Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I did.

Except for running run.

The special meeting of the Annapolis City Council Monday, September 29th.

Our third last one will be called to order at 701.

This time, please, please join us for the invocation given by Alderwoman Finlayson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I ask everyone to please bow your heads.

Dear Heavenly Father, I come to you thanking you and praising you for the great gifts of our city.

I ask for continued blessings for the residents and for this legislative body.

Dear Lord, I pray for your guidance in making laws that are just for all people, regardless of race, gender, social economic status, party affiliation, or where they live.

Teach us the spirit and value of cooperation and compromise so that we might create laws and programs that will have a positive difference in the lives of all citizens.

Give us the courage to move from fear to fight to do what is fair, right, and good.

Lord, grant us the gifts of wisdom, justice, counsel, and fortitude that will result in a strong and healthy and resilient community.

These and other blessings I ask in your name.

Amen.

Yes, sir.

Mayor Buffley.

Alderman Huntley.

Present.

All woman O'Neal.

Present.

Alderman Pendel Charles.

Here.

Aldwoman Finnlayson.

Present.

Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Present.

Alderman Gay.

Present.

Alderman Savage.

Present.

Alderman Arnett.

Present.

Thank you.

You, Mr.

City Attorney, please present the first on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda.

This time I would entertain an emotion to approve the agenda as amended to remove City Council citation.

SA 7.26.

As well as 01925 and 012.

Oh.

I mean R 30.

R3525.

Can I get a motion on that, please?

You all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item of the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item of the agenda is City Council citation ID 13725, Downtown Annapolis Partnership.

Okay.

Harry.

All right, if we get downtown Annapolis Partnership to come forward.

Well, if they are here, Downtown Annapolis Partnership.

All right.

Well, I will read this citation.

On behalf of the residents of the City Council of Annapolis, we're pleased to confer upon you this recognition of the downtown Annapolis Partnership and Executive Director Eric Evans for their thoughtful upgrades and enhancements to Wiseman Park, located near the visitor center on West Street.

And once overlooked corner, this pocket park is reimagined into a welcoming public space that showcases the creativity and whimsy that is the hallmark of the spirit of Annapolis.

Through careful planning and stewardship, the park now serves as a model of how small urban spaces can become vibrant gathering places.

The park's recognition by the National Alliance of Preservation Commission underscores the significance of this achievement and showcases Annapolis as a leader in historic preservation and placemaking.

We extend our gratitude and congratulations for this extending outstanding contribution to our cultural and civic life, and thank you for raising the funds to make that happen.

We truly appreciate all the work the Downtown Annapolis Partnership does for us.

Let's have a round of applause for those guys.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda ceremonial item ID 14025 Proclamation Hispanic Heritage Month.

Right.

Anyone here for Historic Heritage Month, please come forward.

All right, I will also read this citation.

As you will see, we have all the Hispanic Heritage flags flowing throughout the city.

On behalf of the residents of the City of Annapolis, we are pleased to confer upon you the City Council citation in recognition of your outstanding partnership and commitment to our city's youth.

Your collaboration has been vital in advancing both the No Harm in Schools program and career and college exploration initiatives.

Through these efforts, you have provided invaluable mentorship.

Sorry, Kate.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Sorry, Kerry, got you mixed up there.

Say hi.

Sorry.

As you can see, I've got short timers.

Here is the proclamation for our great Hispanic team.

Whereas the City of Annapolis recognizes the contributions of Hispanic Americans and celebrates Hispanic Heritage Culture, and whereas Hispanic Heritage Month celebration was started in 1968 under President Lyndon B.

Johnson, who issued a presidential proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe a week in September with ceremonies, programming, and activities.

And whereas public officials, educators, librarians, and community members observe the months by celebrating the culture, tradition of people whose ancestry can be traced to Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America, and Caribbean Islands.

And whereas the City of Annapolis recognizes the vital contributions of Hispanic and Latino residents of the City of Annapolis, Androndo County, and Maryland in our economic workforce, in our economy and workforce.

Whereas the City of Annapolis recognizes that Hispanic and Latina residents play an important role socially, culturally, and in our faith communities.

And whereas we see the systematic inequalities facing Hispanic and Latina peoples who live in our community and recognize the importance of moving the city of Annapolis towards a more just future for all residents.

And whereas September marks a significant anniversary in the independence of Latin American countries, including Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and many others.

Now be it resolved that the City of Annapolis urges all residents to observe and celebrate the significant contributions of Hispanics and Latino people between September 15th and October 15th.

Thank you all.

Let's have a round of applause for that.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is ID 14125.

Citation Kerry Miller in recognition of her dedicated support and service to Annapolis youth.

Okay, Kerry, please come forward.

I apologize for that, guys.

Thank you.

Rhonda.

Do you want to read it, Ronda?

Okay.

All right.

On behalf of the residents of City Annapolis, we're pleased to confer upon you this city council citation in recognition of your outstanding partnership and commitment to our city's youth.

Your collaboration has been vital in advancing both the No Harm in Schools program and career and college exploration initiatives.

Through these efforts, you have provided invaluable mentorship, leadership, opportunities, and pathways to grow for empowered students to embrace and grow and brace a growth mindset, explore higher education and careers, and reach their fullest potential.

With sincere gratitude, the City of Annapolis honors Pathways to Peace for helping shape brighter futures for the next generation.

Thank you, Kerry Mueller.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do you want to say something?

Sure.

So thank you.

The first time I met you was at the Candlelight Vigil for Terry Bosley.

And that was after you had been elected and before you became mayor.

And I thought, oh my gosh, we're so lucky to have somebody who cares so much about kids that they would come out late at night to this candlelight vigil on President Street.

And that meant so much to me, and it has just been a highlight of my career to be able to partner with Baruch and Tola and Karen Meikal, and just all that the city has done to show that they really, it's not just you didn't just say it, you like put a lot of money and time into it into our partnership, and it has made a world of difference.

And it, you know, you've just been such a special mayor to our kids of this city.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

The next item is petitions, reports, and communications beginning with update from the mayor.

So good evening, everyone.

I want to start tonight by congratulating the winners of the September 16th primary.

But I'd also like to acknowledge and thank all the candidates who put their names forward.

It takes courage, commitment, and a lot of hard work to run for office.

We have all different priorities and approaches, but we all want to make Annapolis better.

So thank you all.

Uh those of you who stepped up and for being brave to do what you do and working here for this city that we all love.

Let's have a round of applause for everybody.

It's a thankless job.

Unfortunately, this year, there was an error in the unofficial uh count.

That was the unofficial count on election night when the votes of the two candidates in Ward Six were swapped.

Uh the error was picked up during the final count and corrected, showing that checks and balances in our process work.

In addition, uh the board issued a formal apology and last Thursday conducted a full audit and hand count to ensure all votes totals were correct.

The order reaffirmed that the official certified results were all right.

In particular, the audit results should give some closure to the candidates in ward four, where there was a very close result because the audit reaffirmed the accuracy of the four vote margin.

Uh, and that then they announced that in the certified results.

Again, congratulations to all candidates, and we remind voters that November 4th is the general election uh with a new mayor uh and council sworn in on December 1.

For the new people.

Uh starting Thursday, the Annapolis boat shows are in town for the next two weekends.

Uh the Power Boat Show is first, then the Sailboat show next weekend.

Uh for residents, especially in downtown.

Please give yourselves extra time to get around because big crowds are anticipated.

For visitors, please pay careful attention to parking restrictions.

Uh, best bet for parking are the garages where you can pay by the hour or the day.

Uh, the free magenta shuttle will be running throughout the weekend to help you move around downtown.

Uh, I also want to thank everyone who came out last Monday uh for the dedication of a state highway marker to honor the Capitol Gazette 5.

Uh I particularly want to thank Carl Snowden, the caucus of African American leaders, as well as the Maryland Transportation Commission and State Highways who partnered with us on this project.

Uh the mass shooting at the Capitol Gazette was one of the major events of my first year as mayor, and I'm proud that in my final year, we have found another way to remember those we lost that day.

Gerald Fishman, Rob Hyerson, Rebecca Smith, Wendy Winters, and John McNamara.

As you drive down either side of Road Boulevard, approaching Grouse Market, you can see the highway markers that will hopefully serve as a reminder to all they gave to our community, as well as a meaningful reflection on the power and purpose of a free press.

As members of our Jewish community observe Yom Kippur later this week, we honor this day of reflection, atonement, and renewal.

May it be a time of peace, forgiveness, and spiritual strength for all who observe.

Thank you all.

Now let's get on with the meeting.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item.

Yes, sir.

The next item is reports by committee.

Uhman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

So environmental matters at our last meeting.

We recommended favorably the two boat show ordinances as far as the lease um police ordinances.

And then for the harbor line, 02125, we took no action because I believe that's going to be postponed or withdrawn.

Uh R40, which is equitable public water access.

We did postpone action on that because we are going to we requested a presentation from um plan zone.

So if anybody wants to hear a presentation on the recommended on the um action items coming out of the water access plan, and that'd be a good opportunity to hear it.

Um so yeah, I may have a few amendments.

I'll be introducing just to tweak some of the language as far as um access for um seniors and um disabled.

But uh other than that, we have 01425.

We postponed action on that because we're having a joint meeting with rules and government committee this Friday at 3 p.m.

1 p.m.

1 p.m.

And that is just going to be focusing on 014, which is implementation of an apples ahead conference of plan.

Um after that, we're still gonna have our own separate meeting, but that's gonna be on October 9th at 3 p.m.

That's all I have, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Honorable O'Neill.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

The transportation committee meeting will meet uh committee will meet on Wednesday, October 8th, 4 p.m.

here in Council Chambers.

We're gonna continue discussions with our parking contractors um about the data that we've requested, as well as talking about the implementation of the new legislation that we passed uh with the city budget in regards to the fine for overstaying your payment.

So looking at those implications, and all are welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The rules and city government committee met on the 29th.

Of September.

I don't think that's a correct date.

Um we met on September the 8th.

I'm sorry.

Uh we addressed three pieces of legislation.

The first being 014, implementation of Annapolis ahead comprehensive plan 2040.

We postponed action, uh, preferring to get some additional information.

Uh 01725 limiting short-term rentals per block base.

We gave it a favorable recommendation with amendments.

And oh 2425 election report deadlines.

The committee gave it an unfavorable recommendation.

The next meeting of the rules of city government committee will be on Friday the third at one o'clock, and as already stated by Alderman Savage, it will be a joint committee meeting with the environmental matters committee.

We'll address the joint issues first, and then we'll pick up the rules and city government issues after.

Thank you very much.

You alderman Shandomai.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Economic matters will be meeting on October 15th.

We are moving our meeting forward to 6 o'clock instead of 6 30.

During our September 17th meeting, we gave a favorable recommendation to both O3225 and O33635, the boat show leases, and we postpone action on O3325 market house lease.

Did you have something to clarify on your end?

Yeah, just something I wanted to add regarding the transportation committee.

Um just to commend the chair who finally managed to get um premium parking to present.

Um, but I wanted to actually send something out for public consumption.

Important thing that I feel that we learned from that meeting as far as garage usage.

Um they showed us data from June, July, and August, and in June and July, the garage was not filled to 100% capacity at all.

If I remember correctly, it was just August, and in August, it was only one day out of each week, and that was typically Saturday in the after midday or afternoon for a short period.

So just to put that in people's brains, because it shows that we have plenty of capacity in that garage for removing parking elsewhere in the city.

So thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Thank you.

I won't go through everything we considered at the September 17th Finance Committee meeting, but I do want to hit a few highlights on the speed monitoring system finds uh this bill R 3325 would bring us in line with the state on more progressive speed fines.

So if uh somebody is going 50 miles an hour over the speed limit, they should get a higher fine than uh if they're going 12.

But we decided to postpone it to make sure we had all of our data totally correct.

Uh I'll skip through a couple of these and say on the market house lease.

We decided to postpone that as well.

We suggested a few areas for the city to negotiate with the tenants, and uh we'll see what central services comes back to us with on that.

And then uh another pop button one was the market space interest charge waiver.

We had a really good presentation about what's going on at market space, trying to understand how that outdoor dining there is interacting with our parking agreement and with some back interest, and ultimately we do not take any action on the the R 3425, but I believe economic matters is gonna be hearing at their next meeting more about the market space and making sure that we are able to keep that vibrant area going.

So our next meeting will be this Wednesday, October 1st.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Mayor I just have a quick question.

I'm not seeing uh thank you.

I'm not seeing 02925 on any of the committee agendas and it was recommended favorably out of our committee.

I'm wondering what other committee is and and what and what's the status of it.

I I'd have to this is the title I have uh uh complete community it's it's uh currently in rules.

I'm being told.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anybody else?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Sure, the next item of agenda's comments by the general public.

All right, okay.

Just for everybody for clarification, we will have separate public hearings tonight, and we will call you up if you are here for City Council pay and benefit deadlines.

If you are here to talk about accessory dwelling units, we'll bring you up separately for that.

If you hear about uh reallowing historic duplexes in R2 zoning districts, separate public hearing, uh City Capital Facility Charge Payment Plan and Exceptions of City Prohibition on doors and gates opening over cyborgs.

All of those will have their own separate uh public hearing, and I will call you up when they're ready.

Anything else outside of that, please come forward.

Uh and I have the first person signed up as John Taylor.

Good evening.

I'm here tonight.

No, we didn't.

Thank you.

Um I'm here tonight to add my voice to many residents of Choxton Park.

And John, if you could just say your full address and full name, and then speak thank you.

Yes, it's uh John Taylor, address one four four Spa Drive, Annapolis.

Thank you.

And as I mentioned, I'm here to add my voice to the many residents of Choxton Park who have commented negatively about one aspect of the water access plan, and that is the proposed paddle board concession.

And without going into great detail, I mean, firstly, the park is currently zoned R2, and it seems to me that the only reason for changing zoning is to allow this paddle board concession.

Um the paddle board concession can only degrade the already poor environment in this environmentally sensitive area.

There is significantly significant documented water pollution in this area.

Over half the days of the year, it is unsafe to go in the water.

Why would the city be putting a water activity in an area where the water is so contaminated and unsafe?

There are no set city employees there to monitor the activities going on there.

There are no toilet facilities there.

There is no parking in the area.

There is no security.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is insufficient water depth at many times of the year to have a floating dock there.

The floating dock would be high and dry for significant periods of time.

When I raised this to Eric Leshinski, he told me, oh well, the city will just dredge all the way down that arm of Spa Creek in order to have sufficient water depth there.

Well, if the city really wants to spend millions of dollars preparing for this ill-conceived idea, then I'm living in the wrong city.

And uh and this is particularly important because there is a place on city property about an eighth of a mile away, which already has all the facilities I noticed as lacking, and that is the boat ramp area.

It has all the facilities facilities needed.

It has personnel there all the time.

Why is it not placed there?

Thank you very much.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

Next up, Dan Clements.

Dan Clements, 17 Southgate Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland.

Umrigin on the agenda for tonight was 01425.

It was taken off the agenda appropriately since it hadn't been to committee hearings.

But in advance, I have prepared a 14-page brief, which I've given all of you copies on as to why 01424 violates the Maryland State Constitution, Article 3, Section 33, which prohibits laws that are special laws relating to only one individual, one place or one area that only benefits one individual.

In this case, we're talking about Latitude 38, 6 Dock Street, which is owned by one Harvey Blonder.

And he, according to his partner, uh, Mr.

Fallot, Peter Flat, when he testified in June before the Planning Commission, stated that he and Mr.

Blonder's request and lobbying over the past five years to the mayor to get this ordinance put forward, is solely for the purpose of building a hotel, which might be fine, but increasing the value of the hotel by having rooftop parties and also having rooftop access so they can have events on the roof.

He indicated in his testimony, Mr.

Fallot, that Chop Tank Hotel is making twenty Chop Tank restaurant because of its rooftop is making $22 million a year, and he wants this hotel to be competitive by having a rooftop facility.

This city, to my knowledge, has done nothing to determine whether or not a hotel can be built there and not need to change the rules on the height level in zoning.

It doesn't need to happen.

But who is it happening for?

Why are you planning to do it?

It only relates to one building.

That's why it violates the state constitution.

That's what makes it a special law.

But it applies to the property of one Harvey Blonder.

We all know who he is.

Nobody wants to talk about him.

But here's why.

In 19 in 2023, a jury in Anrel County found that Mr.

Blonder was responsible for defrauding his partners at Yellowfin and breaching his fiduciary duties.

Conduct so egregious and so willful and so malicious as to warrant punitive damages in excess of three million dollars on top of the five million dollars that he had made and deprived his partners of having.

One, is this really the person you want to be helping financially?

This is a person who misrepresented facts for years and years to his partner.

The second reason, and I will finish on this, because I will be back.

Mr.

Blonder, I am advised by both banking people and hotel finance people will not get financing for this hotel.

Probably wants it in the range of 50 million dollars, because of his fraud finding by a jury, which was upheld on June 18th by the appellate court of Maryland.

That is rare to have that kind of punitive damage.

So the question you have to ask yourself is CAP as council members, why are you doing this for this individual for this one property when you've not done, and certainly the mayor and his staff have not done due diligence as to what else can be done to build a hotel there if that's what everybody wants without adding the height limits for a man who is found so negligent that punitive damages were awarded against him.

Any questions?

Why no questions?

I've been here before, and you people have asked questions of people standing here talking about the Boy Scouts.

What's what are you?

What concerns you, Mr.

Mayor?

I do, thank you.

So, Mr.

Clemens, um, is it uh you're talking about punitive damages in this case, but is that is that not something that's common for these kinds of cases?

I mean, could you just give us some more context on that?

Sure.

In the last 10 years in the state of Maryland, the appellate courts have had and upheld exactly three punitive damages awards against individuals or businesses for circumstances similar to Mr.

Blonder's, which was depriving his partners of fiduciary and duty and his honesty.

Those awards were 25,000, 1 million dollars, and Mr.

Blonder hit the jackpot with $3 million.

Punitive damages are almost unheard of.

And I'm aware of that, having practiced law in this state now for 53 years, and been a trial lawyer in courtrooms for 53 years and followed the case law.

Thank you for the layup.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Next up is Julie Gibson.

Hello, everyone.

I come to all of you requesting that you give your best effort.

And first of all, I would like to say the little one that you hear in the back, it's my three-year-old.

Because I'm here and my husband is here.

He's a law enforcement officer, who you all supposedly appreciate so much at your last testimony that I was here in May, you said.

And then my eight-year-old, my 16-year-old, he can't be here.

He's doing chemistry homework.

So I come to all of you requesting that you give your best effort to sincerely understand the situation that the city has put me in.

I'm going to need more than two minutes to get through my testimony, as there is a lot of detail that is pertinent that everyone here.

I'm unable to afford to keep my property if I can't continue operating as I always have, which is short-term renting all three of my apartments in my one dwelling unit.

One dwelling unit.

Since then, my problem has only been made worse by the slow responses or lack thereof and responses from the elected officials who are responsible for resolving issues like mine.

I was advised in May by K Pettett to continue operating my business as I always have, that Alderman Huntley and team were working with law and planning to draft a new legislation that would be ready on June 23rd.

June 16th, Kate informed me that she confirmed that morning that legislation was being prepared and would go before council on July 14th.

Only when I contacted Kate after all after several attempts on August 18th, 2025, did she inform me via text that legislation never even drafted?

From May until August, I was misled and uninformed.

I now have even more reservations, predominantly Naval Academy families.

Book through 2027 that occurred since May when Kate advised me to continue operating as is.

Alderman Huntley never returned a single call of mine.

Yet he was the one who said that he was willing to sponsor this new legislation.

I was again blindsided by the city of Annapolis officials.

Kate informed me that a new law can be written with grandfathering clause, included from the outset, but the law is saying it cannot be added a year later to benefit one business when all other businesses over the past 12 months have complied.

This is false.

I have one dwelling unit.

As Alderman Savage even stated at my testimony in May, the change in legislation was never meant to impact someone like myself, who was owns one dwelling unit and was meant to prevent individuals from owning multiple buildings on a property and short-term renting them.

I am a small woman-owned business, and in Annapolis, I own one dwelling unit, which is three apartments and one building that the city of Annapolis approved permits for years before I owned the property.

It's not my fault that the city of Annapolis elected officials and legislation have dragged this out, making it so that a year after the new legislation went into effect under the radar and sneakily behind closed doors, I was unable to make the request to be grandfathered in.

But under all one umbrella, because I have one dwelling unit.

This coincides with my point, which is in line with the fact that I own one dwelling unit, one property.

June 13th, 2024, two months after your new legislation went into effect.

And asked, how much money do you make?

Is this a good business?

This is such a nice property.

Julie, this is two months after.

Nope, let me finish.

I'm almost done.

Why two months after the new legislation, which apparently says I am unable to operate as a single dwelling unit with three short-term rental apartments in one building?

Would you have your inspections person come and inspect my property to issue me three short-term rental licenses?

All of legislation conveniently took the month of August off.

Alderman Gay was the one person who responded to my email on August 23rd.

He said that it would take legislation to be involved to figure things out, and that he would request that Chris Jakoviak issue me a letter stating that I would be able to continue operating my business as things are figured out with legislation.

Question.

Was this request to Chris made?

Another question.

Who from law do we need to work with to resolve this issue?

As I do not want a legal suit that will race waste my taxpayer dollars and any more of our time.

No problems.

And I'm not sure what you're doing.

You want to I feel like definitely, we definitely feel because you have two restaurants in one building.

You have two restaurants in one building.

Why can I not have more than one apartment in one building?

It's not my legislation, but thank you.

We thank you for your testimony.

We definitely feel it seems that the laws don't apply to you, but they apply to me.

We've talked about it since May.

I will reach out to you, okay.

No, you're like basically checked out, right?

Since you're not the mayor anymore.

Is that correct?

I'm out in a in two more meetings, but but but I understand that this legislation is hurting some people.

So I would like to talk to you about it.

Thank you.

You're going to actually help me because since May, someone told me everyone here that I came to meet with said they would help me.

And no one helped me.

And everyone's giving me the runaround.

I just need to get some background.

Background.

I've given I've contacted you via phone.

I will reach out to you, but you have to get off the podium now.

It's well over your time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Uh next up is uh Norrell Rome.

Please come.

Mr.

Mayor, can I just clarify something?

Oh, sorry, uh Alderman Gay.

Thank you.

Just once said I was surprised that if there were that it, you know, this was a legal matter.

I I had to withdraw.

And I just want to clarify that.

Um, you know, for the record.

And you know, uh my apologies to Miss Gibson.

Thank you.

Hello, how are you doing?

Uh good.

Good evening.

My name is Narrick Rome.

Uh, live at 121 Charles Street.

And just a few doors down from the uh property at 191 Duke of Gloucester.

I want to begin by acknowledging the complexity of the issues you grapple with every day, from budgets and development to infrastructure like parking, zoning, and resilience planning.

Those are difficult problems to uh without easy answers.

And what I'm here to talk about tonight is not one of those problems.

This is a very small, clear-cut man uh matter of enforcing an existing law, the kind of low-hanging fruit that should not still be unresolved after more than a year.

The large billboard that's bolted to the front of 191ke of Gloucester Street was installed during last year's Senate U.S.

senatorial election.

So it's not even about this election cycle.

City code is very clear on this point.

Temporary political signs are permitted for up to 60 days and must be removed within seven days after the conclusion of the election or event, a timeline that passed many months ago.

City staff determined months ago that the sign violates Annapolis City Code.

The historic preservation office issued a notice of violation back in February of this year, and daily fines of 100 per day have been accruing ever since.

Despite all of that, the side remains in place, unchanged and unaddressed more than a year after it should have come down.

This property is zone C1A, a designation created specifically to protect neighborhoods at risk and minimize commercial encroachment.

The purpose of this zoning is to preserve the residential and historic character of this downtown neighborhood, allowing a massive permanent political billboard to remain is not just inconsistent with that purpose, it directly undermines it.

Now I've spoken directly with the property owner, Mr.

Bruce Bareno, a lobbyist, who told me that he believes the case law supports his sign and he has no intention of removing the sign.

But the courts are clear while political speech is protected, it is not a blank check to violate zoning or preservation laws.

Municipalities have broad authority to regulate signage through time, place, and manner restrictions.

And those powers are strongest in historic districts where preservation is a compelling public interest.

And that's why this isn't just about one sign.

If a well-connected property owner can openly ignore the law, and the city's response is to simply issue fines that result in enforcement, it sets a precedent.

It sends a message that our zoning rules are optional, that preservation standards don't apply equally, and those with political influence can simply wait out the system.

That's corrosive to public trust and damaging to the integrity of our historic district.

So I'll end with this.

How long does this neighborhood need to wait for the law to be enforced?

The violation has been documented.

The fines are accruing, and the ordinance is clear.

The only thing missing is enforcement action.

I urge this council to direct the city attorney to enforce the law and see this illegal sign removed before the next city council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm right across from the very, very, very, very important uh illegal garbage bin at 181 Prince George Street.

Um which somehow is getting continuing to get a lot of uh city council and and uh government uh deep consideration when really it should get a lot of just enforcement um because it is illegal.

We learned uh before Sunday night before your last meeting uh that our alderman had been misled, misled by a very well-known developer in this town.

Um and you know, applaud their investment in Annapolis.

Um, I will point out it has not been for altruistic purposes.

Um, they make a lot of money.

Good for them, good for us.

But the alderman was told that this had received historic preservation commission approval, had been approved by everybody else, and had received no complaints.

All of that was false.

The fact of the matter is, on a Sunday night, uh, sometime in the wee hours of Monday morning, this horrendous box appeared.

Now, I'm not up here, by the way, because it's an eyesore, and it is.

This is no way to run a city and to make sure that constituents feel that we're being honestly led.

It was told by city officials that they were illegal.

And by the way, these guys have lawyers, they know the code, they know the process, yet they refuse to honor that at any point.

Now, I don't know enough about enforcement, why they weren't fined, like Selman's situation, or uh uh told uh uh to force to remove it.

I know that they were informed that it was illegal, but somehow uh they get city council's attention by intentionally misleading.

What?

What are we doing here, folks?

You know, these people should not be rewarded with your very valuable time and consideration.

The rest of us, stooges that played by the rules, shouldn't be dishonored by them getting special treatment.

We live in the historic district, we've got a uh a porch deck that is above eye sight.

We were told we weren't allowed to use the wood we wanted to use, which is natural wood, because it wasn't around in when the house was built.

We complied with the code.

It took us four months to get that ruling, but we complied.

We've got good friends three doors down to that.

Take their garbage cans from the back of their house through their home to put it on the front after 6 p.m.

But somehow, somehow, and this is a recurring theme, guys, and I just beg you to start thinking about this.

Why do some entities, some individuals, get special treatment?

And the rest of us.

It shouldn't be up at all.

Thank you.

Thank you, James.

We are addressing that.

We are addressing that.

For the record they yet to file at HPC.

As of six o'clock.

It's definitely a hot topic.

We're on it.

Thank you.

Next up, Bill Kodash.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, Bill Kardash, 17 South Street.

I'm here to comment on 03325, the market house lease and R 3425, the market space lease.

So I don't want to go through the details of my comments.

They are relatively lengthy.

But the bottom line is this, and it'll come as no surprise to you.

Both of those leases, both the uh lease that's being proposed and the market space cancellation of the um uh of the penalties, the interest penalty, both should be denied.

In the case of the first lease, which is the extension of the market house lease, as we've heard repeatedly, that lease does not the existing lease does not terminate until 2033, eight years from now.

It's fair to say that most, if not all of the current council members will be gone by that time, and we know certainly the mayor will be gone by that time.

In fact, the mayor's successor may well be on his way out or gone by that time.

Why on earth would you be proposing an extension to that lease eight years in advance?

It makes no sense, except the obvious one, which is somebody wants this done in a hurry.

In the case of the um of the market space lease, I happened to endure the better part of two hours of uh listening to the finance committee the other day and learned a lot about the market space lease.

The most interesting fact that I learned was the reason for this $20,000 worth of interest and penalties is that only two of the five participants in the market space uh dining area have been paying the rent.

The others are in arrears.

In fact, someone, and I'm I I think I have the numbers right, owes 10,000 in rent and 11,000 in interest.

And no one's in default.

It's it is mind-blowing to find this happening.

So, two things.

This said as I look back in this and I think about the original lease from 2018, when I read that one and I've read it numerous times, it is the most one-sided lease I've ever seen.

No commercial realtor would ever present that on behalf of a client.

Interestingly, Alderwoman Finlayson, when the discussion about the new lease was being proposed, she asked city attorney, uh, deputy or assistant city attorney uh Ashley Leonard, um, what kind of leverage do we have?

Ashley was hard pressed to answer that.

I can tell you, uh Alderwoman, zero.

You have no leverage.

The existing proposal has no leverage, and it has no leverage because it is so one-sided in favor of the tenant that the city has nothing.

So my question is the the other side of it is as well, the other thing that we found out was that in addition to everyone knows about the performance rent that went uncollected for five years.

We now found out that the the uh um lease on the rental space for the market space has also been uncollected.

The finance committee, the the uh director of finance um has been either derelict or ignored the collection of that.

Back in May, I sent an email to Alderman uh to Alderman Hundley and said, before Jody leaves leaves town, why don't you let's have a meeting?

Let's find out where it all stands.

His recommendation was let's wait until the new director of central services comes on board, which has happened.

One of the first things the director of central services has recommended according to the council meeting was let's forgive the debt.

Welcome to town.

It is mind blowing that this sort of thing happens.

I just want to know who's looking out for the citizens.

Who's looking out for the public?

No one.

That's the answer.

Thank you.

Next up is Lori Sullivan.

Hi, Lori Sullivan, 25 Wagner Street, and I am here to talk about R 3635, the snow cleaning fees and fines.

I'm coming to you tonight to ask that you reconsider this legislation, which is punitive on residents for snow not cleared from sidewalks.

I own a corner property with more than a hundred linear feet of sidewalk.

One side is highly trafficked, uh, the King George Street side, but the other side is rarely walked on on any given day.

Nobody walks down Wagner Street.

Uh, yet under this bill, I'd be penalized as if every inch were equally critical.

Residents already pay property taxes to support city services, services, which, let's be honest, based on last year's snow challenges, um, isn't always handled as well as we would all like.

Um, to now impose hundreds of or even thousands, in my case, it would be thousands of dollars in fees on top of daily fines is unfair and punitive.

It treats residents like adversaries instead of partners.

Um, there are countless scenarios where a homeowner legitimately intends to comply, but simply cannot.

An elderly resident, someone ill or injured, a person who's away on business or visiting family when a storm hits.

Um, many wouldn't even know the snow had fallen uh until after the city's deadline had passed.

And even if someone was trying to hire an outside contractor, they may or not may not be enough time to meet demand after the storm, um, meaning that the city's timeline would very be very difficult to meet.

Punishing residents who are responsible and want to contribute to their community and want to do the right thing seems unjust.

If punitive measures are to be considered, they should be aimed at non-resident property owners, the absentee landlords and investors who are far more likely to neglect sidewalks, not at resident homeowners who are committed to their community and may not be able to respond instantly.

Why not instead build solutions that strengthen community?

In the past, midshipmen have snowed up like little snow angels, clearing sidewalks for our neighbors.

Why not create a snow brigade program?

Why not encourage residents to help one another?

That's the Annapolis that we want to strive for.

A city that brings neighbors together in hardship, not one that penalizes everyone for failing to conform immediately.

This bill does not build resilience.

It burdens residents financially, punishes those already struggling, and erodes the community spirit we rely on in moments of difficulty.

And for those reasons, I urge you to reconsider this, amend it or reject it outright.

But truly, I I think the intent is good, but the means by which you're you're trying to get to the end could be uh vastly improved.

Thank you.

Uh anybody else like to come forward and speak on anything else but the ones that I mentioned.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council.

It's always a pleasure to come back to where I spent 16 years on Monday evenings.

And I still have fond memories, believe it or not.

And of course, my wife has 12 years of that experience.

So she's probably on the sofa watching us now.

John Hammond, 141 Monticello Avenue.

I've done a lot of reflection over the past weekend about an issue that should be important to the city council.

The integrity of the election process.

An issue that has been under great scrutiny nationally over the past 10 years.

Part of my reflection took me back to the ninth to the 2009 city primary election.

The reason I was brought back to that was the Board of Elections supervisors then didn't properly vet the qualifications of a Mare Oil candidate.

It was discovered that the winner of the Democratic primary failed to meet the city code's residency requirement.

Because of this after the fact discovery, the Democratic Central Committee was required to substitute the second place vote getter as the primary nominee.

He eventually won.

Congratulations, Mayor Cohen.

I'm afraid that history may be repeating itself in 2025.

It was recently called to my attention that there is a question as to the timeliness of the filing of a certificate of candidacy for one of the candidates in this past primary election.

And looking into this issue over the weekend, I believe it warrants your attention.

And I'm going to place this on your conscience.

The Board of Elections was split two to one the issue.

And I believe, in order to avoid potential embarrassment in this year's election, that you review the issue in the context of the city code, particularly sections 4 4.16 and 4.20 and reach your own conclusion.

When I last sat here 16 for 16 years, I always relied upon the city code to help me make the correct judgment on the issues before me.

You can't go wrong by doing so.

My wife did the same thing over her 12 years on the council.

I also learned firsthand of the importance of election law in how elections are conducted in 1986.

When I lost my election to the Maryland House of Delegates by three votes, and the final count was determined on the validity of 12 absentee votes.

Just give me a minute, Mr.

Mayor.

I know you want to get to the thrilling conclusion of this saga.

I'm learning stuff.

And the final count was determined by the validity of 12 absentee ballots.

The circuit court said count those ballots.

And they did.

Eight of those ballots were for me.

And four were for my opponent.

We had a very happy Thanksgiving that year.

But my opponent, of course, appealed the decision of the circuit court.

And long story short, the court of appeals said, don't count the votes.

And my opponent was finally declared the winner.

Back then, the court of appeals relied upon the letter of the law.

No pun intended over those absentee ballots.

I just request that you take a look on your own to this issue of the timeliness of meeting the code requirements for a certificate of candidacy in this year's primary election.

Draw your own conclusion based behind the code and do the right thing.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to come forward?

Okay, I declare the public hearing closed.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item of the agenda's consent calendar, uh, including the appointment of AP 5825 appointment of Miss Samantha Watts Education Commission.

Thank you.

Any objections to the consent calendar?

Uh Alderman Savage.

Uh could you could you remove SA 726, please?

That was already done.

We already did that at the motion, please.

Second.

Thank you.

Man of City Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Budley.

Alderwoman Pendel Charles.

Aye.

Alderman Felathan.

Aye.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Alderman Gay.

Alderman Savage.

Hi.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi.

Alderman Huntley.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Hi.

Alderman Savage.

I sorry, was Alderman Fen Lyson.

Sounded like a nay.

Was that an I or a yay or an A?

It was an I.

All right, Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Sir, the next item agenda's public hearing.

Beginning with the charter amendments.

CA225, City Council Pay and Benefits deadline.

Is anybody here to speak on CA2-25?

Going once, going twice.

I declare the public hearing on CA2-25 closed.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Sure.

The next item for public hearing is ordinance O 1525 accessory dwelling unit requirements.

Right.

First person is Max Rose.

Please come forward.

Mr.

Mayor, I also think I'm supposed to be a sponsor of CA225 co-sponsor, excuse me.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Max Gross, 215 Taylor Avenue.

I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Anoroma County Association of Realtors in support of the ADU bill.

I believe this firmly and deeply to my core.

And I believe that Maryland is in a very, very difficult place in this battle.

A survey done by the Maryland Realtors last year found that 42% of Maryland residents ages 18 to 34 are thinking of leaving the state for reasons related to cost.

That is our workforce.

That's who brings businesses here.

It's who drives our economy.

And we might lose them if we don't do something to make housing more affordable.

Everyone knows the basics of supply and demand, more supply, lower costs.

That does not always play out in the real world, but fortunately for us, this aspect of the housing market does seem intuitive.

In metropolitan areas where inventory is increasing, housing costs are falling.

Where it is falling, where inventory is falling, housing costs are increasing.

Accessory dwelling units are an excellent use of something uh referred to as gentle density increases.

And this is ways that we can find more building, more units, more housing options without uh completely changing the face of a neighborhood without building, you know, reverode apartments in your backyard.

Um it's one of the best ways to balance the needs of the citizens who like where they live and the needs of potential citizens.

Uh so for the purposes of ADUs, uh, this is a great continued effort to kind of improve increase our policy.

Uh, I believe that we should pass it.

And I uh thank uh Alderman Al Schaldemeyer for uh proposing it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Max.

Uh next up, Katie McDumitt.

Katie McDermott, 50 Franklin Street, Annapolis, Maryland.

Um good evening, Mayor Buckley and members of the city council.

Uh I urge you to reject the ADU bill.

Uh first I renew my request that you pull the STR, the ADU, and the duplex bills.

Having these piecemeal pieces of legislation is unfair to the community, and it is just really frankly designed to divide communities, and it is not the right type of public engagement for these these kind of changes.

So I submitted a letter to you that was very uh detailed uh a long time ago.

Of course, it was ignored, but that's okay.

Uh I would still renew the request.

And I partner that with a request for a moratorium on STR so that you can work thoughtfully on all three of these issues.

I'm not opposed to affordable housing.

I'm not opposed to innovation or creativity.

I am opposed to bad legislation.

With respect to the ADU, as I read the staff reports, we already have an ADU law.

It has a residency requirement.

This eliminates the residency requirement and it expands the opportunities for corporate ownership.

So that makes it, I think, a bad bill for neighborhoods.

That's why I think it's an anti-neighborhood bill.

But the it looked like the Planning Commission findings voted to unfavorably recommend this bill on the basis it is expected to have adverse consequences for the housing market in neighborhoods that are associated with short-term rentals.

That ought to be a clue that this isn't a good idea from your own city government.

The report also found that the ADU bill will work at cross purposes with the objective of creating cultivating ADUs as a viable option.

Contrary to what this lobbyist has just told you.

We need to get away from the special interests and get in the public interest as fast as you can.

And you can do it.

You can do this.

You can do a really good job.

I learned yesterday from Alderman Huntley in his newsletter that the reason for this bill is because the AFH Federal Housing Administration wasn't allowing loans for ADUs.

And so I looked that up.

I didn't find that regulation.

I did find, however, a 2023 program that has broadened the opportunity for ADUs nationwide by not counting the rental income.

So there's actually a lot of flexibility for ADUs to provide income to people if they're properly done.

And our own city planner told us that this ADU program is a failure because of the city's failure to enforce the STR law.

So you undermine the ADU law, you've undermined affordable housing.

And then some people will get up here and say this is about affordable housing.

We're too smart.

We're gone to you.

We get this isn't happening the right way.

And by the way, this whole story about the FHA and loans isn't in any of the staff reports.

So I'm just an average citizen clicking and reading, and I'm finding no support for this legislation.

And I'll talk about that when we get to the duplex bill, because I have to get up twice because you can't coordinate related litigation or related, there will be litigation, related uh bills.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, Trudy McFall.

Good evening.

Um, Trudy McFall.

Let me say just as a pleasant word to you all, since you seem to have had a tough night, that to those of you who gave this service, there's a good lot, a lot of good comes from retirement too.

So I wish too well.

I really mean that.

You've done noble service.

So I do that come from my semantics.

Anyway, uh, Trudy McFall 205 Scott Drive, Annapolis, Maryland.

I love hearing the history of the election where I got screwed by the uh candidate who didn't even live in Annapolis.

So that was fun to come tonight and hear about that.

Um, okay, on to the series because I'm really outraged about this bill.

Let me tell you just so you understand where I'm coming.

I um my property in Wardore on Scott Drive, I bought a house with an accessory dwelling unit.

It's been 44 years fully licensed.

It may be one of the oldest accessory dwelling units in the city, and I am very proud as an owner to have shared my property with a number of people who would never be able to live in that kind of neighborhood uh but for an accessory dwelling unit.

I am a firm, firm believer, as you will remember when you adopted the legislation that the owner needs to be present on the property with an accessory dwelling unit.

This is already a controversial concept, and an owner is an invaluable oversight of the property.

I could tell you uh stories, but I don't have time.

But I just want you to know I know something about being an owner and having an accessory dwelling unit.

And if you I believe me, you want the owner on the property, a real owner, not a not a partnership, not a for-profit out of country, out of state, out of city investor.

That is a ridiculous, awful idea.

The other part of me, I spent 58 years developing affordable housing, working with the combination of our nonprofit with private sector.

And if you think those private sectors come in but preaching affordable housing because they don't want to make a profit, you're just too innocent.

They you turn this city into a place where you can buy all the housing you want and turn it into profit, not housing that people live in and care about, but a profit-owned, and then you don't even require them to be on on site.

I already heard from mayoral candidates that this short-term rental was one of the key issues they were hearing about.

The last thing you want to do now is change that law and leave that mesh to your successors.

That is a terrible idea.

As you can tell, I am deeply opposed to this legislation and deeply offended to even have to be here telling you that you do not want to turn our housing stock over to private investors.

They're not coming to Annapolis to do anything but rent per parties and short-term rental.

They are going to continue to make the problems for existing neighborhoods.

It is a new effort for us.

We need to have a successful accessory dwelling unit.

And don't do this.

This is a terrible piece of legislation.

I hope the fact there's no co-sponsors means some of you know what I'm talking about, but it's really a very bad piece of legislation.

I haven't been to see you for a while, but this one brought me out of my seat.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anybody else later to come forward.

Larry Sullivan, 25 Wagner Street again.

I listen, I I applaud you for wanting to address affordability.

I do.

It's the right thing to do.

I just don't think this bill gets you there.

Uh this legislation represents fundamentals rezoning of our neighborhoods without meaningful public engagement.

That's not a precedent we should ever be setting.

This bill eliminates residency requirements.

That's the critical piece of this.

Um, it also expands unit size from 800 to 1200 square feet and allows corporate and out-of-state ownership.

Uh, I live in a home that's about 1,200 square feet, and five of us live there.

Uh, under this bill, that same size structure could be built in a backyard of another home.

That's not grandma in the backyard.

That's essentially adding a second full-size house on the same lot, dramatically increasing density, traffic, strain on infrastructure, and another opportunity for an STR.

The minute you remove the residency requirement, this becomes a developer's dream.

High demand neighborhoods at premium prices, more density, more short-term rentals, and more profit for investors.

Builders and investors will get rich off this legislation, but at whose expense?

It will be at the expense of residents who face higher housing costs, higher housing costs, not affordable housing, higher property taxes, increased traffic, and increased demand on parking and other essential city services.

And neighborhoods are going to be transformed without those neighbors' consent.

There needed to be better public engagement on this issue.

This bill will not create affordable housing, and I am for affordable housing, but this won't get you there.

It will do the opposite.

It will increase competition for lots, drive prices up, and make affordability even further out of reach.

And add to it that Alderman Huntley's very well-intended 10% short-term rental cap offers no protection because 10% of a bigger number is still a bigger number of SCRs.

We know firsthand how destructive that is to neighborhood stability.

And let's not forget that the City Planning Commission reviewed this legislation and recommended against it.

Their report warned that adverse consequences for the housing market and for neighborhoods, stating that this bill actually works against the goal of cultivating ADUs and viable long-term housing.

To pass this legislation would mean disregarding the city's own planning experts.

So for those reasons, and because some of you, this is the end of your uh city hall service.

Please don't let this be your legacy.

And for those of you running for re-election, really think hard about how your your constituents are going to view this because I know the intent is good, but the outcome isn't going to be.

And it's going to affect people who don't feel like they've had a significant amount of time to digest this, suggest alternatives.

This could be a good bill, but it needs a lot of help.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council, Ben Sale, 204 South Cherry Grove in the German Town Homewood neighborhood.

Uh, down behind the 1313 West Street across from the library.

Thank you all for what you've done for last year.

And y'all must be nuts bringing up this kind of legislation a month and a half prior to Alexis.

This is crazy because it's politics 101.

Uh, if I could, I'd yield the balance of autonomous trudy to uh do that again.

That was wonderful.

Thank you very much.

But uh what it's done in my neighborhood, the ADUs, uh Ross Arnett's brought it up already with the Mount Registered, eight.

And you call code enforcement, you notify them, hey, you probably need to go check these people out, what they're doing.

And it just doesn't happen because they're overloaded, they've got too much to do.

Um, and the ADUs have come into my neighborhood strong.

And you would think we wouldn't have a parking problem, but yet we do already.

It's come to the point where neighbors are pulling their cars out of the driveway and blocking and putting their car so you can't park two cars or three cars in front of their house.

Just so none of the none of the people in the ADUs next door to them will park in front of their house.

It's not bringing out the best in us, that's for sure in our neighborhood.

Uh it is luck.

Some people move in, sure.

The ADUs have.

Uh, are they registered?

Uh do you see them on the city registers?

Mostly not.

People just skirting that issue.

And already people are not living in their houses with ADUs in the back.

So they're already doing it because we we can't really, it doesn't seem like the code's enforced.

Uh, the enforcement's a problem for us.

I'm strongly against this.

The planning commission did a great job, and they lay it out in four quick bullets on that one page.

I'm sure some of you had the time looking, but if you haven't, first page, boom, it's right there in their findings, and they're totally against it and voted unanimously against uh the uh owner not being occupied in the property.

So please uh vote against us.

You live in this neighborhood, these neighborhoods as well.

I appreciate it.

But if you don't, you probably make me more richer than I already am and worked hard to get my money because then I can move to somewhere else and rent out my house and the ADU in the back and get rid of some of the forest that I have in the back and build it bigger, uh, which nobody wants.

We want a better Annapolis, and I know you guys are smart and uh I know you're gonna do the right thing, and I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, man.

We always like to come forward.

Hi, I'm Hunter Lewis, 214 Linden Avenue.

Um, and I love my house.

Um, after living in Alexandria, Virginia for several years, my husband and I moved to Annapolis, where I grew up.

We bought our house from a couple who had lived there for over 50 years.

We did a lot of fixing up projects, and we painted every single room of our house ourselves.

We did a lot of work in our yard too, to be able to enjoy that space with our family and our friends.

With some of the proposed legislation before the council, there are many people who accuse those who don't support these proposals as NIMBYists, not in my backyard.

So I'd like to tell you a little bit about what I see from my backyard.

A house behind us was turned into an Airbnb several years ago.

And just on Friday evening, my family and I were in the back uh having uh dinner outside in our yard, and a plume of smoke appeared from the yard behind us, uh, the the Airbnb property, and um these people couldn't figure out how to use a grill properly, which happens to all of us, but um, it wasn't a great um ambiance for our outdoor dinner plans on Friday night, and um, it really stunk up the whole yard.

Um, so that's one that's one property just cat a corner behind us.

From our backyard, we can also see our next door neighbors, newly built two-story, two-car garage upstairs ADU combination, which is taller than many people's houses in the city.

Uh, a beautiful maple tree was cut down for this project, which I miss as we get into fall.

That ADU is currently listed as an Airbnb as of a couple weeks ago through a third-party management company.

Instead of neighbors behind us and neighbors next to us in those two properties.

We have an endless array of people who we don't know right next to our backyard, and that's the backyard where my two young children like to play.

Proposed legislation that could possibly reduce owner occupation requirements for ADUs or allow for construction of duplexes in our two areas will further impact the view from my backyard.

These changes will only further exacerbate the erosion of neighborhoods in the city.

And I also have concerns about enforcement because the prior owners of our next door neighbor's uh house had a long-term rental that was never licensed, and we had to bring that to the city's attention as well.

These proposals, as um, as written, do not do enough to address the likely scenario investors coming in and outbidding potential new neighbors by buying up properties in our neighborhoods and turning too many of them into STRs.

Furthermore, that will only exacerbate the housing shortage in our city rather than solve it.

Proposals to limit STRs to a certain percentage of a street or a block that may have been mentioned are vague and unclear as to how these percentages would be determined.

I also have concerns about enforcement of that, given our prior experiences with lack of enforcement.

My family is invested in our community.

I volunteer at Germantown Elementary.

I keep up the beds, the flower beds.

My husband spends hours and hours of time volunteering for the Annapolis Soccer Club.

Our kids go to the local schools.

I teach in the public schools in this county.

We we love this community.

It's really important, and we're just really concerned about the loss of neighbors.

I'd like to meet some neighbors.

And I'm concerned that when we bought our house 14 years ago, we had an idea of what it was going to be, and um it's changing before our very eyes.

So thank you.

John Hammond, 141 Monticello Avenue.

Um I've reviewed the ordinance and I've seen the two uh amendments that uh Alderman Shandemaier has put forth.

Um, a few comments.

Um, I don't think this issue has been talked about yet.

Um, but this proposed bill um was originally this whole concept of auxiliary dwelling units was uh sold to us on the basis of a nice marketing ploy, granny flats.

Granny flats.

Oh, how could we be against granny?

So we gotta have these ADUs.

Well, we got them.

And uh they were limited to uh 850 square feet.

Now this bill proposes to increase the square footage to 1200.

I have a question.

Did Granny get pregnant?

An additional, almost additional 50 percent.

Come on.

This proposed bill uh permits uh ADUs to connect to the water and sewer lines of the main house.

Well, wait a minute.

What about life safety requirements that we have now for new construction?

You have to have it sprinkled.

We're gonna let ADUs come in here and not be sprinkled, and now we're gonna say they can be used for ADUs.

Where's Granny going?

Wouldn't Granny leave town?

Come on.

This is a classic bait and switch proposal, and I hope you all reject it.

And thank goodness my good friend Trudy McFall came up here and gave you the true story.

She's a great resource on the issue of affordable housing, and the council would be benefited by having some long conversations with Ms.

McFall on the issue of affordable housing.

Thank you very much.

Um other thing, enforcement.

We've heard a lot about enforcement.

I recall Alderman saying a few months ago that he found out that uh we had eight registered uh ADUs in the city.

And he said, I can't believe that.

I've got five on my street.

Right?

Correct.

The city really does.

You've heard it constantly that you need to do something about enforcement.

You pass all these laws and you forget them, forget about them.

You just have this charter amendment tonight.

You've got to change the charter because you missed the deadline for getting the pay increases for the next council approved.

Who's minding the store?

Fix it.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to come forward?

Okay, one of the acceptance of the record the findings of recommendations of O 1525 accessory drilling units.

Uh I declare the public hearing closed on O 1525.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is ordinance 01825, reallowing historic duplexes in R2 zoning districts.

Awesome.

So uh Selma Edwards is first up to speak.

Good evening, everybody.

Selma Edwards, 116 Grandview Avenue, Annapolis.

Um, ward one resident, and supposedly being represented by Mr.

Huntley.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my views in opposition to 01825.

I have a few points that I would like to make.

Number one, neighborhood character and historic integrity.

Ward one is unique because of its historic homes, narrow streets, and cohesive design.

Ordinance 01825 by realowing duplexes in our two zones risks eroding the character.

Even with design guidelines resembling a single family home, it's subjective, highly subjective.

Over time, multiple duplexes could disrupt the scale, setbacks, and rhythm of our blocks.

This ordinance would invite gradual but irreversible change to the look and feel of our neighborhoods.

Point number two, infrastructure, traffic, and parking strength.

Our streets are already congested.

Parking is limited, sewer is and stormwater systems are understrained.

And emergency access can be challenging.

A duplex doesn't change one lot.

It doubles the number of households and vehicles.

Without infrastructure of grades, this ordinance will make daily life more difficult for residents and create safety risks.

Point number three, affordability and displacement risks.

While the ordinance is presented as a way to diversify housing, the reality is that new duplexes in Ward 1 will almost certainly be marketed at high prices.

That raises land values, taxes, and rents, displacing long-time residents without delivering meaningful affordability.

This ordinance opens the door to speculation and turnover rather than protecting the community stability that we value so much in Annapolis.

We know that city surveys show Annapolis residents want slow, well planned growth, not changes that jeopardize historic neighborhoods.

That's why we're here.

That's why we love Annapolis.

Ward 1 Residents Association has consistently emphasized preservation, and this proposal from Mr.

Huntley runs counter to those priorities.

I urge you, do not pass 01825.

It's it's as it's written, it's not a good, it's not a good ordinance for us.

Thank you so much.

Next up, Antonia Barry.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Antonia Barry.

I'm a city resident and living on one at 100 South Cherry Grove Avenue.

I'm here to ask, no, not ask, beg, plead that you stop the zoning change proposed in ordinance 1825 that will allow duplexes on my street in the Homewood neighborhood where I live, in addition to other R2 neighborhoods like Murray Hills, Cedar Park, Parole, Trexton Heights, amongst others.

Although the proposal states that the duplexes will be allowed to be built in R2 zoning districts, provided they resemble existing single-family homes, this will not be the case.

All you have to do is look on my street and around the neighborhood to see that the newer builds take up twice as much green space than their predecessors, creating more impervious surface in an environmentally sensitive area that already has a high water table and already has runoff issues.

The city is now spending our tax dollars to study and address an already existing water issue in the neighborhood street that had experienced a great deal of new development in the recent past.

This ordinance will only exacerbate that problem.

I love my street, I love my neighborhood.

I love it so much that I've stayed in the house for 29 years.

Visitors always say what a hidden gem it is with 1950s homes, mature trees and landscapes.

Slowly these Sears Roebuck and charming custom homes are disappearing.

When homes that are in disrepair sell mostly to investors and developers, and they build homes that are twice to three times the side size of what was there before.

Allowing duplexes in our neighborhood would expedite the process tremendously, ruining the charm quickly.

The new houses don't resemble the existing single-family homes, so why would the duplexes if you allow them?

The developers have a right to maximize their profits, and they will maximize the ground coverage and build as big a complex uh as big a duplex as they're permitted to build.

Having two homes where one existed will not only mean twice as many cars parking on a street, it will also mean more traffic on our roadways.

Trees will be removed, lawns would be cut will be covered by extra driveways, patios, decks, and the storm runoff to Spa Creek will be worse.

Older homes that may not have water issues now may get new water issues as more stormwater is displaced, creating more issues for the older homes in the neighborhood.

To promote an ordinance as a way to create affordable housing is a misnomer.

And the same is true regarding the label reallowing historic duplexes in R2 zoning.

The history of my street is a farmland and a few farmhouses, not duplexes.

Single family homes surround my personal property, not duplexes.

If we wanted to live in a duplex community, we would have bought in one.

The builders will tear down homes that sell for 600,000 plus and build duplexes that will sell over a million each.

This is not affordable housing.

It's building more expensive houses than what were there before.

A few existing duplexes and multifamily homes are now mostly along West Street.

There's only a few within the inner part of the neighborhood that are non-conforming.

I am asking, begging, pleading with you to leave it the way it is, the way my husband, my neighbors, and I fell in love with it as a single family home location.

This ordinance has made me feel like a cartoon character in the movie Up, fighting City Hall and developers for my home.

And like George Bailey trying to preserve Bedford Falls.

Please don't be Mr.

Potter.

Shut down this proposed ordinance now.

We need the we don't need the added traffic, the larger footprint, the loss of green space, the loss of neighborhood charm, the loss of parking, or the environmental impacts to Spa Creek and the Chesapeake Bay.

Thank you for your time.

Right, Katie, you back up.

Katie McDermott Katie McDermott, 50 Franklin Street.

Um, thank you again for the opportunity.

I ask you to withdraw this bill.

Withdraw this bill because it's ill-considered.

It doesn't have the expertise.

I'm not sure any of you have the expertise, frankly, to have even drafted the bill.

Yeah, that's right, Harry.

No expertise.

And you heard from Trudy McFall here.

I doubt you even spoke to her.

The duplex bill is an STR bill, because you don't have any precaution for protecting neighborhoods in this bill.

It's radical seismic change in an election year to brag about affordable housing.

And it's a betrayal of our community.

And you should all blush with shame if you vote for this.

Thank you.

Next up, windship Wheatley.

Good evening.

My name is Winship Wheatley.

I'm a 38-year resident at 159.

Just your address on Monticello, please.

Would you 159 Monticello Avenue here in Annapolis for 38 years?

When I first purchased my house, I had explicit notes to the effect of R2 zoning.

Which means eight units per acre.

With that concept in mind, I felt relatively secure.

Over the course of a number of years, I have had to defend that R2 status from variances only.

When daycare centers wanted to open up across the street, when pizza places wanted to open up down the street.

Never did I ever consider.

So if now I'm confronted with this issue, I ask myself.

Under the notion of several things I don't understand.

So I saw the legislation, I saw the ordinance, I prepared a 15-point questions list.

And it was sent to each of you.

I'm hoping that somehow this managed to become part of the public record, so I will not have to take three hours to describe it now.

I am so confused more than anything else.

I do speak in opposition to this bill for numerous reasons.

One is process.

Two, I haven't got a clue of what you're trying to do because the definition of things is so broad.

And three, I'm not sure it's such a great idea.

Some of the members of the council have suggested to me, either directly or indirectly, that this will only affect about seven houses in the ward one area.

Seven, maybe eight, nine, I don't know.

But I have looked at the map.

The map is quite definitive.

It identifies over 3,000 homes in the R2 district.

Over 800 of these homes are qualified for a duplex.

So I go.

Really?

Another minute, another minute?

Oh, that's a minute.

I have a minute.

Ask yourself this.

Look at the record.

Look at the look at the material that came to you in the reports.

One of them says, we approve this because it will permit both duplexes and get this neighbors.

Apartments.

The language is in the report.

I also have to ask the city budget office submits a statement saying, we support this bill.

But is there anything in that statement that identifies the revenue increases that will be needed to support future expenses?

Completely silent on that.

There has been no assessment of the money that's gonna that it will take to fix your budget problems.

Fix our budget problems.

You know, I'm gonna just finish up this way.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

Everyone's gonna have it.

Everybody's been over, so let me join the crowd.

Some of you may be old enough to remember a Joni Mitchell song.

Where she finished by saying, don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone.

Thank you.

We also like to come forward and speak.

Right, thank you.

There should be another page of people for this.

I didn't see.

Okay.

Um, go right ahead.

Thank you.

Max Gross, 215 Avenue.

I'm speaking again on behalf of Anarino County Association of Realtors.

I am in support of this bill, and it is true, I am a lobbyist.

I also want to talk specifically about 215 Taylor Avenue, the house that I just gave you as my address.

It's uh in that small stretch of tailor between the city police station and uh Cedar Park Road, right across the street from the plumbers.

I'm giving you a very detailed description.

It's got a porch, it's got four flags up usually, but one of the flags fell down.

I want you to picture it because you've probably driven by it multiple times a day.

It's a duplex, and I bet you didn't know that.

My house has a one-bedroom apartment upstairs and a two-bedroom apartment downstairs.

And there is absolutely no way I could afford to live in Annapolis to buy a house in Annapolis if that were not the case.

I would be yet another person, my mother lives a mile away from me, and she'd say, Oh, I wish my son could live close to me, but he just can't afford it.

And we all know those people.

We are well aware that we have college-age kids coming back, young professionals coming back.

My house has three people living in it.

Uh, one person is getting a master's degree in counseling, one person is getting a late in life degree in business administration, and I am a lobbyist.

I know you don't want lobbyists in your city, but you probably don't mind having professional students.

I see a change like this, and it says, hey, for years and years and years, hundreds of years we allowed this kind of building in this zone.

And then we stopped in 1970.

Annapolis was full of duplexes.

Annapolis is full of duplexes.

You probably don't know where they are and what they look like.

Going back to ADUs in Eastport, my predecessor in this job lived in a cottage in the backyard of another house in an ADU.

That house, by the way, probably not compliant because it was not owner-occupied.

The front house was rented out full time, the back house was rented out full time.

And I have had now four friends live in that ADU.

This is not something that is uh greedy developer or a real estate association.

There just aren't very many success stories that make it into these meetings.

People don't come to meetings to say, hey, I kind of like this.

Kind of like where I'm living.

Kind of like my house.

Doesn't motivate you.

The data on meetings like this, and the effect that meetings like this have had on affordable housing is clear.

People show up with very valid reasons to say no.

At everyone, it's my job to come to these meetings.

Every single one.

There are people here who say, I'm in favor of affordable housing.

I love affordable housing.

There's something wrong with this one, though.

And we can't keep doing it.

We are zoning our way out of affordability.

We have been.

It's been a business community priority for years to have less restrictive zoning.

And I don't know what's happened in the past, I don't know, six to eight months, three to five years.

The conservatives, the business-oriented people, are saying, no, actually, we want more zoning.

We want more community protections.

We want more historic Annapolis protections.

And I don't know where that happened or where it came from.

But we had a bipartisan consensus for a magic decade of liberals being like, you know what?

We were wrong about all this zoning.

We need to build more.

And conservatives being like, oh, finally.

Finally, you don't want to zone our way out of oblivion.

You want to let private industry build.

And now, after just a little moment, we're right back in it.

Half the people always say no.

And I hate to see it.

I hope this bill passes.

The duplexes already exist.

Having a couple more won't change it.

And I'm sure you don't notice it.

You see my house every day, and you have no idea that there are three single people living there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We've been the list, so I'm gonna keep going down the list.

Um Susan Wheatley.

Before I start with my prepared marks, I just want to comment that I knocked on 20 doors, and only one of my neighbors even knew about this.

If everyone knew the people would be in this room and they would be out the door against it.

Your citizens are not aware.

The other thing I want to say about duplexes, I don't have any problem with duplexes.

I have a problem with tearing down and taking to the trash perfectly good homes.

That's what I am against.

So to my remarks.

And for that I am sorry.

But you have poked the bear, and the bear is awake.

No longer will I take for granted that you represent me or my neighbors.

Ordinance 1825 is clear evidence of that.

I asked Alderman Huntley directly.

Who asked you to advocate for changing the R2 zoning to R2 duplex?

Allowing houses to be torn down and duplexes to be built.

Your answer, sir, was no one.

Then I asked you, well, why are you doing this?

And you said, because lots of people want to live here and we want to give them that opportunity.

Well, you don't represent them, you represent us, and don't forget it.

Any of you.

Any of you, it is us that you represent.

According to the City Department of Planning and Zoning, under the heading Impact of Legislation, it says the attached O1825 legislation impact map identifies parcels shaded in green.

I have them here.

If anyone wants to look at them, they are mostly green, which are currently in the R2 district and meet the minimum requirement lot size of 10,800 square feet to be built a duplex.

Of the 3,657 parcels in the R2 zoning district, 842 meet these criteria and would be eligible to tear down houses, take them to the dump for duplex development.

According to Alderman Huntley, planning and zoning, and one of our mayoral candidates still, their understanding is that very little impact will come of this.

In other words, it's no big deal.

Well, if it's no big deal, why are you doing it?

You open the can and the worms will come.

It will be a feeding frenzy.

Short-term rentals, ADUs are so alluring because they're cash cows.

Investors will be waiting and buying up properties as fast as they can and as fast as they come on the market while driving up the cost.

Do not insult me with the thought that this is going to make it affordable.

Developers will be in the game as well.

Right now, there is an understanding that if you buy a mixed-use property next to an R2 that is next to an R2 that is next to an R2, and so on, because of the mixed use, they all take on a greater and higher density.

Right now, we're fighting in my street where I live.

The plan calls for a 55-foot-tall condo on the MX lot.

The townhouses will be built on the R2 lot, and two homes on the additional R2 lot.

That's a very different animal.

Not at all what R2 is meant to allow.

Now, five of the nine of you will not be here after November.

It will be bad safe for you to take this any farther before then and ill-advised after.

Lastly, you knock on our doors asking for for your your vote for our vote.

If you want to know what's important to us, ask us.

Tell us that the solution to our revenue problems will come from higher density.

Elected officials come and go.

But we, the people, we live with the good and the bad of all of it.

Thank you.

Tom Creek, 14 Maria Avenue, Annapolis.

First of all, thank you, Council members and Mr.

Mayor, for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Now, I'm here tonight to express my opposition to Mr.

Huntley's ordinance.

I think it's important to understand that the ordinance, one of the key components of the ordinance is built on this report.

This is a report done in 2023 by Urban 3, an economic development research firm out of Asheville, North Carolina.

Back by developers.

Urban 3 research focuses heavily on tax yield per acre, or what they call VPA, value per acre.

And it's based on financial productivity.

And that's important data, no doubt.

But it's not the only measurement of a community's value.

The report conclusions are economic in nature and not a holistically planning guideline for everybody to use.

Rather, it is being used as key justification for rezoning, and that's short-sighted.

Zoning is about neighborhoods, it's about livability, it's about infrastructure, it's about history.

It's not about maximizing tax revenue per acre.

Mr.

Huntley's ordinance reflects a tax our way out of challenges approach, assuming more density automatically solves financial issues.

This ignores important dimensions in the life.

That's traffic, it's parking.

It's overpopulation of our schools, just to name a few.

Now, the ordinance increases pressure on infrastructure.

It threatens historical, small small scale fabrics of my ward, ward one.

Also does it across the whole city.

I'll read a part of the report.

Put my glasses on so I can read here.

Says on a report, funding for infrastructure systems, road, sewer, water, stormwater, is insufficient in covering lifetime expenses for the systems.

This is a report.

It says it right there.

It undermines homeowners' confidence and could deep do it could destabilize property values.

Residents should not bear the burden of experimental planning models while dealing with the ongoing flooding parking shortages, affordability challenges that we face in Annapolis.

Now, Annapolis can pursue economic resilience without blanket rezoning.

We can invest in flood man flood mitigation and resilience, resilient infrastructure.

We can support small businesses and tourism through incentives rather than zoning giveaways.

And we can bring spending in line with what we can afford.

These approaches straighten out our tax base without compromising our neighborhoods, which is order just us.

Now, in closing, I urge you to reject Mr.

Huntley's ordinance.

Let's take the time to evaluate a broader set of tools.

Beyond one consultant, one consultant's productivity analysis and protect the integrity and the character of our city.

I thank you very much.

Next up is Cynthia Demois.

Yes, good evening.

And I'm here to strongly urge the council not to approve this ordinance allowing duplexes in R2 zoning districts.

I live in Truxton Heights, where according to the city's July 2025 staff report map, which showed the distribution of properties throughout Annapolis that are zoned R2 and are of sufficient size for duplexes, just by eyeballing that map, about 80% of the homes in my neighborhood could potentially be converted into duplexes.

Even if only a fraction were to do so, the overall appearance and character of my neighborhood would be significantly altered.

I would like to see the city's assessment of whether there is sufficient water, sewer, power, and parking capacity for these additional homes in my neighborhood.

Also, what is the impact on traffic?

It's already very difficult to uh turn on to Spa Road or Hilltop Lane, you know, from uh my neighborhood during certain times of the day.

What is all these additional uh new homes going to bring to our traffic issues?

And how might these new homes impact stormwater management, which is a known significant problem in my neighborhood?

Some have said, uh, and I'm looking at you, Mr.

Huntley, uh, that the approval of the 484-page Annapolis ahead 2040 plan by the council about a year ago means that the public has given approval for this ordinance allowing duplexes, that you've already sought public engagement.

Well, I can tell you that the just the 2040 part, I figured I'd be dead by then.

And so I didn't participate in the public engagement.

But in that report, um, there are 257 recommended actions, and you have picked out this one that's mentioned twice out of that 257 to promote.

And I'm just wondering, you know, why do you think that you have satisfied uh the need for public engagement?

You can hear from my friends and and neighbors here at the meeting that there hasn't been enough public engagement on this ordinance.

So now that you're drilling down into this 2040 plan with this proposed ordinance, an ordinance of this magnitude, which so directly impacts the quality of life for residents, residents who pay taxes, residents who are your constituents.

You know, it's it just shouldn't be rushed.

The community deserves the chance to carefully consider the benefits and the drawbacks, and the city should actively engage with citizens before moving forward.

And by engage, I mean not just hold uh sessions where you pretend to listen, but to really listen to what we have to say.

Okay, I respectfully urge the council to pause to allow for more public engagement and ensure that any changes to zoning laws reflect the voices and best interests of the people who actually live here now.

Thank you.

Next up, Jeremy Olson.

Thank you.

Um my name is Jeremy Olson, 66 Southgate Avenue.

Uh, just want to say thank you to Mayor Buckley to the council.

Um, really appreciate you guys and your time.

Um there were a couple of points that I uh wanted to make, but I I wanted to sort of ad lib a bit and say um for folks who are looking for who requested this bill.

I encourage you to come speak to me.

Um feel a lot of fear in the room, a lot of anger.

Um I'm a neighbor, live in Ward One.

I strongly support this duplex bill and would love to talk to anyone who's here.

Um forgive my creaky voice.

I'm not a public speaker.

Um, so I want to make just a couple of points.

First, the historic and neighborhood character we love in the city, developed not by an accident of chance, but grew in time as an intentioned product of a centuries-long tradition of city building by incremental density growth, i.e., duplexes, small apartment buildings, townhouses, and some, though fewer over time, single family dwellings.

As neighborhoods grew prohibitively expensive, neighbors were allowed to meet needs in their community by adding slightly more dense housing types, slightly more.

The modern idea of rigidly locking neighborhoods perpetually into a single family zoning designation is an experiment.

And the jury is very much still out.

Um where is my favorite neighborhood in Annapolis?

Where would we answer?

Maryland Avenue, Main Street, Inner West Street, and Murray Hill.

These are dynamic neighborhoods already filled with a variety of housing types that fulfill the needs of a culturally and economically diverse group of residents, not merely the wealthy.

That these neighborhoods often are mixed use and have incubated beloved businesses like Galway, Back Creek, Curate.

Far from being accidental, again, are the exact intended byproducts of mixed-use zoning types placed adjacent to incrementally more intensive residential housing types as the city grows.

Duplexes are historic character.

Duplexes have always been a vital part of our neighborhoods, the ones we already love.

Why would we make it illegal?

Second point.

And this is common sense.

It costs little more to add a sewer line or a curb cut, et cetera, for a duplex, just as it does a single family home for twice the value.

And many, many, many studies have confirmed this, not least of which is the urban three study you guys keep citing against it.

It's completed in 2023 and it looked at city revenue by land use type.

A number of surprising findings are in there.

One is that places like Park Place, mixed-use zoning neighborhoods like downtown completely subsidize neighborhoods where single family homes are mandated in terms of city services.

It's an absurdity that Clay Street is a fiscally more responsible street than Murray Hill.

As a city builds density, certain beautiful secondary effects become apparent.

Cities can afford to fund emergency services more robustly.

Streetscapes can support pedestrian and bike transportation, and a group of neighborhood residents forms to patronize businesses in dense neighborhoods, like it already does in downtown say, without taking up parking and adding to congestion.

Cities can afford public transportation options like buses or other vital investments in our community.

They otherwise couldn't.

If as a community we are serious about supporting the working and middle class minorities and the young because we need their vitality ideas, and because Annapolis at its best connects neighbors of all types, not just one.

Thank you.

Ben Brampson was next.

Sorry, John to go with someone else just ahead of you.

I got someone else just ahead of you.

It was on the list.

Yeah, sorry.

Thank you.

Oh, let me talk.

Please.

We do it enough.

John Hammond, we'll let you be the closer.

Hi.

Ben Bramson to Maryland Avenue.

Like Mr.

Olsen, I am also not a public speaker.

I have fortunately got a little bit of experience of it with it over the past couple of months.

I was going to say I have the unique experience of running for Ward 1 Aldman, but four of the six of us that did run are sitting in this room talking right now anyway.

So I uh did have the good fortune, or I guess maybe misfortune, depending on how you want to look at it, to have the opportunity to speak about this a lot over the last couple of months.

Um even the wheatys over here.

I had the ability to talk with them for I think 20 straight minutes.

Well, they talked to me is more what they really did for 20, 30 straight minutes.

I walked away from them.

They somehow found me and talked to me for another 25 minutes on it.

So there was ice cream.

Um but uh please close yours because I don't know if you're gonna love what I have to say next, but uh I am in tent of support of this uh duplex bill.

Um it comes with a couple of conditions for my support on it.

First and foremost, this bill cannot and will not work without first addressing and heavily regulating uh short-term rentals as well as heavily enforcing those short-term rentals as well.

I know Alderman Huntley has proposed a bill to be able to address those.

I don't think that bill goes far enough in regards to the regulation that needs to happen with it.

If this is not married to a bill enforcing short-term rentals, this is going to be a disaster of a bill.

Um my other um tentative support of it is that I acknowledge for those who talked to me or had heard me talk in the past.

Uh, I talk a lot about affordable housing.

And when I talk about affordable housing, I talk more about housing that the vulnerable within our community can afford to live in.

Um I will acknowledge that this is a bill that will create housing in Annapolis and it will create necessary housing.

Uh, it will largely be only at the immediate effect to the upper middle class, maybe to some extent the middle class as well.

Um, this bill on its own is not a solution to helping the working class.

It's not a solution to helping the working poor.

It's not a solution to being able to work help the most vulnerable within our community and the ones that are suffering the most at the skyrocketing cost that it is to live in Annapolis.

Um, I understand there can be uh some trickle-down effect that has that that has on them.

They may not see that in their lifetime by the time it gets to them, though.

So while I support this bill tentatively, uh, if it does go through, the council must devote more time and more energy to creating policy and guidance that can take actual action that helps those that need it the most as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Hammond, you want to close?

Oh, uh, we'll let you be the closer.

Oh, okay.

John was lined up, but uh you go ahead and asked if he was gonna be the closer, would you mind if I took a real word?

Larry Sullivan, 25 Wagner.

I I'm gonna reiterate in two seconds what I've already said about the ADU bill, because I think so much of it applies to this bill as well.

Um, it's not going to create affordable housing.

I I recognize the the attempt.

I applaud the attempt.

Um, we we need to actually think these things through, and I think the ADU bill, the duplex bill, and the STR bill need to be done in a coordinated fashion that ensures that you're actually accomplishing what you're trying to accomplish.

And I don't think that's going to happen as currently presented.

Uh and again, you know, when you put an STR cap at 10%, but you increase density, you increase STRs.

That's just math.

Um, we're talking about the historic uh development of our city and incremental development of our city and mixed use, and all of that is true, and all of that is what makes our our neighborhoods strong and resilient.

But if you change R2 and suddenly have 800 plus sites that are open to duplex building, you're opening not incremental building.

You're opening a free-for-all for developers and investors who are anxious to get their hands on our very special places.

That's not incremental.

That's not in the interest of neighborhoods.

Uh back to the point that's been made repeatedly.

Neighbors feel put upon by a city council that in its attempt to do good doesn't listen to citizens before it acts.

We don't feel heard.

We don't feel valued.

We don't think you even bother to care what we think.

You feel a lot like parents who are telling us what's good for us without any input from us.

That doesn't feel good.

And that's why you have a lot of passionate people up here getting very upset.

We want to be heard.

We want to be part of the process.

Include us.

I go I go down Riva Road all the time.

I have kids who go to an infusion center there.

And I look, I look up at those buildings that were sold to us as county residents as mixed use affordable housing.

And I sit for multiple flight cycles waiting to get through the intersection to get onto River Road.

And I wonder who who thought this was a good idea.

Right?

Well, I mean, what are we?

What are we?

That's not affordable.

I don't know.

I don't know anybody who thinks that's affordable.

Like if we're gonna, if we're gonna change the nature of our city and do something that's important, like actually making a place for people of every economic group, can we do it in a way that's thoughtful and well researched and and heavily engaged in public discourse?

And let's come together.

Let's not do piecemeal legislation that half of the time is at cross purposes and doesn't actually accomplish what we're trying to get done.

So I I'd leave you with this question.

Do we want to be Reva Road the City version?

Because that's what this feels like it's gonna result in.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Ben Sales, did you want to come up, Ben?

Well, just uh I wanted John to be the close of trying to try to work this out for you.

He gave me two minutes.

Thank you.

Well, one minute.

Uh John Taylor 144 small drive.

I would commend the council to think about the Hippocratic Oaths.

First, do no harm.

And I would contend that the the path that we're on will do harm to city residents.

When I say and the version of that is you may have good eye uh good intentions, but don't do it on the backs of the rest of the city residents.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I had no idea the red coats were still here.

Ben sale to a four salesgrove, we'll make it quick.

Uh former planning commissioner uh for about just under 10 years.

We live kind of ham-handed by the old code of you know, single-use zoning R2.

And I hate to say it, but everybody in this room is right.

You're right, you're right.

Well, you haven't made a decision yet, but I'm right.

Because putting even the Capitette when they classify it as a historic duplex, is kind of right, but it doesn't say that in the legislative paperwork.

It's like, well, there's no historic there.

Where do they get that from?

I don't know, but they probably got it from somewhere.

So maybe it does fit in a small portion of Eastport, uh, where somebody put up a house and now the house dilapidated.

You know, let's put the old duplexes back, get more residents.

That may sound great.

But the in the quick and easy way that they're wanting to do this is just, well, let's do it through put it on the code for R2 for everybody and just open it up and make it easier for everybody.

But that's kind of like the same as me saying in this room, let's make everybody Protestant like me, because it'll be easier.

We'll just get one set of church churches here, one set of priests, and let's just go with it.

You don't need your Catholicism, you don't need your Islam, you don't need your Judaism, you don't need all that because let's just go with it because it's easier.

Because I don't want to go through the changing process of making the code change for a couple of properties here or there because that's too onerous.

Well, that there could be nothing more wrong we could do.

And we're protected by the single use code in some ways, shapes and forms.

I do think, yeah, you could use this in some places, but putting it across all of R2 is crazy.

My property is about 20,000 square feet.

You give me this, that that short-term rental legislation, I don't even care about that, because now I'm gonna put a duplex in the back of my yard about five feet from the fence with an amendment, and I'm gonna go way up.

And I'm gonna block all the light from the people behind me who have about a 20-foot backyard, and I'm gonna screw them over and I'm gonna sell that baby for a lot of money.

And I could undo my house as well and turn it into a duplex.

And then there's gonna be no parking on the street in front of me, and I'm gonna pick my neighbor's parking to the right and left.

And that is not completely protected in the code with square footage and things like that.

No, by the way, the trees I have in my backyard have about just under 50 now.

They're they're going to, because I can do that to most of them.

Uh so I see you're all right, but this is not the way to do it.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Anybody else like to speak before we bring in the closer?

Man, this is a tough group to follow.

All right, uh Marty Insley, 135 Spa Drive, Annapolis, Maryland.

I've been a resident of Ward 1 for 35 years.

I am opposed to this duplex bill for a couple reasons, but one for sure, I'm taking a different approach.

I've got a golf cart, and a lot of people in Murray Hill and by the stadium, they've seen me driving around, and this last three weeks I've driven around a whole lot.

And I was trying to figure out about these duplexes so I could understand it.

Where can we put some?

You know, because Lafayette Street there has got the most beautiful section of houses you could ever ask for.

And you know, I really I know there's a couple duplexes buried in some of these side streets, and they look okay, but to knock down houses and start putting multiple duplexes up is just all wrong.

And sec, I mean, why is it wrong?

Because you got people that have been there 15, 20, and 30 years, and you're going to change the character of their neighbor, the neighborhood or their street, and even the street over by this, it just wouldn't work.

And the so that's the first thing.

The second thing is I did some campaigning over um for the last month and a half, and one of my questions was what do you think about this duplex bill?

And when I say I talked to 30, maybe 50 people about you know, uh some of the candidates and what they thought.

Nobody knew about this duplex bill.

They said, What do you mean?

I said, Well, you know, it's a possibility.

If you got enough frontier on your lot, you could, you know, sell your house and maybe somebody would buy it and build a duplex.

Well, that's the second part that you know, this city council has to address.

You've got to make the residents more aware of what you're trying to do.

Uh, even though I'm opposed to it, nobody knows about it right now except a handful of people.

So my recommendation is that this bill does not get voted on with this administration.

Pass it on to the next administration where they're gonna have time to review it, make some amendments, and make the public aware of it.

Because the public is not gonna be aware of this in the next 60 days, no matter what you do.

Okay.

So basically that's it.

Uh, and also, if it did take effect and to the extent that you guys think it might and create affordable housing, no one's brought this up.

There's infrastructure, but our school capacity at this juncture is already 100% plus for all the schools.

So let's say some younger families did move in.

Where are their kids going to go to school?

They can't afford to go to private school, then the classes are gonna get more crowded than they are, which is you know, hurts our teacher base.

So it's just uh, you know, a whole domino effect of bad things.

And I will say this after talking to a lot of people in Ward One in Murray Hill and the other neighborhoods that are in Ward One, you know, I would have to say that uh Mr.

Huntley really doesn't understand the demographics of Ward One.

It is an older demographic, and they're not looking to have you know a lot of zoning changes when they've been there for 30 years.

I probably left some things out, but I will tell you this much.

The rest of the people before me did a great job, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Welcome.

Close the hearing.

Everybody was arm wrestling me because they said they wanted to save the best for last.

John Hammond, 141 Monitrello Avenue.

Uh, one quick comment about Mr.

Olsen's testimony.

He mentioned park place subsidizing uh Murray Hill.

Um excuse me, Park Place has a is a tax increment district, and the money, the additional revenue for property taxes that park place generates doesn't go into the city's general fund.

It's sucked out to pay for the infrastructure that was required for park place, including the parking garages.

So that's not what's going on.

Um other point, uh, this discussion reminds me a little bit of an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago uh out in California, where they're having lots of discussion about uh these kinds of issues.

And uh one of the residents said what we really need to do is put a sign on the outskirts of town saying we're full.

And you know what?

Annapolis is getting pretty darn full, and we ought to think about that.

We're full.

Uh, and maybe the county can help out a little bit in taking uh the burden of providing some more housing because you know, every house that sells for a million dollars or more uh gets an extra one percent charge for uh recreation tax, and that goes into some housing fund that the county is now using.

So uh maybe think about that.

And the last last comment is um the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

All right.

Anybody else like to come forward and speak?

Oh, oh, oh, oh, the not the close up.

We've got another close-up.

Never know.

Mr.

Mayor, just add to that.

I do not intend on going to hell now.

Thank you.

George Gallagher, 1212, Barbud Lane.

So we're not zoning away affordability in the city of Annapolis.

We are taxing away affordability in Annapolis.

Property taxes here in this city have increased 44% on average in the last eight years.

Our budget has grown exponentially.

So here's some statistics.

In Anne Ronald County, the population increase in the last five years has only been 1.5%.

The city's population has only increased 2.67% in the last eight years.

So we don't have a big population increase in and in the Anna Runnel County or the city of Annapolis.

The urgent problem we face in the city of Annapolis is not population growth, it's an enormous budget and bureaucracy.

I'm here speaking in opposition to all these rushed zoning changes that will have a negative impact on the quality of life for residents across Annapolis.

This plan 2040 15-minute city agenda is wrong-headed, neo-feudalism, and the residents of Annapolis are not serfs that are required to pay tribute to the lords at City Hall.

Some of the members of this city council think that the residents of Annapolis are in service to the Annapolis city government.

However, we need a new city council members that realize it's the other way around.

The zoning changes will only result in more density.

Let's protect Annapolis's unique mix of historic and working class neighborhoods.

It's time to reign in spending, not tear the fabric of Annapolis apart to feed the insatiable hunger of bigger government.

Thank you.

Right.

I don't know.

All right.

Um, I've said it before, but thanks to this woman and that woman, I decided I needed to say something.

So most of you probably didn't think I could do that.

Silence is golden.

Why did I do that?

Because I was here about six months ago when someone sat over there after she spoke, and she wondered if the city council heard anything she said.

That when the residents speak, no one listens.

Because after the votes come in, it's like why did we even get up there?

What's really funny about this bill and the bill that we spoke about and a bill we're not speaking about tonight is no one is looking at the cause and effect of the increase of the dwellings, whether it's an ADU, whether it's a short-term rental, or whether it's the affordable housing that we're planning on building on top of this.

We already have traffic issues, we have infrastructure issues, we have school issues.

A couple other people here tonight have brought up a very good point.

When the cat was let out of the bag by Ellen Moyer with Park Place, when investors found out what this city is worth in investment to develop, it's become extremely expensive.

And I really am afraid that unfortunately the things that some people I think have good intentions will turn into very nice profit centers for individuals that don't care one bit about the city of Annapolis.

Not do what we just want to do because of people that are outside influences saying this is best.

And every time we were up there, I enjoyed talking with you.

Thank you, friend.

You guys, thanks for the time.

All right.

Well, I declare the public hearing closed.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is O 3725, City Capital Facilities Charges Payment Plan.

Uh nobody signed up to speak for that, but there's a lot of people here.

Is anyone interested?

Oh Mr.

Mayor, I promise I'll make this short.

John Hammond, 141 Monticello Avenue.

Uh, this capital facilities bill that's before you reminds me of something I should have said earlier this evening on the uh ADU.

There's talk about suspending the requirement for uh capital facility connection charges.

Uh if the property is not used as a short-term rental.

What happens when the property becomes a short-term rental three years after it's been used as a uh a rental property?

Is the city gonna come back?

Is the city gonna know to come back?

And uh oh, we gotta dig the hole so we can put the facilities into the ADU.

That's a problem.

And given our record here in the city of enforcement, good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Right.

Let's declare that public hearing closed.

Uh Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is 03825, exception to the city's prohibition on doors or gates opening over sidewalk.

Come on, someone's gonna have something to say about that.

So well and good till one of those doors hits you.

All right, I declare the public hearing closed on 03825.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Sir, the next item of the agenda is legislative action.

First readers beginning with R 4225.

Compensation of acting city manager Victoria Buckland.

Thank you.

Is there a motion?

So move.

Second.

All right.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is uh legislative action on second reader.

Beginning with O2425 election report deadlines.

So a motion to adopt O 24-25 on second reader.

So moved.

Alderman Savage, then Alderman Huntley.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm not inclined to support this right now, primarily because um I think rules uh recommended unfavorably, but um just because during the election year, uh it's a bit we're already proposing quite a bit to change with the pen and uh during the election season with part the RCV legislation.

I just don't unless the sponsor has a burning need to get this introduced now.

Um kind of fine to wait.

Thank you.

Alderman Huntley next, then Alderman Annette.

Thank you.

Yeah, Alderman Savage.

I mean, to the to your super reasonable point about this in election year-wide debate election legislation.

The answer is I've only been here during an election year.

But uh, point taken.

I appreciate the the time the rules committee spent on this.

Look, to me, the question here is do we want more transparency in our elections?

And we no offense to them, but we we saw a mayoral candidate who was able to declare two years in advance and not really have to report anything until the month before the election.

I think we people are are sort of getting their elections are getting longer, frankly, for worse, in my opinion, but it's a fact, and we want people to be able to know who are their potentially elected officials taking money from.

I think that's worthwhile information to have, and I think it's worthwhile to have it more than a month before the election.

As I understand the position of the um board of elections that they had some hesitancy on it, or or maybe not the board, but just the rules committee, was it's really worth the extra hassle.

And that's that's the right question asked.

Is it worth the extra hassle?

I think that it is.

It's not uh terribly additional work, and it's important to be able to have that transparency into our election.

So I would ask my colleagues to support this and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, rules committee did not support this because we didn't think that there was value added, but we did ask the chair of the board of supervisors of elections, and her response was a it didn't change it in the right way, so the supervisors didn't support it, and B, it really was adding extra burden without any additional benefit.

So I'm certainly not gonna vote in favor of this.

Thank you.

Any other savage, then Otterman.

Oh sorry, guys, I apologize.

Okay, I'm gonna go up to you guys first.

Who was first?

Uh let's go, Otum Finlayson.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I have had many uh years of experience dealing with uh campaign finance reports, and I have seen the tremendous responsibility that's placed on our treasurers, and this is an additional responsibility.

It does not cloud the the image of transparency at all.

So um I will oppose this legislation, and I would hope that my colleagues would do likewise.

You might gay, then Otterman O'Neill.

Thank you.

My apologies.

I just like for clarification.

There still would be transparency uh for the general public, because the filing date as it as it stands would still be followed.

I think the point that the alderman is trying to make, uh whether necessary or not, because I think is a political point, is that do you want to know who is fundraising while you know you may be a candidate on the council or why you may be considering to run?

Is that correct?

In my understanding, Alderman Huntley.

Yes, the point is that if someone is raising money in September, we shouldn't have to wait until August to know it.

Okay, so it's really more for the uh candidates or prospective candidates as opposed to uh the general public.

Uh I mean if you're doing a uh uh fundraisers a year outside of an election, typically aren't they like small meet and greets not speaking for myself, but certainly it is the case that lar very large fundraisers get held more than a month I mean more yeah, more than a month, but up to a year before the election.

Thank you, Mr.

May.

So just means we would get some reporting earlier.

Is that what we're asking?

Uh not very familiar with it.

Alderman Savage.

Just uh so the chair did come to the rules of government express some concerns, but I do see that the the election board did recommend approval, but with this amendment.

So did you have you considered a sponsor introducing their amendment?

Is this something we want to talk about doing on the floor?

Sure, yeah.

So they're amend I'm sorry, Mr.

Mayorman.

Yeah, please.

Yeah.

Um so their amendment was pretty straightforward.

Actually, what I tried to do in the original legislation was to make this not as burdensome.

I eliminated one deadline for reporting while adding two new ones.

And the recommendation from the board of elections was that we not eliminate that one, if I remember correctly.

Um said, yeah, no later than add the word fourth.

Right.

So they're saying uh if my original recommendation was to strike two, I'm sorry, to strike one reporting deadline and to add two reporting deadlines.

They are saying we should not add one of those, and we should not strike the one.

So I I'd be perfectly I would rather see it pass with their recommendation than without, but I think if the concern is that this is adding burden, then I I actually think the legislation as originally written is uh more appropriate.

So are you moving that, Oldman Huntley?

We don't have it's within the uh Board of Supervised of Elections referral, so can you recommend uh can you quote that to Regina and move it?

Uh I mean I I can, but I think it's is that is it worthwhile, or is the legislation gonna just fail in general?

I think if the if they're recommending it with that amendment, I think that would be part of the decision making for the council.

Yeah.

Well, okay.

I mean, I will I will make the motion for the uh amendment, which is sit on page three in line seven.

We would strike the following, no later than the 26th Tuesday preceding any primary election, and on page three in line 11, add uh after the word fourth.

Yeah, this is all in the board of supervisor elections referral.

I'm just repeating.

Okay, I just want to say that they just changed it back to what it was before you do what you do.

That's what they're add the no, it does that it it does that sort of two-thirds of that.

My legislation did three things, which was to strike the uh strike one of them and add two of them.

They are adding back the one that I originally struck and removing one of them.

So the net effect of this right.

So I made a motion for him.

Are you with this Virginia?

Or no?

So on page three, are you amending page three of your bill?

The yes, the motion on the table is what the board of supervisors of elections recommended.

I think that's I think that's inappropriate.

I think you have to just so Regina can get it clear.

What are you amending on page three so we can get it straight?

Because if we have to go back to the what the board of elections did, I think that's uh sure.

I'm just reading what the board of elections did, but I can read it again.

Right.

So I I guess I just want to be clear because we have to decipher this after the meeting.

Are you amending your bill on page three?

Yes.

Okay, so on page three in B, what is now red, what are you changing?

So on page three, line.

Thank you.

Line seven.

Line seven.

It would strike the words no later than the 26th Tuesday preceding any primary election.

Okay.

Take that out.

And that on page three also in line eleven.

Add.

Line.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense how they have it written.

Yeah, the way that they wrote it does not make sense.

I understand what they wanted inserted.

Um line after line eleven.

Add.

No.

This doesn't make sense.

Um, Mr.

Lyles.

Um, maybe Alderman Savage who suggested this could give us some clarification, then Alderman Channel Myers put his hand up.

But Alderman Savage.

Well, I I don't recall the rules and government committee receiving clarity on this recommendation from maybe the chair recalls, but I can't quite decipher their recommendation at this point.

So I don't know how to proceed with it either.

We postpone or just vote as is the easiest.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I was about to echo those comments.

It seems the potential amendment has a couple of moving parts that are open for interpretation.

Uh we have two more meetings left to go that still gives plenty of time for an up and down vote on potential amendment in the legislation as a whole.

If you're amendable to that, I'm amenable to that.

You need a motion.

You do motion to table till October 13th.

Can I get second?

Thank you.

One of the meetings.

I move it.

Right.

Moving postponed to the next council meeting.

October 13.

Seconded.

Okay.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you, Mr.

City Attorney.

Please present the next on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item agenda for second reader is 032 25.

Lease of city property 2031 to 2036.

Fall both shows.

So move.

And you guys are glad you were here for all this.

All right.

Is there a motion to adopt it?

I said so.

Oh, you did.

Great.

Of course you did.

Ross, thank you.

And second it.

Thank you.

Um, so uh for clarification.

The uh vote show lease uh was uh out to 31, I believe, and this puts you out 10 years after that.

Is that right?

No, five years, five years plus four six six or four isn't that okay.

No, I'm just putting out this in for the public.

This is a lease extension that was already uh that was already uh into 31, I believe, and then this is addition because we are dealing with lease extensions.

Okay.

So can I get all those in favor?

Please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Could I get motion on third reader?

So move.

Second.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

Please call the roll.

Yes, sir.

Mayor Buckley.

Aye.

Alderman Pendel Charles.

Aye.

Alderman Velassen.

Aye.

Alderman Sanemeyer.

Hi.

Alderman Gay.

Aye.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neil.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

We appreciate you guys.

Thanks for being here tonight.

There's one more to go.

All right.

Uh Mr.

City Tenny, please present the next item.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

The next item on second reader's 03625.

Lease of city property.

2031 to 2036.

Spring boat shows.

Can I make it a motion?

Thank you.

And a second.

Second.

Thank you.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you.

Can I get a motion on third reader?

So move.

Second.

Second.

Second.

Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Yes, sir.

Mayor Buckley.

Aye.

Alderwoman Pendel Charles.

Aye.

Alderwoman Finn Latin.

Aye.

Alderman Shandemeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi.

Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

Alderman only.

Hi.

All right.

Thanks, guys.

You want to stick around?

No.

All right.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item.

So the next item on second readers are 3625 fees for clearing snow and ice from city sidewalks.

Your motion to uh 36-25 on second reader.

No move.

Second.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

Did you repeat the number?

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

Could you repeat the ordinance number?

So it is uh R 3625 sidewalk clearing.

No, we have skipped that.

Okay.

Um Madam City Clerk, please call the roll on this.

Yes, sir, Mayor Buckley.

Alderman Pendel Charlotte aye.

Alderman Lyson.

Aye.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Hi.

Alderman Gay.

Alder Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi.

Alderman Huntley.

I just want to be clear we're voting on 3625, right?

Aye.

Um, Alderwoman only.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr.

City.

Attorney, please present the next item.

Sir, the next item on the agenda for second readers are 3825.

Reassigning fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026 community grants.

Mr.

Motion 3825.

Alderman Gay.

Uh just for clarity.

I made a mistake there.

Please have me at Ford uh for as um abstained on R 3525 here.

On another item.

Okay.

My apologies.

I I did not realize that we were on 3525.

We didn't do 35.

Alderman, we pulled 3525.

We were on uh we had just voted on 3625.

Okay, fantastic.

We pulled that.

Yep.

Thank you.

That explains my confusion.

I was thank you.

No worries.

So here we are on 3825.

Could I get a motion, please?

So moved.

10 to 10.

Uh uh, Madam City Clerk, please go the roll.

Yep.

Mayor Buckley.

Aye.

Alderman Pendelto.

Aye.

Alderman Lacey.

Hi.

Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Aye.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Hi.

Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Hi.

Thank you.

Hey, Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item agenda.

Yes, sir.

The next item on the agenda is R 3925.

Itinerant Merchant Sales in the Historic District.

Or flea market.

Thank you.

Oh, was that pulled?

No, it's good.

I have an amendment.

Okay.

So can we move it before you do that, please?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Alderman Huntley.

So I want to um well, we had a couple things happen with this at the last minute.

So I'm just want to make take a moment and explain to my colleagues before I make this amendment.

So we had an oversight in the date of this.

We did consider the finance committee, but there's a conflict that it is the same day as C Maryland Avenue Fall Festival.

And also that uh with changing that date, the the time uh change that we recommended as an amendment does not work.

So what I'm asking you all to do is to uh vote against amendment one, which would have changed the time.

Uh and then that we have a separate amendment two, which would uh just change the date, which is currently October 19th, and we would change that I'll give it to you in a second, but that would change that October 19th to either either November 9th or November 23rd.

So uh uh Alderman Huntley, uh we don't have amendment one moved, or I didn't have it recorded in front of me, so if it doesn't get moved by anyone, it doesn't mean anything.

You don't, it's on my agenda.

Yep, we don't have to do that.

Yes, I had to move it first.

Yeah, okay.

Oh, that's fine.

I'm just trying to set the stage.

Okay.

Um, so I'll go to Alderman Shandelmeyer.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh totally fine on the not moving the amendment.

Uh very good catch on your part, Alderman.

Um, but my question is with the either date.

Um should we wait on again voting on this until we can get a concrete date that we know works for the city and works for everything, or does this one have a timeline that we gotta get it done before October?

Uh I did validate these dates with a lot of people today.

I was on the phone for a good chunk of the afternoon, making sure that there weren't other conflicts with it.

Yeah, uh at the same time, out of uh given the fact that we are changing things around at kind of the last minute.

I'd like to give deference to the the um exhibitor here and give them two options.

So I I think it is reasonable to have both of those two in there and and say we let the final determination happen with the um when the permit is issued.

So wanting to get this passed today is out of respect to the exhibitor who has been flexible with the reschedule due to the oversight, and it still allows uh accommodating the Maryland Avenue Festival while also giving the flea market vendor uh their own flexibility and thanking them for their accommodating us.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, I can understand that.

So you'll be moving an amendment with two dates that we have.

Okay, let's move that amendment after ultimately net.

Well, no, I'll wait till it's moved the amendments.

Is there an amendment offered?

Not yet.

In the in is in the pipeline.

Are you moving an amendment?

Please should we vote on amendment one before I move an amendment to the two.

There's no amendment.

Okay.

Nobody moved amendment.

Okay, amendment two is this will be amendment one.

Yeah.

All right.

Whatever we're calling.

New amendment.

Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

There is an amendment one connected, but he does it.

He right.

That's what I'm saying.

So he so he would have to do amendment.

Because we have on record attached to pop an amendment.

So his new amendment would have two because we would have two numbers.

Yeah, just point of order.

Yeah.

The cleanest way is just if you don't want amendment one, don't move it.

It's okay.

Nothing happens in it.

But uh I don't know what the number of the next one would be, but you can just move the amendment and state it out loud.

But I do want to I'll wait on that.

Um, but I but I I do like one of the provisions in your amendment one as far as getting property owner buy-in.

I mean the um market space plaza tenant by yes that I'm sorry, may I you you want to move that ultman Huntley?

Sure.

Let me just respond to Alderman Savage briefly and say, yes, that is a good provision out of simplifying things.

I tried to not throw that back in, but I have the letter with all five signatories, I'm happy to send it to you.

Um okay, so the amendment that I'm moving, whether it's one or two, is to strike on page two line 13.

Strike the words October 19th, and replace them with the words one of November 9th, or November 23.

Uh is the city attorney?

Uh minus suggest that the both dates go in to October 9th and October 23rd.

If the market happens on the 9th, it happens on the 9th, if it happens on the 23rd, it's more definitive.

Because or is this it's it's hard to regulate that in legislation.

My suggestion would be to just make it both dates applicable.

If it happens on the ninth or doesn't happen on the ninth, you still get the benefit of the legislation.

Oldman Huntley?

Uh, would that not potentially allow both days?

I mean, we don't want it to happen twice because we're running on this at the last minute.

And we trust them.

Let's let's try let's put a little trust here, can we?

I think the the way I suggested the legislation is is better, but who am I to say compared to the city attorney?

But that actually encumbers both dates.

And I don't think that's the right way to do business if you want to postpone until we can figure out what the right date is and be happy in favor of that, but not encumbering both dates, which we do it as and it does.

So do I have a second uh ultimate savage?

Um yeah, I mean, I I don't want to commit to both, so I guess um is there is there is it clear enough?

I mean, this is uh resolution.

Is it clear enough for the law office as proposed with the with the or what you repeat it again?

No you've moved it as or right, yeah.

Yeah, one of November 9th or November 25th.

Right.

I mean let's just take a chance, shall we?

Okay, all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

No.

Thank you.

Can I get a motion on the uh on it as amended, please?

So moved.

Second.

Um, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Oh, it should be a roll call.

Sorry.

No problem.

Mayor Buckley.

Aye.

Alderman Pendelto.

Aye.

Alderman for Lace.

Aye.

Alderman Sandemeyer.

Aye.

Alderman Gay.

Aye.

Alderman Savage.

Aye.

Alderman Arnett.

Aye.

Alderman Hatley.

Aye.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Aye.

All right.

Thank you for trying something newer.

Flea Market at Market Square could be fun.

Thank that fella.

I'll be picking out some new outfits.

All right.

Um, Mr.

City Attorney.

Any Yes, Mr.

Mayor, that uh the agenda has been completed.

Right.

Is there anything else for good order?

Alderman O'Neill.

Then you'd have to look over there because I know.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, one sad point I would like to point out that um one of my constituents, or I should say former constituents because she had moved, uh, Shirley Gordon did pass away um earlier in September.

Um, there is a GoFundMe page.

Um circulating on Facebook if anybody has any desires to help out.

I know that her family could use the help and support and thoughts and prayers um as they're trying to deal with all of that.

Um take a moment and think about her for a moment.

I'm sure that's that would be appreciated by the family.

Nice.

Let's take a little moment of silence.

Can we please you?

Thank you, Miss Shirley.

Okay.

Anything else for good order?

Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Um, in positive news, the city will be launching its maritime apprenticeship program on Friday, where we will be providing uh free workforce development and apprenticeship training for local residents into local Annapolis maritime businesses.

Uh, we are launching the program at the boat show at 11 a.m.

And uh thank you to everybody who supported this initiative.

It really shows that Annapolis is a leader in this industry.

Good job.

Thank you so much.

And just up any guys on the screens, you guys all good?

Okay, could I get a motion to adjourn?

The move.

Second.

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Lively meeting adjourned.