly. Um because I think the

[55:17] 8,100 on that goes back a ways. Um

[55:25] yeah, so

[55:27] apparently we added it on in fiscal year

[55:30] 24

[55:34] » and it's been 8,100 since then. So that

[55:37] note

[55:39] uh reduced accordly I think goes back to

[55:43] the fiscal year 24 when it went to 8100.

[55:47] >> Gotcha. So it's no change in the street

[55:50] sweeping right now.

[55:52] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[55:53] >> And I know you know when the summer's

[55:56] really getting rolling

[55:58] um there were comments about a need for

[56:02] street sweeping.

[56:04] Um,

[56:07] I guess mostly when it was windy a lot

[56:09] of times. So, I don't I don't know if we

[56:12] can find a way to accommodate

[56:14] some kind of clause or or some kind of

[56:17] way to make sure that we keep up with

[56:19] our street.

[56:25] » Maybe allocate for a change order if

[56:26] that's feasible.

[56:35] And then um

[56:38] the green team has been asking me if we

[56:40] could look at the landscaping contract

[56:44] so that they understand what um is

[56:48] covered and not covered with watering

[56:51] and evasive removal.

[56:54] And an area was caught up out at

[56:56] Brownies Beach that seems to be getting

[56:58] bad. And uh it really would be good to

[57:01] be proactive there. Hope it'll take over

[57:04] quick and their reports are that it was

[57:08] successfully treated previously. We want

[57:11] to treat the other areas

[57:13] >> if it's in that contract. There was

[57:15] actually uh items added into uh

[57:22] the

[57:24] landscaping numbers [snorts] that

[57:27] includes uh a request from the green

[57:30] team to do native garden at town hall

[57:33] areas on 17th street at boardwalk

[57:36] including trees trees at Chesapeake

[57:38] Village Water Tower and Buffer Garden at

[57:40] Kellumsfield parking area.

[57:44] Um I don't Invasives can can be a little

[57:47] bit pricey. So if they're in the

[57:49] contract, we would want to know that

[57:52] >> probably not to provide all labor

[57:55] equipment materials and supervision

[57:56] necessary to maintain those areas

[57:59] planted by the green team, which

[58:00] includes fertilizing once a year,

[58:03] removal of excess mulch, edging and

[58:05] mulching of all beds and trees, and any

[58:08] necessary pruning to native plants and

[58:10] trees.

[58:13] to those four areas that I touched base

[58:15] on.

[58:16] >> I think the general request is just to

[58:18] sit down with with Melanie who's a

[58:20] master gardener and so that

[58:24] >> um you know I see your note that it's

[58:25] coming back up too.

[58:27] >> Yes.

[58:27] >> So capturing all that would be

[58:29] >> chime in here just because it's not a

[58:31] Dan question that's a more

[58:33] administrative question. So, we've sat

[58:35] down with the green team as staff and

[58:38] we've sat down with Less, the

[58:40] contractor. And so, the next step is to

[58:42] bring us all together to make it all the

[58:44] same.

[58:45] >> Okay. So, that's already happening. Yes.

[58:48] >> Okay. So, pointless conversation, but

[58:50] thank you for the update.

[58:52] >> But just letting you know that we're

[58:53] it's on our radar.

[58:54] >> It's good to know. It's good to know.

[58:56] So, thanks for asking the question.

[59:01] » Um

[59:14] And then my last question is um I see

[59:19] saddle replacements in the general fund

[59:23] budget and

[59:25] I'm just wondering why it was placed in

[59:28] the general fund budget.

[59:30] There's a reason. um instead of the

[59:34] >> you you you could go ahead and start

[59:37] a little more history on it.

[59:39] >> Yeah, I told Dan I just need a half

[59:41] million dollars. Put it in there. No. Um

[59:45] >> and he did it.

[59:46] >> That is what I told him. But uh when we

[59:50] talk about I know it's not ARPA fun

[59:51] anymore and I wanted to

[59:54] bring back the last administration and

[59:56] what I will do is share with the council

[59:58] the

[59:59] meeting that was recorded is the best

[1:00:01] way to look at the project when it was

[1:00:03] started. I don't know if you probably

[1:00:05] have seen it.

[1:00:06] >> So it's a PowerPoint that shows the

[1:00:08] problem in Richfield. I had saddles in

[1:00:10] here and different things and I I will

[1:00:12] have uh forwarded to the council members

[1:00:14] the minute and the meeting date to

[1:00:16] watch. But at that time it was like a we

[1:00:19] had 5.8 million ARPA funds and we are I

[1:00:22] had asked for about 2 million and we

[1:00:24] only spent 1.1

[1:00:27] and we've done some research and some

[1:00:30] spot saddle checking in-house public

[1:00:32] works and kind of came up with what we

[1:00:35] need to replace as part of that first

[1:00:36] phase of that project. So, there's some

[1:00:38] areas left that I I have here and

[1:00:43] they're basically finishing up the areas

[1:00:44] in Richfield Station and the rest of Bay

[1:00:46] View Hills to proactively replace the

[1:00:49] saddles. And the reason I said do it out

[1:00:52] of the general fund because thinking of

[1:00:53] the ARPA funds and um the original scope

[1:00:57] of work that I thought I had from the

[1:01:00] get-go, but I understand now that the

[1:01:02] ARPA funds were spent and I understand

[1:01:05] um so I'm not going to call it ARPA

[1:01:07] funds, but that was the intent from the

[1:01:09] get-go. It's the council's pleasure

[1:01:13] where it's funded from, but I do think

[1:01:15] if you watch it, you'll see the need.

[1:01:17] And it does save if we do it proactive.

[1:01:20] It's going to cost us about 376,000. I

[1:01:23] budgeted 500. If we do it reactive, it's

[1:01:25] going to be 750,000 and sprout out over

[1:01:28] time. So,

[1:01:30] >> and these are explain briefly what

[1:01:35] happens when the saddles fail.

[1:01:38] >> Uh, the PowerPoint shows it in way more

[1:01:39] detail, but basically if we go in

[1:01:41] proactive and these saddles are failing,

[1:01:43] I brought some in. I called it showed

[1:01:45] and tell. It's it's electrolysis in the

[1:01:46] ground. There's a lot of different

[1:01:48] things that lead to it, but it's a cast

[1:01:50] iron saddle. It's a copper lateral,

[1:01:55] creates a battery, if you will, and it

[1:01:57] cannot follow a ductal iron pipe because

[1:02:00] it's plastic. So, the charge goes end to

[1:02:02] end. It ends up eating the saddle

[1:02:03] underground till they blow. Anyone that

[1:02:05] lives in Richfield's station has seen

[1:02:07] the Yeah.

[1:02:08] >> So, when they blow, first of all, it's

[1:02:10] in the middle of the night. It's not

[1:02:11] exactly safe and the ground is

[1:02:13] compromised. It costs twice as much

[1:02:14] because you got a bigger hole in the

[1:02:15] road.

[1:02:17] um you have to haul off the material,

[1:02:20] it's saturated, and then you have to put

[1:02:22] it back in the middle of the night. And

[1:02:23] it also gets people uh unscheduled out

[1:02:26] of service. The proactive approach is

[1:02:28] you pick the street, which we've test

[1:02:30] pitted and replaced one saddle in each

[1:02:33] one of these streets, so we know the

[1:02:34] condition and we know what's coming. Um

[1:02:37] and then you hire a contractor that

[1:02:39] proactively goes in and does one street.

[1:02:42] They do about two to three saddles a

[1:02:43] day. you know, it's a shut off at 9:00

[1:02:46] a.m. and we're back on by 2 PM. Uh the

[1:02:49] PowerPoint shows the process, but but

[1:02:52] that's it. So, basically in Richfield

[1:02:53] Station and Baby Hills, these saddles

[1:02:55] are failing and they're going to fail.

[1:02:58] It's a proactive approach of replacing

[1:03:00] them.

[1:03:02] >> That helps. Thank you. Any other

[1:03:04] questions?

[1:03:05] >> Um, not about that. As you know, I I

[1:03:08] believe it belongs in the utility fund.

[1:03:10] I

[1:03:11] >> I know. I know.

[1:03:15] Um

[1:03:22] so going to the capital programs, uh we

[1:03:26] have the highway user funds across the

[1:03:29] board and last year we had an asphalt

[1:03:33] overlay line [clears throat]

[1:03:36] and we were supposed to get a schedule

[1:03:38] of how that was spent and I don't

[1:03:40] believe that we got that but I think it

[1:03:42] was spent.

[1:03:44] Um, but I do think that knowing where

[1:03:48] [clears throat] large expenditures such

[1:03:50] as the ones in the highway user funds

[1:03:53] are spent is something that we have

[1:03:56] should be doing. Um, so I'd be

[1:04:00] interested to know where they were spent

[1:04:01] last year and um

[1:04:05] >> and and and honestly that's on me

[1:04:07] because we produced a scoring sheet in

[1:04:08] the road report so I can follow up with

[1:04:10] a with a map in the footages for the

[1:04:13] public and the council of where we did

[1:04:15] spend that money and what we plan to

[1:04:17] spend this year coming up.

[1:04:21] >> That [snorts] that would be good. Um

[1:04:23] because there's a there's a lot of need

[1:04:25] in for those highway user funds. Um, we

[1:04:28] all know that I have a a project that I

[1:04:30] would like to see done.

[1:04:31] >> Oh, really?

[1:04:32] >> Really? [laughter]

[1:04:34] >> A lot of people would like to see it

[1:04:35] done.

[1:04:36] >> Um,

[1:04:39] but those are big expenditures. Just not

[1:04:41] knowing where that money goes isn't

[1:04:44] really appropriate. So, um, look forward

[1:04:47] to seeing that.

[1:04:49] Um,

[1:04:51] I'm happy to see the $68,000

[1:04:55] in the

[1:04:57] connectivity trail design. I um,

[1:05:02] you know, if if it's

[1:05:05] my choice, which clearly isn't, I would

[1:05:08] say get the state grant, pay it back if

[1:05:11] you have to, and move the project

[1:05:13] forward. I think people have been

[1:05:14] waiting long enough. Um, but that's all

[1:05:17] I'll say. I hope we do move it forward.

[1:05:20] Um it's been a very long time with that

[1:05:23] project and um it's unsafe.

[1:05:27] So that's all I'll say there. Um signs

[1:05:31] and wfairing. I think we would like to

[1:05:33] use this year's um just a heads up.

[1:05:36] Don't roll that back in because I've

[1:05:38] already have been working with the green

[1:05:40] team a little bit and I think we're

[1:05:41] going to spend that money to refresh

[1:05:43] some of the signs that they already have

[1:05:46] information for.

[1:05:48] Um,

[1:05:56] I think that's it. I mean, the the

[1:05:58] Kellum's project isn't really broken

[1:06:00] down.

[1:06:04] I like that project. You won't see me

[1:06:06] not voting for that project. Um,

[1:06:10] >> Kellum's just just to help you out. it.

[1:06:12] So, it's just with Wayne's team right

[1:06:14] now to to give us the master plan back

[1:06:17] based off of the feedback from

[1:06:19] everybody. And then there was some

[1:06:21] additional Sumeilia's already found like

[1:06:23] potential grant money that could

[1:06:26] supplement some of the activities we

[1:06:28] were trying to do. Um, so what's in here

[1:06:31] is just the estimate if we were to pay

[1:06:34] 100% out of pocket with no support, but

[1:06:37] I don't that's not realistic at all.

[1:06:38] We're going to go for open spaces money.

[1:06:40] we're going to go for some additional

[1:06:41] grant funding and then the council will

[1:06:43] get a presentation soon of like here's

[1:06:46] the iteration two of the master plan

[1:06:49] that they're working on. So Jenny

[1:06:50] Jenny's still working on so you'll see a breakout of what all that entails but

[1:06:55] this is just Wayne giving a notional

[1:06:58] knows that we're going in the budgeting

[1:06:59] cycle putting something into the budget.

[1:07:02] >> So I appreciate that. Um, I would

[1:07:04] appreciate support for my neighborhood

[1:07:07] because currently nobody can get to

[1:07:09] Kellumfield.

[1:07:11] So, I I hope we can reopen those

[1:07:13] conversations. It looks like we have

[1:07:14] enough money for everything. Um, and

[1:07:18] I'll leave that there. And then I'll

[1:07:19] just ask the question.

[1:07:21] Um,

[1:07:23] does the plan include pilings?

[1:07:28] » Does it include? I mean I think it would

[1:07:31] if it require if something required

[1:07:33] pilings maybe but I don't think any I

[1:07:35] don't think there's anything I I don't I

[1:07:38] mean I'm not we'd have to ask Wayne that

[1:07:39] or Jay if you know

[1:07:40] >> so preliminarily before that discussion

[1:07:42] I did tell him any permanent structure

[1:07:44] would need piles there and he is

[1:07:45] understanding of that

[1:07:48] >> but um

[1:07:49] >> so if we're talking about pilings now

[1:07:52] we're talking about

[1:07:55] a lot of winds and a lot a lot of

[1:07:58] coordination which goes back

[1:08:01] to my original thought that we should be

[1:08:04] master planning the entire area. But as

[1:08:07] I said, if we're going to get something

[1:08:09] done in Kellum's Field um to beautify

[1:08:12] the area, I am all for it. you won't see

[1:08:14] me voting against it, but

[1:08:18] um

[1:08:19] [clears throat] I think there is a

[1:08:21] planning point in everything we're doing

[1:08:24] in the center of town

[1:08:27] that we need to be aware of.

[1:08:32] [snorts]

[1:08:33] >> Noted.

[1:08:34] >> Agreed.

[1:08:37] Anthony

[1:08:41] » Dan,

[1:08:42] >> sir,

[1:08:43] >> I have no general fund budget questions

[1:08:46] for you.

[1:08:48] >> Thank you.

[1:08:49] >> You're breaking the mold here.

[1:08:54] » Okay.

[1:08:54] >> Are you happy with the opioid awareness

[1:08:56] committee?

[1:08:57] >> Actually, yes, because a lot of things

[1:08:59] will end up going into events anyway, so

[1:09:01] it pretty much evens out now that I

[1:09:04] thought about it. But thank you. Okay.

[1:09:08] All right.

[1:09:10] >> Oh, your time. Can I have your time?

[1:09:12] Well, all right. I have a follow up.

[1:09:14] >> Just this time.

[1:09:14] >> All right. Real quick. Um, and just uh

[1:09:19] so I don't have to do ask for a budget

[1:09:21] amendment. Um, I think maybe if we could

[1:09:25] make that soccer goal uh line item

[1:09:30] um

[1:09:31] 15,000 because um

[1:09:36] for the for permanent goals that are

[1:09:38] sturdy that won't be uh ruined by kids

[1:09:41] hanging on them or anything like that.

[1:09:43] You know, high quality goals. talking

[1:09:46] about two large goals on the side and

[1:09:49] another four for short field. That's six

[1:09:52] goals. So, that's kind of I think that's

[1:09:55] a more realistic budget line item. Um

[1:09:59] I'd like to see that if there's any if

[1:10:02] there's enough agreement. No.

[1:10:03] >> Do they have something to light up at

[1:10:05] night?

[1:10:05] >> I don't know.

[1:10:06] >> You should look into that. I mean, look,

[1:10:08] if it doesn't cost that much, we pay

[1:10:09] what, you know, whatever whatever the

[1:10:11] least amount is, but I think maybe 5,000

[1:10:13] probably won't be enough to get it done.

[1:10:16] Um,

[1:10:18] so, uh, I'll say that. And then I do

[1:10:20] want to comment on, um, Lor's, uh,

[1:10:25] intent or desire to, uh, have the saddle

[1:10:30] replacements, uh, move to utility fund.

[1:10:33] I actually, I concur with that. I think

[1:10:35] that's probably where it belongs. Um,

[1:10:38] and in the same vein, I think that um

[1:10:44] the the capital expenditures for the

[1:10:46] water park and the debt service for the

[1:10:48] water park probably deserves to be in

[1:10:50] the water park fund.

[1:10:53] Um, along that same line of reasoning.

[1:10:56] And I mean, those are my comments.

[1:11:00] >> Thank you. All right. Anybody else have

[1:11:03] anything before we move on? C

[1:11:05] >> can I just ask Jay one question on

[1:11:07] capital projects? I know uh you had

[1:11:12] mentioned a storage facility that you

[1:11:16] wanted for public works, which as I look

[1:11:19] through the capital project and think

[1:11:21] about the budget and all the

[1:11:22] conversations I've had with various

[1:11:24] people, I noticed that is not there. Is

[1:11:27] that something you want to advocate for

[1:11:29] or is that something that could be done

[1:11:32] in subsequent years?

[1:11:34] >> I actually and I'm glad you mentioned

[1:11:36] that and I did I know we discussed it.

[1:11:38] So up at Chesig Village which is uh the

[1:11:40] water tower property that the town

[1:11:42] acquired for free thankfully um working

[1:11:45] with the developers. So we have the land

[1:11:47] and we have built already a lean to

[1:11:49] there where we currently store our vac,

[1:11:51] the little town boat, the seabbox oyster

[1:11:54] projects and a few other things.

[1:11:57] It is basically twothirds of it has been

[1:12:00] taken over by Christmas displays. And

[1:12:03] now moving forward with the new stuff

[1:12:05] we're getting, we have actually closed

[1:12:07] it in, created wall. So I lost my

[1:12:09] storage. And what I would like to do is

[1:12:11] build another public works building.

[1:12:13] It'll be a multi-purpose. Uh it's not a

[1:12:15] building. It's not a Yeah, it's not a

[1:12:18] heated or electrical structure. It's what exists there today, but now I

[1:12:22] want to build one on the side. The only

[1:12:23] addition will be there will be one

[1:12:25] closed in bay. One thing we suffered

[1:12:27] from this year uh with the snow events

[1:12:30] is we had 17 days in a row where it

[1:12:32] never got above freezing and it's very

[1:12:34] hard to wash your truck outside

[1:12:36] literally without it freezing. So we

[1:12:38] made like a make two shelter. We could

[1:12:40] at least get ice and salt off. When I

[1:12:42] build this new thing up there, it'll be

[1:12:44] one bay closed in that we could heat and

[1:12:47] have a place where we could if we have a

[1:12:49] similar situation. We have a wash down

[1:12:51] that's heated. Um, and it's $75,000.

[1:12:58] » So that's not in the budget at this

[1:13:00] time.

[1:13:01] >> That's not in the budget at this time.

[1:13:02] >> He had asked for it and I didn't want to

[1:13:04] talk.

[1:13:06] >> What? I'm sorry. What did you say?

[1:13:08] >> I had not included in the budget.

[1:13:10] Something he had talked about a couple

[1:13:11] different times when I discussed his

[1:13:14] budgets with him. But reflecting on it,

[1:13:17] I noticed that it's not there. So I left

[1:13:19] it out. So, we could put soccer goals on

[1:13:23] each end.

[1:13:24] >> Mhm. [laughter]

[1:13:26] >> They can be heated.

[1:13:29] >> We add it.

[1:13:30] >> Add it. I think we should add it. Why

[1:13:32] wouldn't we add it?

[1:13:33] >> Yes.

[1:13:34] >> So, if you'd make a note to add that,

[1:13:36] please.

[1:13:36] >> Thank you, council and mayor. Yeah. And

[1:13:38] Dan,

[1:13:42] » anything else on the general fund before

[1:13:43] we move on?

[1:13:45] >> All right. Time for the mitigation fund.

[1:13:49] Here's

[1:13:55] the mitigation fund.

[1:13:58] Um,

[1:14:00] again, doesn't have, you know, a lot of

[1:14:02] activity. Apparently, in the past, it

[1:14:04] was used for, uh, larger projects. Uh so

[1:14:09] the only thing we have here on the

[1:14:11] revenue side is interest on uh some uh

[1:14:16] savings that we have included in that

[1:14:18] account of about $3,000.

[1:14:22] A critical area grant that we uh seem to

[1:14:26] get each year. and then some uh tree

[1:14:29] planting and maintenance expense

[1:14:31] associated with uh

[1:14:35] work done that's needed in order to get

[1:14:37] that $2,000 grant.

[1:14:42] » I don't know anything more about it. Now

[1:14:44] >> I have one comment about that. Um

[1:14:50] the green team has just been awarded a

[1:14:52] tree city um I guess for the second

[1:14:56] round in a row and part of the

[1:14:57] requirements is to have a certain amount

[1:14:59] of money based on residential population

[1:15:04] designated for trees and we found it in

[1:15:08] the mitigation fund last year. I just

[1:15:10] want to make sure that we have the right

[1:15:13] amount in there for them to maintain

[1:15:16] their effort.

[1:15:17] >> What's the actual amount that they have

[1:15:18] to have?

[1:15:19] >> I don't know because we need to base it

[1:15:21] on the number of residents we have.

[1:15:26] >> Is it for new trees or is it what's it

[1:15:28] need to be for?

[1:15:29] >> It's just part of the the tree city

[1:15:31] program. you have to have a certain

[1:15:34] amount of money per resident

[1:15:38] dedicated for the maintenance of your

[1:15:40] tree of your trees,

[1:15:42] >> right? So, we have the you know the

[1:15:44] landscape landscaping budget and things

[1:15:46] like that. It's not a mitigation fund,

[1:15:48] but we spend you know monies for

[1:15:51] maintenance of the trees and trimmings

[1:15:53] and things. So,

[1:15:56] I guess we need to figure out what that

[1:15:57] dollar value is and see if what we're

[1:16:00] doing within the uh tree maintenance

[1:16:02] budget would be enough.

[1:16:04] And if not, then you know, we

[1:16:06] [clears throat]

[1:16:07] allocate more to the tree maintenance

[1:16:09] budget versus mitigation fund.

[1:16:12] >> Yeah. And it could even be a zone line

[1:16:14] item set out in the general fund. It can

[1:16:16] be anywhere in the budget. just I'm just

[1:16:19] asking staff to um be aware of that

[1:16:23] program and make sure that the wording

[1:16:26] is

[1:16:27] accurate in the budget so that they can

[1:16:30] maintain there.

[1:16:31] >> Joe, are you familiar with that? I work

[1:16:34] with you on that. Okay.

[1:16:36] >> Thank you. Dan, I have a might be a

[1:16:39] silly question, but why are these like

[1:16:42] five line items not just rolled into the general fund?

[1:16:47] >> Like why is it certain thing?

[1:16:49] >> My knowledge uh of past is not great

[1:16:52] enough to answer that question.

[1:16:54] >> It's just so small.

[1:16:55] >> I get the idea.

[1:16:56] >> It's such a small fund. Why don't we

[1:16:58] just

[1:16:59] >> add five line items? I I can try to

[1:17:03] research it a little better and see if

[1:17:06] >> what the history is of it and why it's

[1:17:08] there. I mean,

[1:17:09] >> yeah,

[1:17:09] >> Sarah might have an answer.

[1:17:11] >> There's one less fund we would have to

[1:17:13] deal with.

[1:17:14] >> Why is it a separate fund

[1:17:18] instead of putting those five line items

[1:17:20] into the general fund?

[1:17:31] It just feels better after spending an

[1:17:33] hour on the last one.

[1:17:34] >> Yeah.

[1:17:35] >> I mean, let's just be It just feels

[1:17:36] better like we got something else done

[1:17:38] and then we can go on to the next one,

[1:17:40] right? Some good reprieve

[1:17:42] >> for the beans.

[1:17:47] » Maybe we'll make up for it in the next

[1:17:49] one. [laughter]

[1:17:54] Let's move on to the wastewater

[1:17:56] treatment plant fund. Oh, I'm sorry. I

[1:17:58] got that name wrong again. I always

[1:18:00] will.

[1:18:05] Right. So, um, most of the information

[1:18:08] within the treatment plant fund I got

[1:18:11] from Josh. So, um, I'm going to turn it

[1:18:14] over to Josh because he knows a whole

[1:18:16] lot more about what individual costs are

[1:18:19] in there. I did share with each of you

[1:18:22] the uh detailed spreadsheets that Josh

[1:18:27] used to come up with these numbers. Uh

[1:18:29] they got sent over like late this

[1:18:32] afternoon. Uh so you will have those as

[1:18:35] well, but I'll let Josh uh take over

[1:18:38] from here.

[1:18:41] >> Good evening. Um so going down I'll kind

[1:18:45] of go off of uh Dan's uh presentation he

[1:18:48] has here. uh going into the engineering

[1:18:50] professional fees. Um that's basically

[1:18:53] includes known contract services. And

[1:18:57] then we have the um an average for

[1:19:01] project engineering fees. And what I did

[1:19:03] was I looked at what our expenditures

[1:19:04] were for the last three fiscal years.

[1:19:07] Averaged that out and put that amount in

[1:19:09] there. That came out to about $45,000.

[1:19:12] Uh all the rest of it, like I say, is

[1:19:14] for our SCADA systems. uh Pacina doing

[1:19:17] network backups for our computers um

[1:19:22] flow meter calibrations and scale

[1:19:24] calibrations which were required to do

[1:19:26] but for MD um

[1:19:38] interjurisdictional agreements.

[1:19:43] » Sure. So the other thing that you might

[1:19:46] not see now but you will see potentially

[1:19:48] if our partners are aligned is that the

[1:19:50] inclusion of the um reworking the

[1:19:54] interjurisdictional agreements which are

[1:19:56] currently um probably over 40 years old

[1:20:00] um and need to be revisited

[1:20:03] but we need to get partner alignment on

[1:20:05] that first.

[1:20:11] » So

[1:20:13] Anybody have any questions regarding the

[1:20:16] uh engineering professional fees line

[1:20:18] item? We'll just go by line item by line

[1:20:20] item if we want to.

[1:20:21] >> Just I had a question on what Sam just

[1:20:24] said. Is that something we need to add

[1:20:26] to this professional line item now or

[1:20:29] wait until we have

[1:20:31] >> we have ourations?

[1:20:33] >> We have our partner meeting next week

[1:20:36] and so I think it would be most prudent

[1:20:38] to wait till we hear back from them to

[1:20:39] make sure they're aligned and then add

[1:20:41] it.

[1:20:41] >> Okay.

[1:20:44] budget at all right now.

[1:20:48] >> I think there's value in going over it

[1:20:50] now.

[1:20:51] >> Yeah. And this budget was actually as

[1:20:53] shown here was given to the partners a

[1:20:56] month ago. So they're going over it as

[1:20:57] well. And you know, they may have some

[1:21:00] questions next week. So there could be

[1:21:03] changes from them as well. But this is

[1:21:05] the actual budget that they were looking

[1:21:07] at. Um so

[1:21:14] » so next item it would be our safety line

[1:21:16] item. Uh we have no major changes on

[1:21:18] there. Uh generally that's just going

[1:21:20] through our annual hearing testing. Um

[1:21:24] replacements for reagents for our

[1:21:25] portable eyewash stations. We have a

[1:21:27] number of those in the plant. Uh

[1:21:30] personal PPE.

[1:21:32] Uh spill response materials and then

[1:21:34] OSHA training during the year. And that

[1:21:36] line item hasn't changed since last

[1:21:38] year.

[1:21:40] Uh for lab analysis and supplies,

[1:21:44] we did have a significant reduction uh

[1:21:47] as a result of the lab services RFP that

[1:21:50] we did recently. Uh we've cut that by

[1:21:52] about $66,000

[1:21:54] uh year-over-year. Uh we did have an

[1:21:57] increase in cost for our um lab

[1:22:01] equipment. uh some of the uh materials

[1:22:04] that we need for our testing. Costs are

[1:22:06] going up on that. Uh we're making a

[1:22:08] change to our u daily uh testing for our

[1:22:12] nutrients. Uh we had been using two

[1:22:15] different types of tests. One of the

[1:22:16] tests has been being very inconsistent

[1:22:19] over a period of time and didn't see any

[1:22:21] reason to continue with that to do the

[1:22:24] other test more frequently. had a little

[1:22:26] bit of cost increase um but it really

[1:22:29] didn't make a huge change on the budget

[1:22:31] year-over-year and we had a lot of

[1:22:33] savings with the uh lab services.

[1:22:41] So, equipment repairs and maintenance.

[1:22:43] Uh as our equipment gets older, we're

[1:22:46] finding that we of course need to do

[1:22:48] more maintenance. We're having equipment

[1:22:50] that's um needing to go out for

[1:22:53] rebuilds, uh stuff like that. We have

[1:22:55] our generator service contract

[1:22:58] uh for two annual checks on that along

[1:23:01] with a load bank test annually. Uh we

[1:23:04] have a project for replacement of a

[1:23:07] block heater on the generator. It's

[1:23:08] going to be about $5,600 to do that

[1:23:10] work. Um that's already been quoted from

[1:23:13] Kelly Generator who handles our uh

[1:23:15] generator service. Uh chem service

[1:23:18] contract that's our chemical analyzer

[1:23:20] for our denitrification filters. that

[1:23:23] controls the chemical application. Um,

[1:23:26] HVA service contract, uh, annual RPZ

[1:23:29] inspections which are required by

[1:23:30] plumbing code, uh, and a service

[1:23:33] agreement with Zyllem for our dry prime

[1:23:35] pump and also annual, um, service

[1:23:39] contract for our, uh, lab desktop

[1:23:42] equipment.

[1:23:46] And since, again, since the equipment's

[1:23:48] getting older, we did increase that line

[1:23:50] item to try and compensate for that.

[1:23:52] Right now, we have about $10,000 left in

[1:23:55] that budget for the fiscal year. Started

[1:23:57] at 90,000.

[1:24:01] Any questions?

[1:24:05] Anybody got any questions or comments?

[1:24:08] >> You had a comment.

[1:24:10] >> This beard is looking good, man.

[1:24:11] >> Second.

[1:24:12] >> The beard is looking good, man.

[1:24:14] [laughter]

[1:24:15] >> I I tend to agree.

[1:24:17] >> I'm proud I'm proud of him. I'm proud of

[1:24:18] him.

[1:24:19] >> I think Jamie does, too. and John

[1:24:24] is the uniform. Jay, get with it.

[1:24:27] [laughter]

[1:24:30] » All right. So, for TP office expense, um

[1:24:34] doesn't look like Dan had in the

[1:24:35] presentation. That's just generally our

[1:24:37] annual training. Um uh janitorial

[1:24:41] supplies, office supplies, break room

[1:24:42] supplies, uniforms. Uh that line item is

[1:24:46] hasn't had an increase year-over-year.

[1:24:50] We are trying to get our operators out

[1:24:53] as frequently as possible for their um

[1:24:57] certification exams to try and get that

[1:24:59] knocked out and see if we can get more

[1:25:01] license operators.

[1:25:03] And that makes me

[1:25:05] uh realize I did not go over to

[1:25:07] salaries, which was one of the topline

[1:25:08] items. Um I'll go ahead and backtrack on

[1:25:12] to that. Uh for salaries, we did have an

[1:25:14] increase this year. um that primarily is

[1:25:18] for the three trainees that we have in

[1:25:21] the uh apprentichip program. As part of

[1:25:24] the Maryland rural water apprentichip

[1:25:26] program, we're required to initially pay

[1:25:29] them at 65%

[1:25:31] of full operator pay and then after

[1:25:34] their completion of their first year,

[1:25:36] which would be an F FY27, they are to be

[1:25:39] paid at 85% of operator pay. So, that's

[1:25:42] a significant pay increase over where

[1:25:44] they were as a trainee.

[1:25:46] >> Um, and it's all dependent on them

[1:25:48] completing their required 2,000 hours of

[1:25:50] OJT and I believe it was about 150 200

[1:25:54] hours of relevant relevant training

[1:25:56] hours uh classes.

[1:25:59] So, more than likely they're going to

[1:26:01] meet that. They had uh quite a few hours

[1:26:04] uh for previous experience, previous

[1:26:06] classes they had taken that they got

[1:26:08] credit for. Um, but that is something

[1:26:10] that's going to occur this fiscal year

[1:26:11] as required by the apprentichip program.

[1:26:13] And ideally once they complete this next

[1:26:16] year, they'll pass the license pass test

[1:26:18] and we'll have three new operators. So

[1:26:21] that's one thing we're shooting for. I

[1:26:23] also figure into the budget

[1:26:26] um for possible increases for um one

[1:26:30] more oper or trainee to become an

[1:26:32] operator. Uh we have one uh trainee

[1:26:35] who's taken the exam the last two times.

[1:26:36] you need a 70 to pass and he's gotten a

[1:26:38] 69 the last two times. So, he's very

[1:26:42] frustrated and as soon as he comes back

[1:26:43] and doesn't pass, he's filling out an

[1:26:45] application to retake that exam and it

[1:26:46] takes about a month for MDE to process

[1:26:49] it and get him lined up and then he goes

[1:26:50] back out and takes the exam again.

[1:26:52] >> So, um anybody have any questions

[1:26:55] regarding the salary since that was

[1:26:59] >> questions? Yeah. Um

[1:27:02] so, I don't know. So you got salaries

[1:27:05] here and then uh under the notes it's um

[1:27:07] personal schedule and then notes

[1:27:10] continue on under that is are those are

[1:27:13] those notes of 50% of salaries the notes

[1:27:17] on Zach treasurer and um town

[1:27:20] administrator percentages are those

[1:27:23] associated with the salary line or the

[1:27:26] plant benefits and taxes line

[1:27:29] >> they're associated with the

[1:27:31] administration

[1:27:32] down at chest to speak beach line.

[1:27:34] >> Okay.

[1:27:36] >> The 50 Well, take that back. The 50% of

[1:27:39] salaries is 50% of the treatment plant

[1:27:43] line. The administration TCB is the Zach

[1:27:48] 28% treasur 20%.

[1:27:56] » Um

[1:28:01] yeah. Okay. And um just for purposes of

[1:28:04] expressing an opinion um and been

[1:28:07] expressed before, I'm not uh for

[1:28:10] breaking these salaries out um and

[1:28:13] adding expenses

[1:28:15] um that way into the um treatment plant

[1:28:20] and utility fund. Um but uh thanks for

[1:28:25] clearing that up.

[1:28:27] >> Julie noted. Thank you. Anybody else got

[1:28:30] any questions or comments? Anything

[1:28:32] else, Josh?

[1:28:34] >> Uh, we do have two other line items.

[1:28:36] The, uh, chemicals and then the, uh,

[1:28:38] landfill tipping fees. And then getting

[1:28:40] into the capital projects. Uh, for

[1:28:43] chemicals, I was able to reduce the

[1:28:45] budget by about $90,000 this year on

[1:28:47] that. We were just over the past couple

[1:28:50] years looking at how many deliveries we

[1:28:52] needed of chemicals. I was able to

[1:28:53] reduce the estimated number of

[1:28:55] deliveries for each year. Our usage just

[1:28:58] has not been at that level. Uh we've

[1:29:01] also had a change with one of our

[1:29:03] chemicals which reduced the cost um by

[1:29:07] close to 10 cents per pound. Um and each

[1:29:11] delivery would get 32,000

[1:29:13] and that's when we get almost 10

[1:29:15] deliveries a year. So that was a

[1:29:17] significant reduction in cost. Um

[1:29:21] yeah, that was basically the biggest

[1:29:22] part of the cost change was for our

[1:29:24] aluminum chloride uh in that process.

[1:29:27] [gasps]

[1:29:27] Uh for landfill tipping fees, uh that's

[1:29:30] going to increase by about 30,000. And

[1:29:32] that has to do with just the contract

[1:29:34] cost increases and predicted sludge

[1:29:37] production through the plant. Um as we

[1:29:39] get more flows, we're going to have more

[1:29:41] sludge production.

[1:29:43] Any

[1:29:45] questions regarding the last part of the

[1:29:46] operational budget

[1:29:52] going into capital projects? Uh didn't

[1:29:55] have as many projects this fiscal year.

[1:29:57] Uh just

[1:29:59] some of these other projects needed a

[1:30:01] little bit more time to be able to get

[1:30:02] processed into. Uh the headworks

[1:30:05] project, we're still working on funding

[1:30:06] for that one. So that's been pushed out

[1:30:08] to FY28.

[1:30:10] Uh for this year, we've got 80,000 for

[1:30:12] equipment purchases. That's just been a

[1:30:13] recurring line item over the past couple

[1:30:15] of years. That's for purchases of pumps,

[1:30:18] uh, any other major equipment we need.

[1:30:20] Um, building our spare parts inventory.

[1:30:24] Uh, every year we're having to buy spare

[1:30:26] parts, replacements, re restocking

[1:30:28] inventories. Uh, the majority of that

[1:30:30] we're finding is our UV components.

[1:30:32] Those are fairly expensive when we do

[1:30:34] have to get those, but we do need to

[1:30:36] retain stock on the shelf for those uh,

[1:30:38] during the fiscal year.

[1:30:41] Uh we have two projects for um repairing

[1:30:45] our basin mixers and our um SPT mixers,

[1:30:51] shellfish protection tank mixers. Um

[1:30:54] those

[1:30:55] are going the plan is to take them, get

[1:30:58] them pulled out, send them over to the

[1:30:59] motor shop, have them fully rebuilt, and

[1:31:01] that will get us extended life on those

[1:31:04] uh pieces of equipment. Uh the plan for

[1:31:06] the basins is to replace pull six of

[1:31:08] them, have them rebuilt, put back in.

[1:31:11] That will uh redo half of the mixers we

[1:31:13] have, and then [clears throat] probably

[1:31:15] next fiscal year, we may try and do the

[1:31:16] same thing. Uh depending on what the

[1:31:18] rest of them are looking like, uh the

[1:31:20] shellfish protection tank mixers is

[1:31:22] going to be a larger project. Uh due to

[1:31:25] the height of the tank, tank is about 25

[1:31:27] ft high. Uh we're going to need to have

[1:31:29] a crane set up in uh Jay's lot back

[1:31:32] there to be able to get those out of

[1:31:34] that tank. have them hauled off to the

[1:31:36] uh motor shop, rebuilt, rewound, put

[1:31:41] back in there, and we should be able to

[1:31:43] get another number of years out of

[1:31:45] those.

[1:31:46] And then we have a $5,000 for a clean

[1:31:49] out aluminum chloride tank. We had a

[1:31:52] issue with the last chemical that was

[1:31:53] causing a lot of precipitation in the

[1:31:55] tanks. Uh one of the reasons what

[1:31:57] besides the cost of the chemical, that

[1:31:59] was one of the other reasons why we

[1:32:00] moved away from that chemical. Um,

[1:32:02] that's going to be a onetime project to

[1:32:04] get that precipitate out of the bottom

[1:32:06] of the tank. Uh, we're going to use a

[1:32:08] known uh, septic hauler and should be

[1:32:11] able to get that pumped out pretty

[1:32:12] easily and then we'll just feed that

[1:32:14] back in through the plant.

[1:32:19] » Questions?

[1:32:20] >> Any questions?

[1:32:21] >> I just have a comment. Can we just where

[1:32:23] [clears throat] it says build inventory

[1:32:24] spare parts, can we just say spare parts

[1:32:26] inventory and remove excuse me remove

[1:32:28] the build because you've been building

[1:32:30] for a while. I think you're just

[1:32:31] replenishing now.

[1:32:32] >> Yes.

[1:32:32] >> Uh so yeah, just for uh naming

[1:32:35] convention integrity.

[1:32:40] » I have a question that might be more for

[1:32:42] um Dan. Like I know we did the enhanced

[1:32:45] nutrient removal a while back and I

[1:32:47] think we're about to stop paying the

[1:32:49] debt service on that in a year or two. I

[1:32:52] was wondering why that wasn't in this

[1:32:55] budget and why it was in the I think

[1:32:57] it's in the um utility fund budget and

[1:33:00] not in this budget. I don't know. Maybe

[1:33:02] you can get back to me on that one, but

[1:33:05] [clears throat] you don't have the

[1:33:05] answer.

[1:33:07] >> That's where it's always been is all I

[1:33:09] know.

[1:33:10] >> Yeah, seems like it's a treatment plant

[1:33:12] expense, but it's in the utility fund

[1:33:14] and not the treatment. I think within

[1:33:16] the treatment plant those are called

[1:33:17] share with the partners and I think

[1:33:19] everyone paid for their own share

[1:33:21] separately. So instead of showing it

[1:33:23] within the um treatment plant and

[1:33:29] >> the cost not being shared whereas

[1:33:31] everything within the treatment plant

[1:33:32] now is either a fixed or variable cost

[1:33:34] that's shared by the partners and it

[1:33:38] looks when I did look at it before it

[1:33:39] looked like we paid for our share of

[1:33:43] those upgrades with the bonds. So

[1:33:46] therefore I think that's why it's a

[1:33:47] utility fund.

[1:33:50] I think there was another one that was

[1:33:51] dropping off in a year or two besides

[1:33:53] the nutrient removal. Can't remember

[1:33:55] what it was though.

[1:33:56] >> Yep. There's three bonds and two of them

[1:33:58] come off the next three years, I

[1:34:00] believe.

[1:34:00] >> So, is that why we're targeting the

[1:34:02] headworks for around that time when

[1:34:04] those drop off we're going to take on

[1:34:06] the headworks probably that service?

[1:34:08] >> I don't know if that was considered. I

[1:34:10] think that's just when they need to be

[1:34:11] done [clears throat]

[1:34:12] based on need.

[1:34:13] >> So, it's good timing then.

[1:34:14] >> Yeah.

[1:34:15] I never quite understood that

[1:34:16] either. If there are improvements to the

[1:34:20] treatment plant, why aren't the costs

[1:34:23] shared with the partners?

[1:34:25] >> I mean, we only have one or two more

[1:34:27] years to pay on those, but that's

[1:34:29] something that should have been a long

[1:34:31] time ago.

[1:34:32] >> I'm sure it was agreed to 15 years ago,

[1:34:35] whatever the breakdown was. And I I

[1:34:38] think everyone was paying their own

[1:34:39] chair directly.

[1:34:41] All right. That would be a sub that's a substantial

[1:34:48] amount.

[1:34:49] >> All right. Any other questions?

[1:34:55] » All right.

[1:35:01] Think we're done with the the budget

[1:35:03] discussions. And I think this was very

[1:35:06] productive and I thank all of you that

[1:35:08] prepared material and I thank the

[1:35:09] council for their thoughtful and

[1:35:12] uh questions and comments.

[1:35:16] It is time to move on to item two uh on

[1:35:20] theformational discussion and that is

[1:35:22] the election board uh briefing and Randy

[1:35:25] Gman um is here to uh bring us up to

[1:35:30] date on what's happening with the

[1:35:32] election board which is actually quite a

[1:35:34] lot.

[1:35:37] >> Thank you Randy. Okay. So, you got you

[1:35:40] got your read ahead, but I'm going to

[1:35:42] start out with uh introducing the uh the

[1:35:46] election uh committee. So, so I have uh

[1:35:50] Aacia Flores

[1:35:54] and and and I have uh Gordon Mat.

[1:36:01] And and Chris Martinez.

[1:36:03] >> Thank you.

[1:36:06] these have worked very hard

[1:36:09] >> and Anthony

[1:36:11] >> say the other two I'm waiting for my

[1:36:14] table there you know so [laughter]

[1:36:18] >> so so al also there there are actually

[1:36:22] three more people to talk about so but uh Eric Reinhardt Councilman

[1:36:26] Reinhardt and and uh Councilman Anthony

[1:36:30] Green that was the committee addition to

[1:36:33] that we now have a new member uh

[1:36:36] Jennifer Bennett which uh you

[1:36:39] back here. Okay. So which you appointed

[1:36:43] as board of elections uh at your last

[1:36:46] meeting. Okay. So I needed a little bit

[1:36:48] of space here for all those people. Um

[1:36:52] in in case needed if you guys want to

[1:36:56] move up a little closer in case you need

[1:36:57] to come to the uh microphone.

[1:37:03] So, I tried to do this as a as a re read

[1:37:07] ahead like you do a lot of your other

[1:37:08] things so that you could uh prepare. I'm

[1:37:12] not really planning on going through it

[1:37:14] as a as a uh a brief. Um let's see if I

[1:37:19] figure out how to use this thing. Do I

[1:37:21] point it any particular direction? Okay.

[1:37:24] So, so uh wanted to you've read it, you

[1:37:30] thought about it. I'd kind of like to to

[1:37:33] uh you know hear your questions if

[1:37:36] there's a particular slide or something

[1:37:38] you want me to go into more detail in uh

[1:37:41] or a answer more questions. This this

[1:37:44] was my attempt to put a whole lot of

[1:37:48] information [laughter]

[1:37:50] into your heads and and and I I I

[1:37:54] probably rewrote this thing about what

[1:37:56] 15 times Chris or something [laughter]

[1:37:58] like that and try to figure out the best

[1:38:01] way to present it or to give it to you.

[1:38:04] >> Yeah.

[1:38:04] >> Uh I I can start. So I [clears throat]

[1:38:08] Well, first Randy, thank you very much

[1:38:09] for putting this together. We talked

[1:38:10] earlier. This is absolutely fantastic.

[1:38:12] Um, I will just say that, uh, I concur

[1:38:16] with the committee's recommendation. Uh,

[1:38:19] I appreciate the the work tied to this.

[1:38:22] Um, where we would have a townrun

[1:38:24] election with contractor support. Uh, I

[1:38:27] know that's what North Beach is doing as

[1:38:28] well. I concur with that. I appreciate

[1:38:31] that it's on uh, election day, so it

[1:38:33] ties when most people are going to be

[1:38:35] voting anyways. Um, I am sad.

[1:38:38] >> [clears throat]

[1:38:38] >> I told you and I I will say this is a

[1:38:40] precursor so I'll say it in public uh

[1:38:42] where it says Randy May stepback is

[1:38:44] listed multiple times throughout this

[1:38:46] document. You didn't you did not sneak

[1:38:48] that one past me. Um

[1:38:51] uh but you did have an ask in here

[1:38:53] regarding uh multi-day elections. Uh and

[1:38:59] one of the re and and I'm I went back

[1:39:01] and forth on this. I googled a whole

[1:39:02] bunch like you know and and I think you

[1:39:04] could I think there's easily an argument

[1:39:06] for both of them. However, this uh

[1:39:09] option targets national election day uh

[1:39:13] and sticking with that. So, I think

[1:39:15] that's what led me into saying and I

[1:39:17] would lean into a single election day

[1:39:19] because that ties to the ex actual plan

[1:39:22] that the committee uh put forward. Uh

[1:39:24] and then I will just call out I do

[1:39:26] appreciate you answering my question

[1:39:27] regarding paper ballots because uh North

[1:39:30] Beach is not going to do paper ballots.

[1:39:33] However, we have a code requirement to

[1:39:35] do both. uh and and Randy just kind of

[1:39:38] explained uh maybe some integrity type

[1:39:40] things uh and and it just makes logical

[1:39:43] sense uh in current state. So I

[1:39:45] appreciate it.

[1:39:46] >> Thank you.

[1:39:52] » That was good.

[1:39:53] >> Um since I was on the committee, I'll

[1:39:56] pass and then loop back around at the

[1:39:59] end um if need be.

[1:40:01] Yeah, I just want to echo Jamie and say

[1:40:03] that this is very well put together and

[1:40:06] you'd already kind of answered my

[1:40:07] question about what happens if you step

[1:40:09] back and maybe you can just brief

[1:40:11] everybody real quick on what does happen

[1:40:13] if if we lose our certified um

[1:40:16] >> so so when we finish our little thing

[1:40:18] here the second part of this is you're

[1:40:20] going to appoint Aacia [laughter]

[1:40:24] >> as the other board members so we'll have

[1:40:26] Jennifer and Aacia who I who over the

[1:40:30] next two years, I will train to be able

[1:40:33] to run the 2028 election.

[1:40:36] >> Okay. Hopefully the machines work out

[1:40:38] this next time and we don't get the last

[1:40:41] minute uh hiccup.

[1:40:43] >> Well, the the the uh the whole thing

[1:40:45] about going over this and look looking

[1:40:47] at whether we go on their ballot on on

[1:40:50] the county's ballot or whether we do it

[1:40:52] ourselves. And one of the things that

[1:40:54] really went wrong the last time was poll

[1:40:56] book availability. Well, part of the

[1:40:59] thing the committee did, we looked at,

[1:41:02] we looked for what contractors were out

[1:41:04] there that provided and what other

[1:41:06] municipalities were doing. And we found

[1:41:08] out that Alche uh was through through

[1:41:12] the Maryland Municipal League. We we got

[1:41:15] in contact and we found out that Elect

[1:41:17] has actually been supporting 28

[1:41:20] different municipalities with election

[1:41:22] support. We had a we had a uh Zoom

[1:41:25] meeting with them where they went over

[1:41:27] and talked about what they could provide

[1:41:29] in poll books and stuff. So, there's

[1:41:32] actually three companies that I believe

[1:41:35] could could support our 2028 election.

[1:41:38] Um the the uh ESNS is who we've been

[1:41:42] using in the past to get ballots and

[1:41:44] stuff. Uh heck, I I can't remember the

[1:41:47] other name, but I've got it somewhere in

[1:41:49] there. they won the poll book contract

[1:41:52] for the uh county and and then elect is

[1:41:55] another one and and uh the key thing was

[1:41:58] getting poll books that could beworked

[1:42:02] that could have the Maryland municipal

[1:42:06] uh registry on I'm sorry the the the the

[1:42:10] uh the Maryland registry the statewide

[1:42:13] registry which is what we're part of. So

[1:42:15] the Chesapeake version of that on the

[1:42:18] poll book so that we can easily look

[1:42:20] them up and that the the the poll books

[1:42:22] were all networkked so when you enter

[1:42:24] one name in here it automatically go so

[1:42:27] nobody could vote twice so you can track

[1:42:30] and count them and and also so you could

[1:42:33] print a voter authority card. The voter

[1:42:36] authority card is very important in that

[1:42:38] it's that's what we use to take to the

[1:42:42] scanner so that only one ballot, one

[1:42:45] voter authority card so we know and

[1:42:47] those numbers have to match at the end

[1:42:49] of the night. So, so that's kind of

[1:42:52] keeping with the integrity and making

[1:42:54] sure we are u voters only vote once and

[1:42:59] only registered voters vote.

[1:43:01] >> Great goal. Um, you guys, it's just

[1:43:04] amazing how many people actually were

[1:43:06] able to vote despite all the hiccups you

[1:43:08] guys had last time. It was a huge

[1:43:10] turnout and hopefully we can get even

[1:43:12] more at the next election. So, thank

[1:43:15] you.

[1:43:17] >> Um, great job. Uh, I like um what you've

[1:43:21] done here, your ask multiple days. I'm a

[1:43:25] no multiple day person. I like election

[1:43:28] day and I also think it's a heavy lift

[1:43:30] for the town. So, uh, that's my comment

[1:43:33] >> and and you know, multiple election

[1:43:36] days, we were 5050 split on that. We we

[1:43:41] uh we couldn't decide that one ourselves

[1:43:43] and and uh we we were not looking to

[1:43:46] extend the the November election date.

[1:43:50] We were looking at the potential of of

[1:43:53] adding maybe a weekn night or a or or a weekend

[1:43:58] kind of like the you know uh um the

[1:44:01] county does eight days of early voting

[1:44:06] and and and uh um the and those are full

[1:44:10] 13-hour days [laughter]

[1:44:12] and I was I I looked at or proposed as

[1:44:15] an option of doing a six-hour

[1:44:20] week weekday night and a six-h hour

[1:44:23] Saturday. Um but but uh I also found

[1:44:28] that when I got a a cost estimate from

[1:44:30] Altech that it was another $4,200 for

[1:44:33] each day that you added. Uh so I I don't

[1:44:37] know that it's really important to do

[1:44:39] that. We did get 41% the last time. Um,

[1:44:44] you know, one of the reasons I I added

[1:44:46] it was because if if you look looked at

[1:44:48] the uh um

[1:44:51] our our election that that multi-day

[1:44:55] um

[1:44:58] one

[1:45:05] So if you if you looked at

[1:45:09] the voters the our Chesapeake beach

[1:45:12] voters,

[1:45:14] 70.1%

[1:45:15] of them actually voted in the 2024

[1:45:19] election for the for the general for the

[1:45:21] president for the general election. We

[1:45:24] had 41% of those same voters vote in our

[1:45:27] election.

[1:45:29] But if you look at the election day

[1:45:31] absentee ballot, provisional and early

[1:45:34] and and early voting breakouts, the

[1:45:37] reason they had such a high percentage

[1:45:38] is not that they all showed up on

[1:45:40] election day. You can see we actually

[1:45:42] had more show up on election day to

[1:45:44] ours, but it's because they had an early

[1:45:46] voting opportunity and a mail-in ballot

[1:45:49] opportunity and that's that's how they

[1:45:50] got up to 70%.

[1:45:53] Do we really need to do that? Like we've

[1:45:55] we split 5050 as to whether we we did or

[1:45:58] not and and and uh I was one of the vote

[1:46:01] one of the ones that voted for it and

[1:46:02] I'm kind of leaning against it. So I

[1:46:04] don't [laughter] you know it it it's not something that we have to do.

[1:46:09] The real decision I I I need from you

[1:46:12] going forward is is uh do we hold our

[1:46:15] own election and get contractor support

[1:46:19] or do we or do we go onto the uh county

[1:46:22] ballot? And and uh one of the things I

[1:46:25] have I I I recently asked a question to

[1:46:27] the uh through the county to the state

[1:46:31] uh as as to which which municipalities

[1:46:34] are going to go on the county ballot in

[1:46:38] their county for the November 2026

[1:46:41] election. Zero. [laughter] No. Nobody.

[1:46:45] Uh the only ones the only the only

[1:46:49] municipality I know that that I'm aware

[1:46:51] of that has gone on

[1:46:55] the ballot is Baltimore County and they

[1:46:58] I guess they've always done that. Uh but

[1:47:01] no other municipality does that to my

[1:47:03] knowledge.

[1:47:05] Uh, one of the things we were able to do

[1:47:07] is is in 2023 this the state put out a

[1:47:11] requirement pass legislator legislation

[1:47:14] so that we so that municipalities had to

[1:47:16] submit their election results to to the

[1:47:20] uh state and then the state puts them on

[1:47:23] a website. Well, all this information

[1:47:25] about the other places that voted and uh

[1:47:29] you know, so I got you percentage of of

[1:47:32] when elections were held that came from

[1:47:34] that state site. I can actually go on. I

[1:47:36] can't look at 22 because the law wasn't

[1:47:39] in effect there. But but you look at 23,

[1:47:42] 24, 25. And I gave you some examples of

[1:47:44] 2025

[1:47:46] of when they uh one of the other options

[1:47:49] we had looked at is we could have rented

[1:47:52] equipment from the state and done anou,

[1:47:54] but they would have made us change our

[1:47:56] election date. So I gave you information

[1:47:58] about why we shouldn't do that because

[1:48:02] the the five that I looked at, the five

[1:48:04] different municipalities, they were

[1:48:06] under 12% voter

[1:48:08] >> Yeah.

[1:48:09] uh on a non on a non-election non county

[1:48:14] election day.

[1:48:15] >> And I recall you and I talked about this

[1:48:17] at some length and and I think that

[1:48:19] makes all the sense in the world to

[1:48:21] leave it on the same day as the the

[1:48:24] general election just to improve the

[1:48:27] turnout and and and the percentage of

[1:48:30] our voters that actually vote.

[1:48:33] >> And I think 41% is really good. you

[1:48:35] know, we're we're we're basing that on

[1:48:38] active active voters.

[1:48:41] >> Uh the county uh the state county, they

[1:48:44] clear up and they they they have a uh um

[1:48:49] they have different categories of

[1:48:51] active, inactive, they'll if someone

[1:48:53] doesn't vote or they don't respond to

[1:48:55] them when they send correspondents, when

[1:48:57] the state sends them correspondents,

[1:48:59] they'll move them to the inactive list

[1:49:01] and they'll stay there for a while. that

[1:49:03] if they don't answer anything for uh a

[1:49:07] period of time, they'll take them off

[1:49:08] the list. Uh but but uh updating that

[1:49:12] Maryland Universal Registration, that's

[1:49:14] the term I was looking for earlier, uh

[1:49:17] is is uh takes time. Uh we can't do it.

[1:49:22] Only the only the state and county can

[1:49:25] change that.

[1:49:28] Did your committee talk at all about

[1:49:30] putting the question to referendum about

[1:49:33] how we would vote? Like obviously we

[1:49:37] can't do that right now, but um like on

[1:49:40] the ballot, a question on the ballot for

[1:49:42] how we would do our elections. Did you

[1:49:44] all haveation about that at all?

[1:49:46] >> I know you said North Beach maybe did.

[1:49:48] >> They they they voted to do that. The

[1:49:51] town council voted to put that on their

[1:49:53] November 2026 ballot. We didn't really

[1:49:56] talk about that because our next ballot

[1:49:58] is in 2028. So, you would be talking

[1:50:00] about a special election,

[1:50:02] >> right?

[1:50:04] >> Or just a newsletter or something that

[1:50:08] goes out and asks for input, you know,

[1:50:10] or

[1:50:13] » I would be interested because I am for,

[1:50:15] you know, the one day of voting. Also,

[1:50:17] from a campaign perspective, it's hard

[1:50:19] to campaign for multiple days um when

[1:50:22] you drag out the election too far

[1:50:24] >> and things change.

[1:50:26] >> So, so, so I was not I don't think that

[1:50:31] we should go to what the county does,

[1:50:33] which is

[1:50:34] >> prior to election day, they do eight not

[1:50:38] eight days of of uh that's a lot,

[1:50:41] >> but nothing after the normal election

[1:50:43] day. So, that ends it. that that

[1:50:45] election day ends it. Okay. What takes

[1:50:47] place after that is just the counting of

[1:50:49] the absentee ballots, the the the

[1:50:52] canvasing of the provisional ballots,

[1:50:54] just stuff that takes place. That takes

[1:50:56] time to get that done. It takes the

[1:50:58] county several a week for absentee, a

[1:51:00] week for provisional to to get their

[1:51:04] actual numbers.

[1:51:08] I was only proposing prior to election

[1:51:10] day like the a Saturday before or the or

[1:51:15] a Wednesday or something before. Uh

[1:51:17] that's what I was thinking about in

[1:51:19] multiple elections. And again, I don't

[1:51:21] think we have to have that 41% is a

[1:51:23] pretty good turnout. I would say if you

[1:51:25] wanted to accommodate more people and

[1:51:27] you got that feedback from people, if

[1:51:29] you kept it close together so that the

[1:51:32] people that voted on this day have the

[1:51:34] same information as the people that

[1:51:36] voted on the other day. I think that's

[1:51:39] the problem when they're spread out.

[1:51:41] >> If you spread it out too far and and

[1:51:44] also the the other thing you don't want

[1:51:46] to do is that you would not do is you

[1:51:48] wouldn't put out results until after

[1:51:51] election day. So, so you wouldn't you

[1:51:54] wouldn't be saying how many votes each

[1:51:56] candidate got.

[1:51:58] I probably wouldn't be able to do that

[1:51:59] with the machines anyways.

[1:52:02] >> You have a tough job.

[1:52:04] >> He's been doing it for a long time, too.

[1:52:06] And we appreciate that.

[1:52:07] >> I do have a couple uh things now.

[1:52:09] >> I was going to call on you before you

[1:52:11] interrupted me.

[1:52:12] >> Sorry.

[1:52:14] >> Get left out. You are you good, Anthony?

[1:52:17] >> Okay.

[1:52:19] I'm sorry to interrupt.

[1:52:21] >> Go ahead. you have something. Go ahead.

[1:52:23] >> Okay.

[1:52:24] >> Uh, I just wanted to highlight a couple

[1:52:26] of things that the committee u looked at

[1:52:28] that are I think are important that it

[1:52:30] really hadn't been said yet. And one

[1:52:32] that's super important I think it was to

[1:52:35] our committee was that if we went with a

[1:52:39] county or state ballot that uh there's

[1:52:44] no there's a law that says that it

[1:52:46] cannot be a nonpartisan election. So,

[1:52:50] uh, we would have had to had partisan

[1:52:53] elections or have a fill out a petition

[1:52:57] and get 200 signatures or whatever to

[1:52:59] get on a ballot um as a nonpartisan

[1:53:02] candidate,

[1:53:03] >> 250

[1:53:04] >> or 250. So that that was kind of a a a

[1:53:08] really big deal to the committee um and

[1:53:12] one of the reasons that we made the

[1:53:14] decision to uh that we to recommend um

[1:53:18] that we go with the town run elections

[1:53:21] and I just wanted to make sure everyone

[1:53:22] was aware of that point. Um

[1:53:27] the committee split 50/50. I am

[1:53:30] definitely for a single day election for

[1:53:33] multiple reasons that we've already gone

[1:53:35] over. Manpower, cost,

[1:53:38] different information. Uh, all good

[1:53:40] points. Um

[1:53:43] I wanted to say that uh

[1:53:48] oh regarding the Zoom call um that we

[1:53:51] had with Elect was a great call and they

[1:53:55] did demos of the equipment and the

[1:53:58] process and the pull books and the

[1:54:02] machines and everything. And I believe

[1:54:05] that that call was recorded. So if

[1:54:08] anyone is interested in that information

[1:54:10] that type of you know richer information

[1:54:14] on machines and and programs and process

[1:54:18] and stuff it's it's there and available.

[1:54:21] >> Yeah. Do you have an estimate on how

[1:54:22] much that might speed up the like

[1:54:24] process from last time having those

[1:54:27] machines

[1:54:28] >> having the pole books?

[1:54:30] >> Yeah. Or the upgraded computers that

[1:54:32] areworked and all that. Well,

[1:54:35] >> like the whole thing, how how much do

[1:54:37] you think it'll improve? Cuz I know we

[1:54:39] had long lines and people were leaving

[1:54:40] and stuff. So, that's what that should

[1:54:42] be that's one of your goals, I'm

[1:54:44] guessing, is to improve the

[1:54:45] >> If I can add it to it took a a minute

[1:54:48] and 45 seconds per person to check them

[1:54:53] in the the poll book or reg the laptop

[1:54:56] that we were using. We had four laptops.

[1:54:59] The maximum number that we could get in

[1:55:01] a 13-hour day was about 1755.

[1:55:05] I think we had like 1693 that we

[1:55:09] processed

[1:55:10] >> plus about another 100 provisional

[1:55:12] people that came through that we had to

[1:55:14] rule out for provisional about another

[1:55:16] 80 I guess.

[1:55:17] >> Uh so

[1:55:19] >> it doesn't take that long on the poll

[1:55:21] book and it and we had to handw write

[1:55:24] the the voter authority card. We had to

[1:55:27] print that for each voter and and that

[1:55:30] that's what took a minute and 45

[1:55:32] seconds. The machine will do this. The the reason I wanted to go to

[1:55:38] townun

[1:55:40] contractor supported is that I could I

[1:55:43] found out I could get machines from

[1:55:45] probably any one of these three

[1:55:46] contractors and there may be more out

[1:55:48] there too that we'll you know

[1:55:50] investigate in 2020 you know as we get

[1:55:52] closer to 2028. Uh but but it's because

[1:55:55] that could be done and it'll be fast. Uh

[1:55:58] the the county uh uses uh I think six

[1:56:02] machines and and um um

[1:56:07] they don't they never have lines or you

[1:56:10] know you'll always have some lines but

[1:56:12] it it won't we can get we can probably

[1:56:15] just do four. We could do four or six

[1:56:17] and and we'll be fine. It it'll it takes

[1:56:21] less than a minute to do that. It's

[1:56:23] almost half half the time.

[1:56:25] >> Oh, and and I'm probably exaggerating in

[1:56:28] the minute.

[1:56:29] >> Wow.

[1:56:30] >> It probably doesn't take that long.

[1:56:31] >> A significant improvement.

[1:56:33] >> Dramatic improvement if I'm not mistaken

[1:56:36] >> because it the the

[1:56:38] I don't remember if I remembered if I

[1:56:40] mentioned the printer. Each pole book

[1:56:42] has its own printer and and and so

[1:56:47] what's your name? What's your what's

[1:56:49] your uh date of birth? What's your address? here it is. I got

[1:56:53] that person. Print,

[1:56:56] get them to look at it, verify their

[1:56:58] address, and sign it and and give them a

[1:57:01] ballot, and they move on. They go vote.

[1:57:03] >> I think the voters will be happy about

[1:57:04] that.

[1:57:05] >> Yeah. The way we were in 2020.

[1:57:08] >> Yeah.

[1:57:08] >> And and and similar in 2016, the state

[1:57:13] 60 days out for 2024. They they they

[1:57:16] were supposed to be given to us 60 days

[1:57:18] out. They took them away and we didn't

[1:57:21] have time to find I didn't find other

[1:57:24] ways. I didn't know Elect was out there.

[1:57:27] I didn't know other things were out

[1:57:28] there at that time.

[1:57:29] >> You guys did you guys did great.

[1:57:30] >> So, the the committee did that.

[1:57:33] >> Other questions or comments?

[1:57:34] >> Well, yeah. And also just wanted to say

[1:57:36] uh of note that um you know the $16,000

[1:57:41] for to run to have this this election

[1:57:43] with this equipment and run this way I

[1:57:46] think is well worth it. But it's also of

[1:57:48] note that they provide a technician on

[1:57:52] site,

[1:57:55] >> you know, on election day here. So

[1:57:57] that's an extra person to make sure

[1:57:59] everything's running, make sure the

[1:58:01] equipment's, you know, go running

[1:58:03] smoothly, an extra person cuz we're, you

[1:58:05] know, we we are struggling to uh field

[1:58:08] an entire uh board of elections and

[1:58:11] everything. So it's nice to have an

[1:58:13] extra person there and especially one

[1:58:15] who is uh an

[1:58:17] >> how the equipment runs.

[1:58:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. So I just wanted to make

[1:58:19] sure that everyone knew that also.

[1:58:21] >> Right. I'm glad you brought that up. I

[1:58:23] would I would like be before I move

[1:58:26] forward, I I would like to see if there

[1:58:28] if any of my uh committee members want

[1:58:32] to come up and add something.

[1:58:34] >> Actually, I I would appreciate it if

[1:58:36] they would.

[1:58:38] >> There's your answer.

[1:58:41] >> And by by the way, one of your next

[1:58:43] items is agenda items is is she's going

[1:58:46] to be appointed. So,

[1:58:48] >> yes. [laughter]

[1:58:51] » Good evening. My name is Aaca Flores. I

[1:58:53] am on the election committee and um

[1:58:57] hopefully after your vote tonight, we'll

[1:58:58] be on the board of elections for the

[1:59:00] town of Chesapeake Beach. Um I have had

[1:59:04] the pleasure of uh serving with Randy

[1:59:07] for about since probably January,

[1:59:09] correct? When we started this or maybe a

[1:59:11] little bit before that, November.

[1:59:13] >> Actually, it was in November.

[1:59:14] >> November. Okay. So, uh so yeah, I've learned a lot in the past five

[1:59:19] months. Um I um have also been

[1:59:25] learning a lot about different processes

[1:59:28] for voting in elections and things like

[1:59:29] that. And it's been kind of something

[1:59:31] that I've been interested in learning

[1:59:33] more about election integrity and what

[1:59:36] kinds of things we can do to make sure

[1:59:37] that we don't have outside interference

[1:59:39] in in our processes and things of that

[1:59:42] sort. So, I'm hoping that I can learn a

[1:59:46] lot more from Randy and be able to serve

[1:59:48] on the board to be able to um help with

[1:59:51] our

[1:59:53] uh keeping our our town uh voting

[1:59:56] integrity intact.

[1:59:59] >> Appreciate that.

[1:59:59] >> Okay. Any questions for me?

[2:00:02] >> Yes.

[2:00:02] >> And and uh I think that you'll be

[2:00:04] introduced at the council meeting at the

[2:00:06] next council meeting and then we vote

[2:00:08] the following council meeting. Is that

[2:00:10] right? Am I wrong? So you guys have the

[2:00:12] opportunity to ask questions

[2:00:13] >> ask questions at that time

[2:00:14] >> so that she can be if you all decide to

[2:00:18] appoint her it would be at the upcoming

[2:00:20] council meeting on Thursday next week

[2:00:23] >> but she's here now if you want to ask

[2:00:25] >> I'm here now

[2:00:26] >> be a good opportunity and we had some

[2:00:28] good conversations so

[2:00:29] >> I I don't I don't we talked a lot when I

[2:00:31] was campaigning so I'm more than

[2:00:34] appreciative of what you're

[2:00:35] >> here [laughter]

[2:00:36] >> no I I support you 100% more more than

[2:00:39] appreciative you stepping up to this I

[2:00:41] appreciate a lot.

[2:00:42] >> I echoed that sentiment. Uh I do want to

[2:00:45] say that um for the council's purposes

[2:00:49] and everything understanding we did talk

[2:00:51] about during in the committee we talked

[2:00:53] about because there are going to be some

[2:00:55] changes that need to happen in the in

[2:00:57] the code and I don't know if it's

[2:01:00] charter and code or or or just one or

[2:01:02] the other but um we decided as a count

[2:01:05] as a as a committee that we thought the

[2:01:07] proper place for that discussion and

[2:01:10] fleshing out those types of issues was

[2:01:13] in the board of elections, not the

[2:01:15] committee. So, this is going to be

[2:01:18] something that um any new comm any new

[2:01:23] uh um board members will be tackling

[2:01:27] >> uh in the near immediately.

[2:01:29] >> Yeah.

[2:01:31] >> So, I appreciate your

[2:01:37] as do I.

[2:01:39] >> All right. Thank you.

[2:01:41] >> Anyone else?

[2:01:47] » [laughter]

[2:01:49] >> All right,

[2:01:50] >> we good.

[2:01:51] >> Anybody else got any questions? Are you

[2:01:53] done?

[2:01:53] >> I just want to say I know Aaca and her

[2:01:55] husband and they're they're good people

[2:01:57] and now you got to get Joe to come on a

[2:02:00] committee.

[2:02:03] » I know.

[2:02:05] I'll talk to them.

[2:02:14] I'm glad you I'm glad you stepped up.

[2:02:16] I'm sure you'll you'll be great on that.

[2:02:18] Um

[2:02:18] >> yeah, we we all appreciate that.

[2:02:20] >> Thank you.

[2:02:21] >> It's critically important to our

[2:02:23] municipality to have a great board of

[2:02:26] elections and everything way above

[2:02:28] board, you know. So, uh thank you so

[2:02:30] much for stepping up everybody. You too,

[2:02:33] my friend.

[2:02:35] Oh, I'm I'm uh I'm hearing that we want

[2:02:39] to go town run election contractor

[2:02:41] support. Was there any

[2:02:46] » Okay. And and I and I'm also hearing no

[2:02:49] multiple election.

[2:02:51] >> I I think that

[2:02:52] >> that's necessary.

[2:02:53] >> Okay. And and that's something that

[2:02:57] could be changed by code at a later

[2:02:58] date, but it's not something I will be

[2:03:01] that we will be looking at. and the fact

[2:03:04] that we're going

[2:03:05] >> town run election contractor support.

[2:03:08] There are not that many changes to the

[2:03:10] code that have to take place.

[2:03:12] >> U there there's only a few tweaks that

[2:03:15] have to be done. There would have been a

[2:03:17] lot more if we went with the uh going on

[2:03:20] the county ballot there. We would have

[2:03:22] to pretty much rewrite our election

[2:03:24] code.

[2:03:25] [laughter]

[2:03:27] >> I do have one question. Is was there a

[2:03:29] law last year that we had to accept

[2:03:32] mail-in ballots?

[2:03:35] Some reason I remember something around

[2:03:38] >> there is there is there is nothing that

[2:03:41] I'm aware of that that dictates

[2:03:45] the municipalities have to do that.

[2:03:48] >> But we did do it, right? Didn't did we

[2:03:50] do

[2:03:51] >> we have absentee ballots in our code. We don't really call them mailin. They changed the term from absentee to

[2:03:57] mailin for for the uh county and state.

[2:04:01] >> Okay.

[2:04:01] >> Ours is absentee ballots. However,

[2:04:04] there's not a big distinction. U the we you don't have to have an excuse for

[2:04:11] doing an absentee ballot. You don't have

[2:04:13] to be going away or something. Ours

[2:04:16] basically allows any registered voter

[2:04:18] for Chesapeake Beach to decide to do an

[2:04:20] absentee ballot if they want. which is

[2:04:23] another reason why having a multiple

[2:04:25] election days is not really necessary.

[2:04:28] If they want to vote and they can't make

[2:04:30] election day, they can still vote by

[2:04:33] absentee ballot.

[2:04:34] >> Okay, that's that's what I thought. And

[2:04:36] the confusion that I had wasn't around

[2:04:37] any communication by you, but there were

[2:04:41] confusing conversations there

[2:04:43] >> that happened. There have been I I think

[2:04:46] there there's been talk in legislation

[2:04:48] and stuff for the county, state,

[2:04:50] federal, but

[2:04:52] that doesn't apply to us.

[2:04:54] >> Gotcha.

[2:04:55] >> Our code applies to us.

[2:04:58] >> Understood. Thank you.

[2:05:02] >> All right. Well, then if there's no more

[2:05:05] questions.

[2:05:06] >> So, I'm thinking I have my answer, which

[2:05:08] is downrun election and and no multiple

[2:05:12] days. I believe that that is what I'm

[2:05:16] seeing a bunch of thumbs up here. Thumbs

[2:05:18] up. Thumbs up.

[2:05:19] >> Yes.

[2:05:19] >> Appreciate your time.

[2:05:21] >> Well,

[2:05:22] >> and I and I I will take one more. I it

[2:05:26] was very helpful to to have uh um

[2:05:29] Anthony and Eric on on the committee

[2:05:32] because it it really when we start

[2:05:35] looking at whether we want to go on the

[2:05:36] county ballot, the thing I was most

[2:05:38] worried about is is uh what happens to

[2:05:41] the candidates that we're going to get

[2:05:42] because it would most affect them.

[2:05:45] >> It it would most affect somebody that

[2:05:47] wanted to run and and so it was very

[2:05:50] helpful to have their insight.

[2:05:52] >> Thank you. and and I do appreciate every

[2:05:54] member of the uh committee. They did a

[2:05:57] we did a lot of work together

[2:06:05] » and I especially appreciate you. I know

[2:06:08] how much effort you put into this. So,

[2:06:11] thank you.

[2:06:14] » You're not moving, are you? You'll still

[2:06:16] be around, right? You know, you know the

[2:06:17] re the reason I I had to put my name in the uh brief is is because Eric kept

[2:06:23] pushing me to do that.

[2:06:25] >> Well, yeah, because it is important to

[2:06:28] know that he plans to step down and you

[2:06:31] know that is a factor in our

[2:06:34] decision-making process.

[2:06:35] >> It is.

[2:06:37] >> You'll still be available for advice,

[2:06:39] right?

[2:06:44] » There you go.

[2:06:44] >> Town council.

[2:06:45] >> There you go. Sounds good. Town council,

[2:06:49] mayor, town council, mayor, mayor.

[2:06:55] So much experience.

[2:06:58] All right. Well, thank you. Thank you so

[2:07:01] much. Um,

[2:07:08] all right. We're moving on to the next

[2:07:11] item on the agenda, which is state

[2:07:13] highway updates. and uh Dr. Oak Padu is

[2:07:16] going to brief us on that.

[2:07:20] >> Thank you. Um it's a pretty brief brief.

[2:07:23] Um it's we in order for us to officially

[2:07:27] um withdraw from the grant that we

[2:07:29] currently have. I have to submit a

[2:07:31] letter. So this is really letting you

[2:07:33] all know that that is what the next step

[2:07:35] is for um for the grant that we

[2:07:38] currently have. Um the the grant process

[2:07:42] is open now for transportation

[2:07:44] alternatives. It's open through the end

[2:07:46] of April. And so uh the town engineer

[2:07:49] and I have a meeting scheduled um for

[2:07:52] later this week when he returns um to

[2:07:54] work through the application and move

[2:07:57] forward and submit.

[2:08:01] » Um do we need to know like which

[2:08:04] alternative we're thinking about for the

[2:08:06] to submit for the grant or

[2:08:08] >> Yes. So my understanding from the last

[2:08:10] time that we had the large larger

[2:08:12] conversation was that everyone seemed to

[2:08:14] be largely on board with alternative one

[2:08:17] and so that is what we would be moving

[2:08:19] forward with. Um the transportation

[2:08:22] alternative grant is slightly different

[2:08:24] now than it used to be. So before you

[2:08:26] would have to apply once for a 30% grant

[2:08:29] and then again for 100% grant. They

[2:08:32] don't do that now. It's just one 100%

[2:08:34] grant which will streamline the process.

[2:08:36] Yeah. Um and so they've shared that's

[2:08:39] the federal grant. Um and they've also

[2:08:43] shared that there may be opportunities

[2:08:44] to apply for some state fundings as

[2:08:46] well. So um we are looking into that.

[2:08:52] >> But we are going to get out of the grant

[2:08:56] pipeline and hope that we have a grant.

[2:08:59] Is that what we're talking about doing?

[2:09:01] we are going to withdraw the from the

[2:09:04] grant that we currently have because

[2:09:05] that was my understanding of the the

[2:09:07] council's will and we will apply for

[2:09:11] another grant.

[2:09:12] >> No guarantee on another

[2:09:14] >> there's there is never a guarantee when

[2:09:16] you're applying for grants. So that it's

[2:09:19] not like they're saying yes we're going

[2:09:20] to earmark these funds for you. Right.

[2:09:22] So, so this basically could cost us the

[2:09:26] same $68,000

[2:09:29] that is currently budgeted,

[2:09:34] but we could move forward with the grant

[2:09:37] that we have, stay in the grant

[2:09:39] pipeline, which might line us up for

[2:09:45] the construction grant as well.

[2:09:48] And the only risk to that situation is

[2:09:51] that we pay exactly what we're saying

[2:09:54] we're going to pay anyways. It's it's

[2:09:57] just

[2:09:59] to me it's really poor decision- making.

[2:10:02] It's going to set us back in time.

[2:10:06] I think that we do have a 30% design

[2:10:11] that is um viable according to the state

[2:10:16] um viable according to rightways and

[2:10:18] easements

[2:10:20] and um takes everybody on a safer route

[2:10:23] and eliminates an a situation of

[2:10:28] unsafety that will not be eliminated

[2:10:32] by going through Woodshshire Avenue. Um,

[2:10:36] I would argue that going through

[2:10:37] Woodshshire Avenue introduces a whole

[2:10:40] lot of foot traffic to a neighborhood

[2:10:42] that may not want it. Um, it also takes

[2:10:46] people on a path that is not visible by

[2:10:50] road or by common traffic. Um, I believe that

[2:10:59] there's a reason why SHA rightways along

[2:11:01] a roadway exist and why they will build

[2:11:05] those connections along those areas. And

[2:11:10] I can see where this the whole step

[2:11:13] situation by the marsh is um

[2:11:17] [clears throat] maybe not ideal, but it

[2:11:20] also will be

[2:11:22] it's we have a guaranteed

[2:11:25] route there and there's no reason why we

[2:11:27] couldn't get the same open space grants

[2:11:31] that we are unsure whether we can get or

[2:11:34] not and add them to the burden in hand

[2:11:38] that we have that we just dismissed.

[2:11:41] Um, this project has been going on and on and on and what I see is this

[2:11:47] council, even though we are funded and

[2:11:49] we have the ability to do this project,

[2:11:52] sending it back around in a circle and

[2:11:54] it really it it's hugely frustrating to

[2:11:58] me and it's hugely frustrating to

[2:12:02] everybody. Um,

[2:12:05] I know you hate being called new, but

[2:12:07] you are new. Um, many many people

[2:12:09] >> Well, I I don't hate being called new. I

[2:12:11] just This is This has already been

[2:12:12] litigated like 80 times in this this

[2:12:14] like the question is just an update.

[2:12:16] This isn't us re redisputing this.

[2:12:18] You're you're literally bringing back

[2:12:20] the previous work session and the

[2:12:21] previous council session. So, I would

[2:12:23] ask that we move uh to strike this

[2:12:25] conversation and move forward because

[2:12:26] this is not a we're not revoting. This

[2:12:28] has already been discussed. It's already

[2:12:30] been set in stone. You agreed that we

[2:12:32] were going to look us.

[2:12:33] >> You said we were going to look at

[2:12:34] alternatives. You supported

[2:12:35] alternatives. Alternatives go. So like

[2:12:38] this is ridiculous.

[2:12:38] >> One one one person at a time, please.

[2:12:41] And um I think that

[2:12:46] it's not valuable to spend time to re

[2:12:51] reitigate this. This is where we're

[2:12:54] headed. Um is there anything else,

[2:12:57] Amelia, that you want to add to this?

[2:12:59] >> Not for SHA at this time.

[2:13:01] >> Okay. You never got approved for the

[2:13:02] 100% design grant, right? Cuz it was two

[2:13:05] separate grants. We got approved for 30%

[2:13:07] but not 100%.

[2:13:08] >> We we had the approval. So we completed

[2:13:10] the 30% which was the feasibility and we

[2:13:13] have the the 100% design funds. That's

[2:13:16] what was

[2:13:17] >> right. But they went over budget and all

[2:13:19] that. Okay. Yeah.

[2:13:20] >> No, they didn't go over budget.

[2:13:22] >> All right. Again,

[2:13:24] >> again, we're we are

[2:13:26] >> Okay.

[2:13:26] >> giving away a grant. We're going to

[2:13:29] reapply for the new grant

[2:13:31] >> and we will wait for it.

[2:13:34] >> That's the plan. Thank you very much.

[2:13:36] Let's move on. Um,

[2:13:39] next is the um rail trail expansion and

[2:13:44] the concept plans and you have do you

[2:13:47] have a

[2:13:47] >> it's not for the slide is

[2:13:49] >> so you you have this

[2:13:52] um and

[2:13:55] had recent discussions with Similia and

[2:13:57] other staff uh regarding this. Um and so

[2:14:02] after uh this is really a little hard to

[2:14:05] see, but after uh discussing this

[2:14:10] um as as you all know, I was I advocated

[2:14:14] for the the current rail trail for

[2:14:16] decades and finally got done what has

[2:14:19] been done to date, which is now over I

[2:14:23] don't even remember how long ago it was.

[2:14:26] And [clears throat] and I I know I'm

[2:14:28] repeating myself, but I'm old, so I'm

[2:14:30] allowed to do that. The piece that's

[2:14:33] shown in red down here, and I can barely

[2:14:35] read it, but it it it's the rest of the

[2:14:38] right of way. That was the that was the

[2:14:42] big cut in the hill coming down from

[2:14:44] Richfield Station. We had approval from

[2:14:48] all of the agencies except one to build

[2:14:50] that. I think uh that agency recognized

[2:14:54] that they made a mistake as soon as I

[2:14:57] took them out and showed them the trail,

[2:14:59] but those pe that that goes back I think

[2:15:02] 22 years or something like that. So

[2:15:04] they're those same people are no longer

[2:15:06] there. So my thought was in discussing

[2:15:09] this with uh the engineer and with

[2:15:12] Sumeriia

[2:15:14] uh it was to

[2:15:16] re-energize that bottom part of

[2:15:19] Richfield Station and build it around.

[2:15:21] Another concept that was presented there

[2:15:24] was this additional trail that goes uh

[2:15:27] back to the northwest and then loops

[2:15:29] around and goes back up into Richfield

[2:15:31] Station. So you could actually make a

[2:15:34] circle all the way around through

[2:15:35] Richfield Station. I'm not opposed to

[2:15:38] that, although I think that it's got a

[2:15:39] lot of challenges, but I'm not opposed

[2:15:41] to doing it. And as far as con

[2:15:44] continuing it on the right of way, uh

[2:15:47] the once you get to the town limits,

[2:15:51] that's not a town issue, but I will be

[2:15:55] happy to advocate uh to the county um

[2:15:59] and and try to gain support from our

[2:16:02] county commissioners to consider uh

[2:16:05] conducting or you know, building the

[2:16:08] trail further on out. Um, and as you

[2:16:12] know, Route 260 where it goes from two

[2:16:14] lanes to four lanes is once you're on

[2:16:16] the two-lane part, that is the railroad

[2:16:18] right away. And there are still several

[2:16:21] existing buildings along Route 260 that

[2:16:25] were there in the heyday of the railroad

[2:16:28] uh back which went out of business in

[2:16:30] 1935.

[2:16:32] So anyway, that's where we stand with

[2:16:34] that. And uh Similia, do you want to add

[2:16:36] anything to that? Uh the only thing that

[2:16:39] else that I would add to it is that

[2:16:41] we're in the process I'm expecting to

[2:16:42] receive the RFP um by the end of this

[2:16:45] week for the rail trail expansion um so

[2:16:49] that we can move forward with bidding

[2:16:51] it.

[2:16:54] >> Council,

[2:16:55] >> I have a question.

[2:16:56] >> Yes, sir.

[2:16:57] >> Um I love this project. Um the glad to

[2:17:01] hear it.

[2:17:01] >> The uh so I just have one question. the

[2:17:05] um in the phase one proposed phase one

[2:17:07] here in the diagram.

[2:17:08] >> Mhm.

[2:17:09] >> It looks as though the um proposed phase

[2:17:14] one does stop short of the town limits.

[2:17:17] Is there a reason it doesn't go all the

[2:17:19] way to the town limit?

[2:17:20] >> Yeah. And the reason is because it's

[2:17:22] overwater. We're not building a bridge

[2:17:24] there. Mhm.

[2:17:25] >> And so that would there's be no point in

[2:17:28] building a bridge to take you to the

[2:17:30] town limits because all you would do

[2:17:31] would be to get across the bridge and

[2:17:33] you would be at the town limits.

[2:17:35] >> Makes sense.

[2:17:35] >> And so if we can ever encourage the

[2:17:38] county to build it all the way on

[2:17:40] further, that's when to build that

[2:17:42] bridge.

[2:17:42] >> Okay. Makes sense.

[2:17:44] >> Other questions, Eric? Um

[2:17:53] and so yeah um and so we looked at this

[2:17:57] in the budget on uh capital budget

[2:17:59] general fund uh line item rail trail

[2:18:02] extension construction. We have in there

[2:18:04] budgeted

[2:18:07] um it looks like a a budget of 2 million

[2:18:11] for the entire project over three years.

[2:18:14] Is that something we got from Wayne?

[2:18:21] And that's

[2:18:26] » like a throw up kind of number.

[2:18:28] >> I think once we once he's done um with

[2:18:33] the design portion, then we'll have a

[2:18:34] little bit more

[2:18:39] to build. There's some existing tieins

[2:18:41] there. Anybody

[2:18:49] else? Yes. Question.

[2:18:52] >> Um, so just um for the record,

[2:18:58] I have no desire to pursue pursue this

[2:19:01] project before

[2:19:04] um a connection from Chesapeake Village

[2:19:09] to town is underway.

[2:19:13] Secondly,

[2:19:15] there is a 200 acre parcel that is still

[2:19:18] in possession of Mr. Repky

[2:19:22] um

[2:19:25] that he owes to either Richfield Station

[2:19:28] or a public entity

[2:19:30] or a covenant.

[2:19:33] I'm not a huge fan of phase two of this

[2:19:37] proposal,

[2:19:39] but I additionally have concerns about

[2:19:44] um

[2:19:47] legalities associated with building on

[2:19:49] Mr. Repy's property before he acquiesces

[2:19:54] the 200 acre parcel that he

[2:19:58] should not be allowed to keep.

[2:20:00] So, I would just urge the town to

[2:20:04] cross their tees and dot their eyes.

[2:20:06] This this really isn't my project

[2:20:09] anymore.

[2:20:10] Um, of course, I do support a railway

[2:20:14] trail expansion, but there are several

[2:20:18] things that concern me. And um

[2:20:24] again, I I I thank you for the railway

[2:20:26] trail that you did build and you have a

[2:20:29] vision, but I have very deep concerns

[2:20:31] about the 200 acre parcel and the safety

[2:20:33] of my neighborhood that supersede my

[2:20:36] desire to

[2:20:39] » Thank you for your comments. Anybody

[2:20:41] else?

[2:20:42] >> Yeah, I just wanted to say that I would

[2:20:44] like to see the connection from like

[2:20:47] right where the blue and the red line

[2:20:48] meet. um like the end of the existing

[2:20:52] trail uh to connect to Beach Elementary

[2:20:56] as part of one of the projects. I think

[2:20:58] that was already thought of before. I

[2:21:01] just want to voice my support for that

[2:21:04] connection.

[2:21:07] >> Okay. Anybody else?

[2:21:09] >> Not sure. I What can you explain that?

[2:21:11] >> Well, maybe not where the you know like

[2:21:13] where the trail te's off and you can

[2:21:16] either go right or left.

[2:21:17] >> It's right where you go left. right

[2:21:19] where the sidewalk starts, there's a

[2:21:20] clear path to Beach Elementary. I think

[2:21:23] there's already a there's already some

[2:21:25] kind of concept plan for that

[2:21:26] connection.

[2:21:27] >> We just have to request property from

[2:21:29] the uh the county and they've already

[2:21:31] agreed to do that once we're ready for

[2:21:33] it.

[2:21:34] >> It's just a a boardwalk connection to

[2:21:36] the school,

[2:21:38] >> but they can do their field trips.

[2:21:40] >> Are you speaking about down where the

[2:21:43] water well is or are you thinking about

[2:21:44] up over the big hill once you go across

[2:21:47] the bridge? No, no. Right when you hit

[2:21:50] the tea, you can go right to Richfield

[2:21:52] Station or left takes you on the trail.

[2:21:55] You go left and then right where the

[2:21:56] sidewalk starts, there's like a clear

[2:21:59] straight path to the school.

[2:22:02] >> I'm We would just need to build a

[2:22:03] boardwalk

[2:22:06] >> real fast. We did a feasibility study

[2:22:08] with the walkable communities and then

[2:22:09] we actually took out there. So yeah,

[2:22:11] line of sight it is, but elevation wise

[2:22:13] it's like 70 ft cuz you're at sea level

[2:22:16] 6t above it at the trail and you're like

[2:22:18] plus 75 at the school. So we walked that

[2:22:21] actually for feasibility and they didn't

[2:22:23] know how to figure that out cuz that

[2:22:24] wasn't one of the initial phases. I'm

[2:22:26] not saying to exclude it, but the hurdle

[2:22:28] was the height difference uh cuz it's

[2:22:30] pretty level until you get to the school

[2:22:32] and it's

[2:22:32] >> it's steep

[2:22:33] >> and they abandoned the two trails that

[2:22:35] they did have because of they failed on

[2:22:38] the hillside. I was going to say I

[2:22:39] thought there were some switchbacks in

[2:22:40] there or something.

[2:22:41] >> They were, but they've been abandoned

[2:22:43] for a few years. They used to come down

[2:22:44] to the old well site and come through,

[2:22:46] but they failed. The slope failed. So,

[2:22:49] not saying not pursue it, but that was

[2:22:51] the hurdle when we did the initial

[2:22:52] feasibility study with a third party and

[2:22:55] they just thought it was not possible at

[2:22:58] that time. And I think it's safe to say

[2:23:00] there's I I I would be willing to bet

[2:23:02] you that there's not a single person on

[2:23:04] this council that wants to not have as

[2:23:07] much walkability as possible within our town. I mean, everybody wants

[2:23:12] to do that. It's it's not a matter of

[2:23:14] what we want to do. It's a matter of

[2:23:16] what we can do and how we get it done

[2:23:18] and what's feasible and what's not

[2:23:20] feasible. And so this is this piece

[2:23:24] that's being proposed here is an easy

[2:23:26] win because it was already approved by

[2:23:29] 21 agencies of the state.

[2:23:32] >> And uh I think Wendy's been pulling all

[2:23:34] the documentation from the original

[2:23:38] uh all of the stuff that we put together

[2:23:40] for the state and the joint evaluation

[2:23:42] committee that I testified in front of

[2:23:44] and all that. So we're gathering all the

[2:23:47] information. we'll represent it and and

[2:23:49] I I believe that that's doable. Uh not

[2:23:52] that we don't want to do anything else.

[2:23:54] It's just that this one is probably

[2:23:58] doable and gets us to the town limits

[2:24:00] and that, you know, hopefully that sets

[2:24:03] a pattern for a whole lot more

[2:24:05] walkability in the town.

[2:24:08] Does anybody else have anything they

[2:24:09] want to say about this or questions

[2:24:11] about this?

[2:24:12] >> I'm just going to push a little bit. Are

[2:24:14] you arguing that this is more feasible

[2:24:18] >> than a state verified

[2:24:22] grant

[2:24:24] to connect a neighborhood to town where

[2:24:26] it's unsafe?

[2:24:28] >> I'm I'm not saying that at all. I'm

[2:24:30] saying that this is something that was

[2:24:32] approved over 20 years ago and I want to

[2:24:35] see it move forward. It has nothing to

[2:24:38] do with the other project that we're

[2:24:39] talking about

[2:24:42] and it's not an eitheror situation as

[2:24:45] far as I'm concerned. We we pursue both

[2:24:47] of them at the same time. This one I

[2:24:49] think we can get done

[2:24:52] >> as opposed to the other one.

[2:24:53] >> I'm sorry.

[2:24:54] >> As opposed to the other one

[2:24:56] >> I didn't say. Did you hear me say that?

[2:24:58] Those words never left my lips. I said

[2:25:01] this one can be done. It was already

[2:25:03] approved. That's all I said. I didn't

[2:25:06] say anything else. Thank you.

[2:25:11] Can we move on to the home occupations

[2:25:13] discussion?

[2:25:15] >> Sharon.

[2:25:23] » Hi.

[2:25:23] >> Good evening, sir. Um, so you all have

[2:25:27] in front of you and you've introduced

[2:25:29] for um approval the um updates to the

[2:25:34] home occupations that you requested. Um,

[2:25:37] just a reminder, these are a quick fix,

[2:25:39] a 90-day fix. They are not how the

[2:25:43] planning commission is looking at for a

[2:25:46] long-term solution in the the six-month

[2:25:48] process of the land use classifications

[2:25:50] being updated. Um and so uh if you have

[2:25:54] any other questions or concerns, I'm

[2:25:57] here to answer them.

[2:25:59] >> One, um only one thing for me um one a

[2:26:03] where it says and has minimal negative

[2:26:05] impact

[2:26:06] >> on the neighborhood where the business

[2:26:07] is located. I think that is very

[2:26:10] subjective. When you say the words

[2:26:12] minimal and negative, those are not

[2:26:14] definitive things that you can define or

[2:26:16] explain and it opens it up to a gray

[2:26:18] area to be a person's opinion on what is

[2:26:21] minimal and negative. Um, when you go to

[2:26:25] J, you have it here where it says uh

[2:26:28] establishment of or operation of a home

[2:26:30] occupation is harmonious with the

[2:26:32] character of neighboring residential

[2:26:33] uses and does not create traffic, etc., I think that kind of covers that.

[2:26:38] >> So for me to make sure that we have

[2:26:41] codes that you can actually enforce and

[2:26:44] is not opinionated, I would ask to

[2:26:47] remove that verbiage.

[2:26:50] But that would be my only um from going

[2:26:52] through this. That's the only thing that

[2:26:53] I had concern about. I would like for

[2:26:56] our codes to be as succinct as possible

[2:26:59] so that there's not a lot of questions

[2:27:01] or opinions or or push back from people

[2:27:04] saying well I didn't have minimal imp

[2:27:08] you know it wasn't negative it was

[2:27:09] positive impact so that was be my only

[2:27:12] thing that I would want to bring up

[2:27:15] >> okay

[2:27:16] >> good call

[2:27:19] >> council anything else

[2:27:21] >> agree with

[2:27:24] Just [clears throat] just want to make

[2:27:25] it as easy as possible. If it's wrong, If it's right, it's right.

[2:27:29] >> No opinions, no favoritism, you know.

[2:27:32] Just make it simple.

[2:27:36] >> And I I'm just

[2:27:43] » up here so you get recorded, please.

[2:27:51] Nothing in this code is going to

[2:27:53] supersede a homeowner association

[2:27:56] governing documents that will limit what

[2:27:59] kind of businesses or what kind of

[2:28:02] occupancy can be in their home. Correct.

[2:28:05] >> That's correct.

[2:28:06] >> That's my question. Thank you.

[2:28:08] >> I'm glad you asked that question.

[2:28:10] >> I just wanted to ask a procedural

[2:28:12] question. Is is this something that

[2:28:15] would need to be brought up for a vote

[2:28:18] at the next meeting? Is this something

[2:28:20] that can be voted on now?

[2:28:23] >> Can can be voted on comments.

[2:28:25] >> Yeah, it has to be brought up in the

[2:28:27] next meeting.

[2:28:29] >> I think we're all in alignment with

[2:28:31] >> So, yeah, I think that what's presented

[2:28:34] at the meeting

[2:28:36] um doesn't have to be this document. It

[2:28:39] can be something different. And if we

[2:28:41] all agree that we would like a c to see

[2:28:43] a certain change, that change can be

[2:28:45] made

[2:28:46] before before

[2:28:48] >> before a regular session.

[2:28:50] >> That was my question.

[2:28:51] >> So I have a couple questions about this.

[2:28:58] [clears throat]

[2:28:58] >> Um so this contains two sections and one

[2:29:02] of the sections contains home

[2:29:04] occupations that are not permitted. And

[2:29:06] I did a little research

[2:29:09] and I did not find

[2:29:13] home occupations that were not permitted

[2:29:16] in common code. So I'm I'm curious about

[2:29:22] um the section of this code that does

[2:29:26] not require a permit.

[2:29:28] >> Can you be specific about where a permit

[2:29:30] is not required? where it says there's

[2:29:33] >> so in the first um

[2:29:38] customary home occupation um it has a

[2:29:42] long list of things and pay is a zoning

[2:29:45] permit is obtained then it has

[2:29:48] conditional use in the RV1 RLD RMD R HD

[2:29:53] and RPC

[2:29:55] um and I don't see that same language in

[2:29:58] that um if I were reading the zoning

[2:30:01] code. Uh I would assume that I do not

[2:30:04] need a permit. So if you are planning on

[2:30:08] requiring a permit for

[2:30:11] um section two,

[2:30:14] >> I would say that we would want to

[2:30:16] include that same language that it

[2:30:19] requires a permit and requiring a permit

[2:30:21] for a home occupation is the common

[2:30:23] practice from what I can tell.

[2:30:27] Um, so that there's that in general. Um,

[2:30:32] additionally,

[2:30:33] >> can I add on to that real quick because

[2:30:34] it's that is a good call. Is there a

[2:30:37] difference because it's a zoning permit

[2:30:39] versus home occupation? Is there a

[2:30:40] difference between the two? Are they

[2:30:42] representing the same phrasing?

[2:30:44] >> We kind of weren't sure why that was in

[2:30:46] there because everything needs a permit.

[2:30:48] Um, we did leave it in there. I will

[2:30:50] tell you that the planning commission is

[2:30:52] discussing

[2:30:54] not requiring a permit for a minor home

[2:30:56] occupation which is what is

[2:31:00] um comparable to two. And while it isn't

[2:31:03] sort of established practice to do that,

[2:31:06] it is the more sort of modern new pro

[2:31:09] approach to allow these home occupations

[2:31:12] you can't even tell are happening to

[2:31:14] happen without a permit. And so that's

[2:31:16] why that is. So I think that it's worth

[2:31:18] a discussion here. might make sense

[2:31:20] since this is the shorter term fix to

[2:31:22] just add an I that says a zoning permit

[2:31:25] is obtained to two and put a pin in that

[2:31:28] discussion for when you get the bigger

[2:31:30] >> I would I think that's what Lor's

[2:31:31] getting I would concur with that too

[2:31:33] just for continuity uh as well and then

[2:31:36] addressing when when they do the full

[2:31:38] table uh review. Thank you.

[2:31:41] >> I have three more things.

[2:31:43] >> Can I just say one more thing to this

[2:31:45] one? Right. So the zoning permit and the

[2:31:47] home occupation permit are two

[2:31:49] completely different things. So I think

[2:31:51] making sure that that's defined and

[2:31:54] understood

[2:31:55] before moving forward with that verbage

[2:31:57] is really really important because you

[2:31:59] don't want to get caught out there with

[2:32:01] a person having a zone impairment when

[2:32:02] they're supposed to have a home

[2:32:03] occupation because they are two

[2:32:05] different things.

[2:32:10] » What's what's the difference then? I

[2:32:12] mean, I get it, but like what would be

[2:32:13] the difference in the language? Why we

[2:32:15] would put one the word zoning versus

[2:32:17] home occupation in a home occupation

[2:32:19] ordinance?

[2:32:20] >> So, again, we were we we did this in one

[2:32:24] sitting and the planning commission if

[2:32:26] that that's helpful for perspective. Um,

[2:32:29] and so it typically a home occupation is

[2:32:34] going to want a use permit, which is

[2:32:36] still a zoning type of zoning permit,

[2:32:38] but it's not the same as the larger

[2:32:41] permit.

[2:32:42] >> So, I think it might want to just say a

[2:32:45] permit is obtained so that the

[2:32:48] administration of what the permits look

[2:32:50] like has some flexibility to make things

[2:32:54] more simple. um

[2:32:58] as needed.

[2:33:02] » What's the difference between uh 2 E and

[2:33:05] 2G?

[2:33:07] >> 2 and 2 G.

[2:33:11] » So

[2:33:13] 2 E is that you can't sell anything,

[2:33:17] right? And to F is that you can't

[2:33:21] display anything.

[2:33:22] >> Uh G

[2:33:23] >> or sorry G. Okay. Oh,

[2:33:31] I guess there's really not a difference.

[2:33:33] >> Well, if you if you have a hair care

[2:33:35] place, you can't sell radios out of it.

[2:33:37] So, it's like no commodity, no if you if

[2:33:39] you're doing hair in your home, you

[2:33:41] can't also sell remote controls. You

[2:33:44] know what I mean? So when they're saying

[2:33:45] no um article or commodity is offered on

[2:33:48] sale on the premises, if you have a a

[2:33:50] business, a home business that's

[2:33:51] specifically for a specific thing, you

[2:33:53] can't also sell other things out of your

[2:33:55] home.

[2:33:56] >> Wouldn't that be covered under G though?

[2:33:58] >> Well, not necessarily because you still

[2:34:01] you you still have to say you can't sell

[2:34:04] other things except the service that

[2:34:05] you're supposed to give. And then when

[2:34:08] you get to G, that's like you can't have

[2:34:11] a shop set up where you just in there

[2:34:13] just selling goods instead of having an

[2:34:15] actual service. So it's kind of the

[2:34:17] same, but then again, specificity.

[2:34:19] Somebody could take one thing and put it

[2:34:21] under something different.

[2:34:23] >> So it covers all bases.

[2:34:24] >> So this says no article or commodity,

[2:34:28] >> right?

[2:34:29] >> Which does bring me to my second

[2:34:31] question.

[2:34:33] Um,

[2:34:35] do we have a cottage industry law that

[2:34:38] would allow somebody to sell their baked

[2:34:41] bread, their I mean we're we're

[2:34:46] [laughter]

[2:34:46] those are the kinds of things

[2:34:48] >> needle work in my wife's case

[2:34:51] >> different things. Um, so trying to

[2:34:54] conflate the two, a home occupation that

[2:34:57] should require a permit and business

[2:34:58] license and all this other stuff and a

[2:35:01] cottage industry

[2:35:04] is is a little bit um confusing. So I I

[2:35:09] would very be I would be interested to

[2:35:11] see the modern code that you're talking

[2:35:14] about because I couldn't find any.

[2:35:17] So

[2:35:19] you're you're talking about what my

[2:35:22] reasoning for advising the planning

[2:35:24] commission on the permitting is is it's

[2:35:27] not based on current a current a

[2:35:29] specific current code. It's based on

[2:35:32] discussions in the planning practice

[2:35:34] about making home occupations more

[2:35:36] accessible and best practices for that.

[2:35:39] So,

[2:35:40] >> I would just be interested to to read

[2:35:42] about it to educate myself if you have

[2:35:44] something on that from somewhere. Um,

[2:35:48] because

[2:35:50] to me, we should be permanent in these

[2:35:53] home occupations. Um, which brings me to

[2:35:55] my third point. Um, permits do a couple

[2:35:58] things. They they make sure that you

[2:36:02] know what's going into the neighborhoods

[2:36:04] where home occupations are allowed.

[2:36:06] um they make sure that those uses are

[2:36:09] compatible. When you have those things

[2:36:11] not permitted, you don't know. Um I know

[2:36:15] you had somebody visit the planning

[2:36:16] commission that wants to do bun repair.

[2:36:20] >> Um

[2:36:22] and then we have this definition for an

[2:36:24] adult bookstore in our code that we need

[2:36:27] to approve as well.

[2:36:30] Um,

[2:36:31] I think that having

[2:36:34] controlled items and substances

[2:36:38] be

[2:36:42] serviced in commercial zones rather than

[2:36:44] residential zones is something that I'm

[2:36:46] for and I did bring that up when you

[2:36:49] first brought this to us. Um,

[2:36:54] I I don't know. I'll just I'll just say

[2:36:56] I don't know that I can approve this

[2:37:00] based on no permitting or no regulations

[2:37:05] related to controlled items and

[2:37:07] substances. So,

[2:37:11] um

[2:37:12] but I would like to know why because

[2:37:14] people are going to ask me and if you

[2:37:15] get somebody

[2:37:18] um that is unhappy with the home

[2:37:21] occupation that they're forced to live

[2:37:24] by Mhm.

[2:37:26] >> I want to be able to answer that

[2:37:27] question.

[2:37:30] >> So,

[2:37:30] >> can I just add real quickly though? So,

[2:37:33] like the adult bookstore,

[2:37:35] it's already existing in the current

[2:37:37] code as written. Um, the real push here

[2:37:41] was I guess you a handful of years ago,

[2:37:45] it removed the RV1,

[2:37:49] RMD, all the people who could have true

[2:37:52] traditional to include cottage, right?

[2:37:54] cottage still requires permits with home

[2:37:56] occupation. Usually the county actually

[2:37:58] doesn't require it but the town the town

[2:37:59] does. Uh so it there was this change

[2:38:02] where it removed it and the quick fix

[2:38:04] was why would we not why not just unreal

[2:38:08] and nobody can Sarah correct me if I'm

[2:38:10] wrong nobody can nobody can explain

[2:38:13] why the code was adjusted to remove the

[2:38:17] areas where true home occupation would

[2:38:20] be. So, we had all this code and then

[2:38:22] somebody where you see in section two

[2:38:25] where it says conditional use in RV1

[2:38:27] that was eliminated and went um it was

[2:38:31] converted to NP versus conditional and

[2:38:34] the conditional drives that you have to

[2:38:36] have a permit uh to do that. So, for

[2:38:39] example, because I know you had brought

[2:38:40] up like uh like marijuana like sales or

[2:38:43] something like that, somebody would

[2:38:44] still have to come here and request a

[2:38:47] permit and if it doesn't live in the

[2:38:51] zoning uh rules that we have, they

[2:38:53] wouldn't get permitted for it. Now, if

[2:38:54] they go and sell on their own, then then

[2:38:58] they have a business that doesn't comply

[2:39:00] with with the town code, but but that's

[2:39:02] a whole different discussion uh on on

[2:39:05] enforcement. Um, but this here is really

[2:39:09] just actually enabling the community to

[2:39:12] have those home businesses and those

[2:39:14] cottage laws. Uh, and then there was

[2:39:16] even Dan had even brought up a

[2:39:17] discussion. You know, there's a

[2:39:19] gentleman, John, right next to you sells

[2:39:21] uh his shoes, his Nike shoes and Pokemon

[2:39:24] cards and basketball cards all the time.

[2:39:26] You know, what about that? It's like a

[2:39:28] popup that he does as he see fits. He

[2:39:30] puts a table out, puts some cards out

[2:39:33] there, people will will stop by. uh that

[2:39:36] actually conflicts with the home

[2:39:38] occupation, but that's not a home

[2:39:40] occupation. That's kind of like a

[2:39:41] temporary when you do when your son does

[2:39:43] paw paws, you know.

[2:39:44] >> Yeah. So, there's there's I I think

[2:39:46] there's other aspects of this that would

[2:39:47] be addressed through that we were

[2:39:49] working with Sarah on addressing through

[2:39:51] uh the the land use table and some other

[2:39:53] codes in there, but this specific

[2:39:56] ordinance is just to add back in the the

[2:39:59] zoning areas that were removed. I don't

[2:40:02] know. They just magically disappeared a

[2:40:04] couple years ago.

[2:40:06] >> I don't know how.

[2:40:07] >> So, how would

[2:40:07] >> And I don't know how either. But this

[2:40:09] isn't addressing any of those things

[2:40:11] that you just said. [laughter]

[2:40:13] >> No, it does. It adds it in section two.

[2:40:14] It puts it puts it back in,

[2:40:18] >> right? But it removed I remember it was

[2:40:20] removed an item 10 that had uh and I

[2:40:24] don't have item 10 in front of me.

[2:40:26] >> Um Oh my.

[2:40:28] >> And the the situation has come up. I

[2:40:30] mean you we Chesby Village can't even

[2:40:34] ride a bike to town now because of

[2:40:36] >> what's item 10 that you're trying to

[2:40:38] >> Well, what I'm saying is we are

[2:40:40] addressing this code now, right? Um we

[2:40:44] were very picky about some other code

[2:40:47] that really had no impact. But this code

[2:40:50] does have an impact. It is going to put

[2:40:53] certain occupations in residential areas

[2:40:56] where residential use and the people who

[2:40:58] move there for residential use rely on

[2:41:02] that zoning. And so um

[2:41:09] for me

[2:41:10] >> like what though like can give me give

[2:41:11] me

[2:41:12] >> I would say that that a a person who

[2:41:14] repairs firearms right

[2:41:18] there are a lot of reasons to repair

[2:41:20] firearms firearms and of themselves are

[2:41:23] not a bad thing. Um I would prefer that particular type of business though

[2:41:29] is in a commercial zone. I might be a

[2:41:31] person that lives next to that business

[2:41:34] that

[2:41:36] um doesn't feel comfortable around guns.

[2:41:41] Additionally, you might be there's all

[2:41:44] kinds of people who are

[2:41:47] associated with guns.

[2:41:49] That person that is repairing the guns

[2:41:52] might not have control over who is

[2:41:54] coming to his business in the

[2:41:56] residential area to get their firearm

[2:41:58] repaired. I think that

[2:42:04] removing

[2:42:07] the ability to have controlled items and

[2:42:10] substances sold in residential a

[2:42:13] neighborhoods or or be associated with a

[2:42:15] business in a residential neighborhood

[2:42:18] would eliminate most of my concerns

[2:42:22] with this

[2:42:24] in addition to requiring a permit for a

[2:42:27] home occupation.

[2:42:29] Um,

[2:42:30] >> well, this policy does require a permit.

[2:42:32] We can put the language in there

[2:42:35] basis for denying

[2:42:38] certain things.

[2:42:39] >> Well, if it's not allowed in the code if

[2:42:40] it's not allowed in the town code, then

[2:42:42] you wouldn't be allowed to have a there

[2:42:43] is or do we need to adjust? But you

[2:42:45] can't you can't have pharmaceuticals in

[2:42:47] your like I can't just start making

[2:42:48] aspirin in my house and sell it like

[2:42:50] that. like it's got to follow state code

[2:42:51] for like pharmaceuticals and like the

[2:42:54] mar like Maryland's uh like like for

[2:42:56] marijuana dispensaries is a very very

[2:42:59] strict code. So it's not like you could

[2:43:01] just stand up a dispensary in your home

[2:43:03] or anything. The gun one is an

[2:43:04] interesting one. I I don't know the

[2:43:06] answer to that. But like the medical

[2:43:07] stuff, marijuana,

[2:43:08] >> but we need to know the answer to that.

[2:43:10] Well, that but that that

[2:43:12] >> the problem is is that if there's a list

[2:43:15] somewhere that's already been made with

[2:43:17] things that are not allowed, then find a

[2:43:19] list. If the list is not there, then

[2:43:22] make the list instead of going back and

[2:43:24] forth over conjecture with our opinions.

[2:43:26] Exactly. So, that's the thing. So, if we

[2:43:29] don't already have a list, then let's

[2:43:31] stop talking about it and make a list.

[2:43:33] >> But doesn't the land use table

[2:43:34] >> because we're wasting the time right

[2:43:35] now. We have something in front of us

[2:43:38] that opens us up to get something done

[2:43:40] that was taken away without any purpose.

[2:43:42] Now we want to move on to say, "Okay,

[2:43:44] well, we got this straight. Let's make a

[2:43:47] list of the things that we don't want in

[2:43:48] the neighborhoods because we deem them

[2:43:50] unsafe." Then make that list and let's

[2:43:52] vote on that because right now this is

[2:43:54] just the conversation.

[2:43:55] >> It does say needs to be harmonious with

[2:43:58] the character, but that's open to

[2:44:01] >> I might go to the guy that that fixed

[2:44:03] guns,

[2:44:04] >> I think. So what's the character?

[2:44:06] >> I think we just need to be

[2:44:07] >> it's subjective and specific.

[2:44:09] >> If we deal with subjectivity and

[2:44:11] opinion, then what are we going to

[2:44:13] actually get to? Because we all can feel

[2:44:15] a certain way about something.

[2:44:16] >> They tried to accomplish it with two H,

[2:44:18] but it just needs to be more specific.

[2:44:20] Well, I would say that there is a list

[2:44:22] of controlled items and if we said

[2:44:27] controlled items

[2:44:29] that would

[2:44:32] account for most of PE most people's

[2:44:35] concerns,

[2:44:36] >> we just need to listen. If there's a

[2:44:37] list already in place from the smarter

[2:44:39] people that was here before us, then

[2:44:41] let's go to that list. If that list does

[2:44:43] not exist, then let's go ahead and move

[2:44:45] forward and then we can get that list in

[2:44:47] front of us and we can vote on that when

[2:44:49] we're ready.

[2:44:50] >> There's code on e-code library that

[2:44:53] looks great to me

[2:44:55] and it's

[2:44:56] >> but is the code on chess. You have an

[2:44:58] alternate proposal that is our code.

[2:45:01] >> I just wonder why why we are being

[2:45:06] so creative. You don't need to be and I'm always going to defer to

[2:45:12] protecting

[2:45:14] residential use in a residential area.

[2:45:18] >> Are you about to say something, Eric?

[2:45:19] >> I Yeah, I guess I'm um

[2:45:23] so my question is same back to number

[2:45:27] two, right? Um, and going back to uh,

[2:45:33] Councilman Evans comments about um, E

[2:45:36] and G.

[2:45:38] >> Mhm.

[2:45:39] >> And, um, how they seem to be the same?

[2:45:42] They do seem to be the same to me. But

[2:45:44] my question really is

[2:45:49] uh so are we saying that only services

[2:45:54] and not the sale of any physical item

[2:46:00] is allowable.

[2:46:03] >> So you can't conduct sales on premises.

[2:46:07] And this may be those two may just be

[2:46:10] sometimes when we do stuff at the

[2:46:12] planning commission we'll add stuff in

[2:46:14] and then the next time we'll realize

[2:46:16] they match up. Um but we like we did

[2:46:19] this pretty quickly. Um so we could

[2:46:21] probably remove one of those but you can

[2:46:23] still sell items just not on premises.

[2:46:26] So only via the mail.

[2:46:28] >> Okay. So just a really simple question.

[2:46:32] Is this

[2:46:34] require a permit to have a lemonade

[2:46:36] stand?

[2:46:39] [laughter]

[2:46:39] >> A lemonade stand is not a home

[2:46:41] occupation. Um, it's a temporary use.

[2:46:44] It's not permitted or not permitted in

[2:46:46] your code.

[2:46:49] Um, a lemonade stand is technically the

[2:46:52] sale of food and beverages, which the

[2:46:54] county regulates. Um, so it's a little

[2:46:57] more of a complicated question. Uh, and

[2:46:59] I don't think that a zoning permit would

[2:47:02] be required. There's no zoning authority

[2:47:04] over lemonade. So,

[2:47:05] >> don't call the county on my

[2:47:07] >> No, that this expl this ex exact

[2:47:09] question was emailed to Sarah and the

[2:47:12] attorney and [clears throat] that is

[2:47:14] where we would add in something in

[2:47:16] because what we do not want to do I

[2:47:17] don't think I don't think anybody in

[2:47:18] here wants to be on the news as the town

[2:47:21] who shuts down a nine-year-old kid's

[2:47:23] lemonade stand like it happened a

[2:47:25] handful of years ago. Uh, and so there

[2:47:29] was discussions about adding some

[2:47:30] language into the zoning ordinance that

[2:47:33] addresses that. And that's why I brought

[2:47:35] up the example of the gentleman next to

[2:47:36] John who sells Pokemon cards,

[2:47:39] >> right? And so it, you know, we can't

[2:47:42] just say, oh, except for lemonade stand.

[2:47:44] It has to be a broader

[2:47:46] >> [snorts]

[2:47:47] >> uh clause so that because there are

[2:47:49] other absurdities that you can come up

[2:47:51] with, I'm sure.

[2:47:53] >> Well, and the planning commission is

[2:47:55] working on that language. We worked on

[2:47:57] it a bit. I'm working on it to present

[2:47:59] to them again um for April's meeting.

[2:48:02] So, they do want to make sure people

[2:48:05] kids can sell lemonade or Pokemon cards

[2:48:07] or whatever.

[2:48:09] >> And I just want to comment that I I

[2:48:11] concur with uh um Councilman Green's um

[2:48:15] opposition to a a broad controlled

[2:48:18] substance clause. I it I'd like to see a

[2:48:21] specific list um because and it's the

[2:48:25] same thing. I can go to the to the uh to

[2:48:27] the situation that we talked about the

[2:48:29] last time at the meeting or whatever it

[2:48:31] was. I I brought up the idea of someone

[2:48:34] who does some uh small batch micro

[2:48:37] brewery and sells it to you know a local

[2:48:42] establishment

[2:48:44] um

[2:48:45] through and they can sell it there to

[2:48:47] individuals.

[2:48:49] um something like that I don't think

[2:48:51] should be um banned with some type of

[2:48:55] broad controlled substance uh clause

[2:48:59] >> you have a micro brewery standing in

[2:49:01] front of the house right next to the

[2:49:02] lemonade

[2:49:05] >> let's progress a big part

[2:49:08] >> another county

[2:49:11] » all right all right I think that we I

[2:49:14] think we talked this out pretty

[2:49:15] thoroughly I mean is does anybody else

[2:49:17] have any final comments before we

[2:49:19] adjourn. Thank you. I don't hear any.

[2:49:21] Uh, all right. This your last chance,

[2:49:24] Laura. Your last chance. Okay,

[2:49:26] everybody. Good. All right. Is there a

[2:49:30] Let's see. We're not going to do item

[2:49:32] six because Dan's not here.

[2:49:34] >> Not here.

[2:49:34] >> So, uh, the next item on the agenda is a

[2:49:37] motion for adjournment.

[2:49:39] >> What took you so long? All in favor say

[2:49:41] I. I. I.

[2:49:43] >> Thank you very much. Very good meeting.

[2:49:45] Uh, I appreciate everybody's input.

[2:49:48] We covered a lot of territory and we got

[2:49:50] a lot done. Thank you.

April 7, 2026 Town Council work session

Transcript