Uh Alderman's uh Arnett and Alderman Chandlemyer are present and um I'm not seeing the council chamber, so I can't see who else might be there.

Um could you fix that on my camera, please?

We have a couple folks in the audience, madam chair, who may want to testify for some things, and Alderman Savage is still here for uh amendments and possibly his own legislation.

Okay, so uh I was just taking the roll and I'll acknowledge that Alderman Chandlemaier uh is joining us.

Uh I will begin by approval of the agenda.

Uh Ms.

Jackson, we have something to add to the agenda, I believe.

Yes, Alderman.

Yes, madam chair, I move we amend the agenda to add CA 125.

Okay, can I get a second?

Second.

All right.

All in favor of the agenda as amended, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Next item is approval of the minutes.

The term ending minutes from September 9th, 2025.

Motion.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay, going on to legislation.

Uh the first is 01525, accessory dwelling unit requirement.

Uh Alderman.

Channel Meyer, this is your legislation.

Would you like to speak to uh the changes that I'm looking at?

Yes, madam chair.

Uh so the legislation removes the current owner occupancy requirement that we have for accessory dwelling units in the city.

When we first passed the our accessory dwelling unit law in 2021, uh the FHA did not allow for loans to be granted to get them, but in 2023, the FHA changed its regulations to allow for accessory dwelling units to receive uh for A to Us to qualify for FHA loans, but one of the caveats is they cannot be in jurisdictions with rental restrictions.

Um and owner occupancy requirements are one of those restrictions.

And page 18 on the regulations for of the new updated regulations showcase that.

Um I understand a lot of the concerns that planning and zoning staff have around short-term rental proliferation.

Uh, we do have an amendment later on to address that to keep the owner occupancy requirement for short-term rentals.

Uh, and then I also have on another amendment some other changes for some other things that have been blocking accessory dwelling unit construction here in the city and emerging as barriers.

Okay, I'm looking at the legislation now, and it looks like there are two uh changes, and one does speak to owner occupancy, and the other uh uh, and that's on page three, and the other on page four deals with uh licensure.

Are those two amendments you're referring to?

So that is not the amendment I was referring to when I was originally trying to draft this.

Uh we were trying to deal with the concern of how can we prevent both from being short-term rented?

And that was one of my ways to try and tackle it, but with amendment two, which still maintains the owner occupancy requirement for any short-term rentals.

Uh that portion on page four lines 10 through 12 will be a bit moot.

Okay, so you're you have an amendment to your own legislation.

The first amendment the first amendment one.

Uh, so I guess I'll move that so we can discuss it.

So I'd like to move amendment one.

It's been moved properly or seconded.

Is there a second to open discussion on amendment one?

I'll second so we can discuss, but I'm opposed.

Okay.

So uh we gonna discuss the legislation itself.

Well, I had asked the sponsor to speak to it if you'd like for him to give further explanation than what he's already given.

Absolutely.

I'm happy to discuss the amendment uh legislation as written before we get to the amendments.

Please do.

So, madam chair.

I would like I would speak in opposition to this uh ordinance.

Uh may I let me interrupt you?

May I let the sponsor give his overview before we all right?

I'm sorry, I thought he had.

Um I think he's speaking in opposition to the ordinance as a whole, not to the amendments.

Okay, do you is there anything that you would like to say as far as the ordinance is concerned, Alderman Channel?

It comes down to in order to make the financing of this more flexible for the FHA loans, which are the easiest loans for people to get.

Uh we need to do this.

It really comes down to that.

Um, and while I understand some of the concerns brought forward by my colleagues, by constituents and planning and zoning staff, I think I have addressed that in the amendment, uh, amendment two to maintain the owner accuracy requirement for short-term rentals, but happy to have further discussions on the legislation as a on the legislation along with that.

Okay, so before we get into the amendments, uh call on Alderman Arnett.

Uh Madam Chair, as I testified at the Planning Commission, who by the way unanimously voted to disapprove this ordinance.

ADUs have always been presented and I believe should remain dwelling units that are family oriented.

The it was characterized as granny flats.

I think that's not really comprehensive.

The things that accessory dwelling units allow is for a family to create a space, a separate space to bring in family members who are in distress to live with them.

It also allows them to have a separate space to bring in caregivers or people who provide um uh uh aids to daily living, and it it does provide for families who have a change or want to have a change in their circumstances.

For example, a young family where they decide they want to have children.

This is exactly the case when I was canvassing that I ran into uh when we were passing the original accessory dwelling unit, young couple, they were both working, they started a family, the wife could no longer work, she was taking care of the baby, and they needed the accessory dwelling unit in order to be able to have the supplemental income from that that provided so that she could stay home with the family.

It's always been that way.

This takes family out of it and puts investors into the legislature.

Now, having said that, and I think that's a fundamental objection I have really for this and for the uh access to the uh duplexes, but having said that, in both cases, and I'll speak to accessory dwelling units, the desire is to increase the housing density in the city.

And so I'd like to talk to speak to that, and uh and I think when you look at the comprehensive plan, which is planning, that's exactly what it is attempting to do, but in a planning fashion.

So, first of all, I think we need to think about the population that we're focusing on when we're trying to increase housing availability for affordable housing, not subsidized housing.

And I think that cohort is the socio-demographic core cohort between people who are eligible for subsidized housing, public housing section eight.

They're not eligible for that, but they can't afford market rate, and that's an identifiable cohort and is identified by Secretary Day for the state of Maryland as being a shortage of 96,000 units in the state of Maryland.

If you apply the divide that number by the population of Maryland, 6,232, whatever, you come up with a ratio of 0.015 that you can apply to the city population, and that calculates out to a need for new housing, affordable housing specifically of 631 units.

The comp plan already calls for 700.

Now, the other number that Secretary Day put out, which confused me because it was 240,000, but that included all housing for affordability, including public housing and section eight housing.

So if you back out the public housing and the section eight housing and our MPD unit housing, I would say that there is no way that the city of Annapolis can feel any chagrin about the amount of housing they're they're providing and the amount of housing that they're planning to provide in the comprehensive plan.

The real difference between providing it through the comprehensive plan and providing it through this shotgun approach, which is we'll pass it and see where it happens.

We don't know how many units it will bring on.

We don't know where.

We don't know whether they're in transportation corridors or in the opportunity unit areas in the comp plan, the 12 areas.

And so it's not planning.

It's simply not planning.

In fact, I think it's anthetical to the comprehensive plan.

And it's distractive of the comprehensive plan.

And I can go on for longer, but I really think that we need to reject this ordinance because it's not consistent with comprehensive planning.

And we have no idea what it's going to render or where it's going to chuck up.

And it is very clearly only going to be available to the people with the money to do it.

An accessory dwelling unit is not cheap to develop.

I wanted to do one of my own home over my garage.

And the minimum price a while ago was 144,000.

I do have that, but I chose not to spend that.

And I think that what we're doing is really opening up the door for developers and speculators who are not taking care of families and allowing families to take care of their needs.

And we're not planning.

And I spent a lot of time working on and admittedly started off stiff-legged about the comprehensive plan.

But I am now wholly supporting it, and I think it is appropriate because we're planning where we want these things to go, and not only where we want them to go, but what we want them to include.

So it's not just building a cheap little box, it's building a box in an area that is has other things such as daycare, knock in the box, mini marks, and transportation, the very thing we were working on on 014.

And that happens through planning, not the whim of some investor here or there.

And we have no idea that this may generate no new housing.

It could generate 3,000 housing units.

And we have no plan to accommodate.

So my real problem with this legislation is it's not planning.

And it can be taken care of through planning.

Madam Chair, if I may.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Chandlemai.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, so the planning commission's concerns with this were proliferation around short-term rentals.

And while I had brought forward a potential amendment because concerns from staff were brought very close to planning commission, and we had worked out the amendment two together, it had not been presented with enough time for planning commission to see it.

Uh, they had asked that they could see it at their next meeting, but there were a lot of concerns around timing, considering we're hearing this during our October meeting.

I did not want to risk running out the clock before that.

Um, as for this excuse me, let's stop there because I was at that planning commission.

Alderman Alderman Alderman, Alderman Chanelmeyer has the floor, please.

Sorry.

Also rude, man.

Come on.

Okay.

Um, in regards to these are for families, they are called granny flats.

Accessory dwelling units have many benefits.

And while granting flats is a colloquialism, the key purpose is just providing a smaller additional renter space.

And if we have two long-term renter spaces, one of them being a smaller, more accessible starter home for renters, which we do have a shortage of, I still see that as a good step forward in dealing with our housing crisis.

Now, I got my start in a non-owner occupied accessory dwelling unit.

The families who owned it lived in Arnold.

I was living in the ADU above the garage, which was off the books, and then their other person lived in the main house.

But we were both young people getting our start, becoming great contributing members of our community.

And I believe that two long-term housing two long-term rental options, which again, amendment two does guarantee that if we get rid of the owner occupancy requirement will be still an acceptable way to provide housing.

And I'm very confident this will not cause 3,000 new units.

Accessory dwelling units, even under the best case of scenario, only get popped up on 2% of lots under the best of cases.

And we still have a lot of additional barriers, a lot of additional things that make these difficult to build.

Thank you, Alberta.

Madam Chair.

Okay, Alderman, uh, Arnett, and then we're gonna planning commission, and as I said, testified.

And their concern was about this change, encouraging speculative development.

That was their primary concern.

Yes, there was concern about the short-term rent.

And I agree with their concern about that.

But again, my primary objective objection to this is that it is not planned.

We have no idea when or where.

And it planning is not just, as I said, creating affordable boxes to live in.

It's all the other accoutrements that are necessary to support a community.

And it's the very things that we've been talking about in 014.

And so the objection is not about short-term rentals.

The objection is that it's not planned.

And it is antithetical to the comp plan.

Thank you.

Alderman uh Savage.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just wondering if I could ask uh staff a question regarding Alder Marinet's concerns.

Um because Mr.

Leshinski is here.

Um my question would be uh if there is a way to address Alderman Arnett's concerns as far as directing some of the central ADU growth or additions, whatever you want to call it, to particular areas.

Uh, because I think he mentioned opportunity areas, but I'm not sure if we include, I don't think we include those in the comp plan, but just wondering if you had any suggestions on how we might be able to address some of those concerns.

Um Eric Lashinski, Chief of Comprehensive Planning.

My opinion would be that I would not be prudent.

Um, we have a um a legislation that passed in 2021 that allowed for ADUs on any residential lot in the city.

It has standards associated with doing those ADUs.

We have not seen a windfall of ADU construction in the city.

Uh I mean, our understanding from planning and zoning with that kind of legislation, there's a consensus that the ADU has value throughout the city as a small residential unit that could support our housing goals.

It's true that we we don't project where those are going to happen.

You know, we don't predict that.

Um, but the the consensus is that they make sense at that size and and uh the standards there in place and um and they generally haven't proven to be a nuisance to neighborhoods.

So that's the perception of our department.

Thank you, Mr.

Leshinski.

Okay, let's move on to um the actual amendment.

The actual two amendments.

Alderman Challenmeyer, I believe you're the sponsor of both.

Yes, madam chair.

One, please.

Yes, uh, so I believe amendment had been first and seconded.

Um amendment one has been some of the issue other issues that have popped up around ADU construction.

Uh the size limit being one of them.

An example is in um uh German town, a home, a family has been trying to construct an accessory dwelling unit, a brand new construction uh and bumping up into an issue where our definition of livable space uh livable space has been causing problems with the stairs, it exceeds the 850 square footage limit.

Um there's been a lot of debate internally on our stairs livable space or not.

And so we decided that a simplifying thing would be to match the 12 to up our square footage limit to 1200, which is something that other jurisdictions have done.

Uh and then we also decided to get rid of livable space since again it was vague and just simplify it to floor area.

So now instead of going our stairs livable is a balcony livable, we just go 1200 square foot and floor area.

Uh another issue that has come up has been utility connections and water and meter impact fees.

Umtility connections are a large upfront cost.

Uh, when we introduced the original legislation, it was recommended that uh by our planning and zoning director at the time that we require a separate water sewer hookup connection to the accessory dwelling unit and not be able to tap into the house's uh currently existing line.

Uh this has been a larger barrier than we originally thought, uh costing 50 to 80,000 for upfront costs.

Again, six accessory dwelling units are built by individual homeowners, not massive developers.

These tens of thousands of dollar costs do add up.

So by allowing for tapping into the main house's water and sewer line, you get a lot of savings.

Uh, and then we also tried it to provide a little bit additional uh encouragement for um keeping these as long-term rentals by providing fee and uh fee exceptions if they are kept as long-term rentals rather than short-term rentals.

And that is amendment one.

Uh so is there a second for uh amendment one?

I believe it had been seconded by Alderman Arnett for the purposes of discussion.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

Uh further discussion.

Thank you, madam chair.

So um I there's three ways you can create an accessory dwelling.

You can do it within the existing structure, maybe devoting a floor, or you could do it over an ancillary structure, maybe building over top of a garage, or you can do it by an addition to the structure, say on the back.

But in most of the communities, and certainly in my communities, the average house size is around 2400 square feet, give or take.

It varies, of course, by size of lots and so forth.

And and essentially, this is doubling the size of the units that are in the area.

But you know, I mean, it's 850 1200.

That's not really the primary objective of this legislation.

But in community in a neighbor in a uh city where many of the homes are small homes, this is really a significant increase in the density of the home.

It's it's really in the legislation we were just talking about a lot about the 3250 rule that really escaped attention at the last uh meeting on the 01424.

But I mean, this is a significant increase in the size of the building or the the density that's on the lot.

So I I do I don't accept it.

I don't think it's as objectionable as your I pose.

Okay, further discussion, hearing none.

Oh, madam chair.

Yes, Alderman.

I apologize.

Um while this may not quell all of Alderman Arnett's concerns, I do hope it can quell a few of them.

Uh we still do have the standard setbacks and uh other things on the legislation as a whole, and from the originally passed accessory dwelling unit law, there was a portion included to require offsetting impervious surfaces.

Uh when you constructed new accessory dwelling units, so that should cut down on issues with increased stormwater runoff due to the increase in size.

Thank you for that.

Um I'm gonna support the amendment, but I will speak to the uh legislation as a whole when we come back to it.

Uh further discussion, hearing none, all in favor of amendment one, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Okay, let's go on to amendment two.

Alderman Shannonmeyer.

Um amendment two was what we worked out with planning and zoning after they had brought forward their concerns over uh removing the owner occupancy requirement causing a proliferation of short term rentals, um, which again was never the intention of this legislation.

Um what it does is it maintains the owner occupancy requirement if someone were to want to short term rent.

Okay.

Umderman Arnett, is your hand up?

No.

No.

Okay.

Um my issue with this legislation is taking away the owner occupied component of it.

So by um this amendment, then the owner occupied units are still eligible, but then they have to live there.

If one were to, if one were to do a short term rental, they would have to still maintain the owner occupancy requirement.

Um because receiving an FHA mortgage is irrelevant for that anyway.

Um, and that also would address that also addressed planning and zoning's concerns about short-term short-term rental proliferation.

Um do short term rentals now require owner occupancy.

At this time they do the legislation as written unintentionally got rid of that amendment two would still allow would uh still require owner occupancy for short-term rental.

I think we need to ask the officer.

I believe you don't have to be owner occupied, but you have to have a resident agent if you're not in the city and you're not occupying the well, and that's what I'm recalling, and thus my hesitation that there's got to be a manager or someone in close proximity.

Mr.

Lechinski, can you answer?

I I believe it just for the ADU to be a short-term rental requires the owner occupancy.

I think that's the that's the specific um circumstance.

But in other circumstances, uh a primary uh housing unit could have a property manager um in place or the short-term rental, but they would not be required to be owner occupied, right?

Okay, further discussion, Alderman uh Savage.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh yeah, I I do think this is a good amendment.

It I think it meets the spirit of the uh short-term rental code that we've already passed.

Um so and I think this would address some of the community concerns.

So I can't vote on this committee, but I just wanted to express I think it's a good amendment.

Thank you.

Okay, further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of the Shannelmeyer amendment two, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Is there an opposed?

Not on amendment two.

Okay.

All right.

Uh going back to 015.

I'm sorry.

Alderman Savage.

Yeah, sorry.

I uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Just uh if you would allow, I did have a floor amendment that I believe should have been emailed to you.

Uh it's an attempt to address some of Alderman Arnett's concerns and some of the concerns we're heard from the public.

Do you have a copy?

And would you allow any conversation of that today?

Uh so amendment to oh which one are we on now?

I'm I have two.

It'd be the one for 015.

Um I'm looking for it in my um.

I'm looking for your amendment that was sent.

Says amendments were posted late yesterday.

They're bringing copies.

That's from Ms.

Reuter, but I don't see it.

And it's not let me double check.

It's not attached.

Ms.

Reuters said those are the amendments.

There are only two amendments that are attached.

Uh both Chandelmeyer amendments.

So I'm looking for your amendments that were sent today, yesterday.

Um staff said they were sent today.

Okay, I have it.

It was just sent at 233.

Got it.

Uh Alderman Savage, do you want to speak to your amendment?

Yes, what this essentially does again to address some of the concerns we've heard about potential impacts from as far as uh density uh increases of basically concerns we've heard about too many ADUs being added.

People were concerned about um the impacts that might have on infrastructure, um, you know, parking we heard.

So this I was thinking about ways to address that, and what I came up with is something similar to what Alderman uh Huntley is trying to do with the short-term rental, which is um essentially set a 10% cap per block.

So if ADUs reach 10%, it would basically put a hold on any new permits.

Um, but it does allow increases up to 30% of a block face to have ADUs if a uh mobility assessment is completed by staff.

Um could I ask Mr.

Leshinsky or Mr.

Drakubiak to respond?

Um and I'm primarily looking at um staffing impact.

Um Madam Chair, uh Director Jackubiak was not able to attend this meeting, but I'm here.

Um this is the first time I'm seeing the is a floor amendment, so uh we're all seeing it for the first time.

Um I I think at first glance my my concerns would be that we're we're trying to encourage ADU construction.

Uh it is a small piece of our housing policy, it's not going to address all of our housing needs.

Um, but I do worry that capping uh the ADUs at 10% of a block face is unnecessarily low, and that we've sort of handicapped uh a consensus goal of the city.

Um you know that that we haven't really even allowed to get going.

You know, there's there remain uh significant obstacles to building ADUs, cost, um permitting, you know, some of this legislation tries to address some of those obstacles.

Uh my I guess my take on this is that I would rather see this policy ADU encouraging ADUs have a chance of of addressing some housing needs, um, whether they be for a family member or uh uh somebody who can't afford uh uh a larger house or you know there's a lot of community needs out there that could be met by the ADUs, but I'm just afraid that we haven't let it um percolate yet.

Uh I I guess I'm less concerned.

I mean the the mobility assessment um I I don't want to discount the parking issues.

I mean, I think in some places there might be parking impacts, but I don't think we're there yet.

I think um uh you know, with every new construction, we do an assessment.

And I mean I think there has to be some ongoing um uh as part of the review process, there would be that built in, but um I I just don't see the as of now the the rate at which we're adding edus, it's hard to imagine the pressures that would lead to um this kind of impact that we're trying to address with this amendment.

Um that's just my first take, I guess.

Um thank you.

Um you know, my like I said, my concern has to do primarily with um staffing impact.

Uh I saw Alderman uh Arnett's hand.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I think uh this brings up an interesting point.

I think the city has eight accessory dwelling units registered so far.

On my block alone, there are six.

Clearly, they're mostly or not all unregistered, but every single application we get for new development in the R2NC, I would say 75% of them come with a proposal to add an accessory dwelling unit.

Now that goes to the desire of the uh long-term planner to have that density, but in fact, it is the density, and I go back to the point that we have no idea when and where these are going to occur.

We certainly have no nothing in this legislation that requires it to occur in the opportunity areas or the transit corridors, and so if you take my street, there can be a lot of accessory there are a lot of accessory dwelling units, they're just not known, and that really leads to another point, which is they're not being regulated, there's not being enforced, and so that is another problem that we hear from our residents all the time.

You can have the best code in the world.

If you're not enforcing it, you're not enforcing the unregistered short-term rentals or the ADUs, the code doesn't make a difference to the daily living in the neighborhood.

So again, we just don't know how many of these are going to happen.

In my word, the indication is that there are a lot of accessory dwelling units, and there's more coming on online, certainly more than the city has the notion that are in existence.

But having said that, I do favor this amendment.

Further discussion hearing none, all in favor of uh the savage amendment.

I'm sorry, was it moved, Jalen?

Kaelin?

No.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, all in favor of the savage amendment, please say aye.

I thank you.

So let's go back to the original uh 1525 uh language as amended.

And we have three amendments, Caitlin.

Approved amendments.

Okay.

Um I said I would speak to it as a whole, and I will very briefly, but but I hearken back to longer than five years ago when we began, and Ross, you and I started with a group of community leaders, uh, and and residents, not all community leaders, but residents from uh across the city who were concerned about um ADUs and STRs, and uh one of the questions they always raised was about how many would be allowed and how those would impact their communities and their community character and their community relations.

And uh we got away, and that committee worked for two years, if I remember correctly, and made some resolution some recommendations, and we passed legislation that met some of their needs, but not all of them.

But those things have hung in my head that we we still miss the mark, and so these little tweaks to slowly take us back away from what the community had asked for from us, um, is a concern.

So um I'm gonna oppose this, and I understand the need, and but I think there's a way of getting to it without hurting in a negative way um the community that's existing.

So that being said, uh all in favor of O15 as amended by the rules committee, please say aye.

Aye opposed nay, thank you.

All right, going on to 01825, reallowing historic duplexes in R2 zoning districts, and this is Alderman Hatley's uh legislation.

I think it's pretty clear, but would anyone like to um speak to it?

Or Mr.

Lyshinsky, if you could give us your idea on the impact that this is gonna have in um single family residences and R2s zones, um yes, sure, madam chair.

Uh although planning and zoning was not involved in writing the legislation, we do support the legislation.

Um, we issued a staff report to the planning commission to that effect.

Um we see this legislation as just a very modest incremental change to the city's zoning uh allowances.

It is consistent with the comprehensive plan where we have a map in our land use chapter, or perhaps maybe it's the housing chapter, I'm sorry, it shows just how much of the city today does not allow for um a basic duplex.

Um the majority of our residentially zoned areas in the city only allow for single family residence um detached or in some cases attached.

So the number of properties that would be impacted by this is about a quarter of the properties in the R2 zone, and then you'd have to anticipate only a fraction of those would really um choose to utilize this uh legislation.

So um we think this is uh a sensible piece of legislation, it it advances the type of housing that has historically characterized Annapolis, it's what an you know, frankly, a lot of people who visit Annapolis think of when they think of Annapolis, the the variety of small housing units that cater to um different housing needs, and and um in short, we we just think this is a pretty um sensible piece of legislation.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion, so moved.

Uh I think I see Alderman Arnett's handout.

I'll second it, but I do have discussion.

Okay, it's removed and seconded.

Discussion, Alderman Arnett.

So duplexes are an interesting issue, and I have several thoughts.

First of all, um there are a number of duplexes in my work, as actually triplexes, even up to five plexus, uh, in one instance at least.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with them, but there are some aspects to it.

First of all, um, they do increase the umpermeable space by 12 feet, the two side yards that they are not cheaper than to build than a single family home because you're building two kitchens, multiple bathrooms, double HBAC, all the wiring, and you have to have a party wall that is fireproof and hopefully sound proof.

So um I think that the likelihood that this is going to be something that will proliferate is small.

I do think that the likelihood is higher under the companies in the opportunity areas.

I think this is part of the missing middle thinking, and it's part of um what would go into increasing density in the opportunity areas and the so forth.

But let's think about where this is likely to happen.

Um, I don't think it's gonna be happening very much at all, or even can happen in ward one, can't happen in a large part of ward two because most of that is R2 and C or a lot of it.

Um, and it's probably not gonna happen in ward two because homes there are fairly expensive.

And that again is going to be opening up unlikely the homeowner is going to do this.

So it is developers are going to buy and redevelop by tearing down the single family unit, putting up the duplex.

And that is going to have a disproportionate impact across the city.

And again, my fundamental concern here is we're not planning for this.

We don't know if when or where they're going to occur.

We don't have any conditions associated with putting in duplex in terms of enhancing transportation or enhancing other community services and those sorts of things.

So I again I find it strange to think about the amount of time and effort.

And frankly, what I think is food quality product that we came out of with the comprehensive plan.

And then we move away from planning.

We move to legislation that is essentially shotgun, put it out and see where it happens and see what the consequences are.

And so again, I really resist this because it's not planned.

Um it's not likely to happen a lot, and it is however likely to happen where property values are low.

And it could have a fairly significant impact impact on changing the community character in those.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So in Primrose Acres, which is in my ward, there was a house that was falling apart, sold for about $60,000.

Contractor lives in my neighborhood, did total gut job renovation, looks fantastic.

Sold for 450.

Good for him.

But if he had been able to tear that down and build a duplex, that land would have been shared with two units, and that could have been delivered cheaper.

Instead of one new more expensive home, we could have gotten two 330,000 homes.

Is that capital A HUD-defined affordable?

No.

But that is cheaper than 450,000.

And that's what these legislation, this piece of legislation does.

It allows that small gradual incremental change in areas that are seeing housing stocks start to age, where the only other alternative is tear down, build a McMansion, or do complete gut and renovation and fix everything all at once, and that adds up very significant costs and pushes out young families like mine, young families like Alderman Gay, young families like Alderman Huntley's, and that is what is really killing our town.

One in three percent, one in three of our cities cost burn.

That's the consequence of doing nothing.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I'll do Mint Savage and then I'll demonstrate.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I guess one clarification question for staff.

I think this it only impacts R2, not R2 NC, right?

And I believe the sponsor said that um, and I think uh Mr.

Woschinski also said it used to be a permitted uh um development in froze.

But Madam Chair, are you still there?

Yes, I'm still here.

I'm trying to stop my phones from ringing.

I'm sorry.

All right, there you go.

Now we got you back.

Sorry, I was just getting clarification that this used to be a permitted use in R2, right?

That's correct.

Used to be a permitted use in R2.

Um so I'm I'm still making up my final mind on this, but I do think I wanted to at least point out that um similar to the last piece of legislation, the the change in both would be very very incremental.

Um that's been proved proven out with the ADU.

Um, it has been very slow.

I think duplexes similarly would be very slow, and I think we have plenty of time to address um some of the infrastructure concerns.

I would like to see some more work put in to identifying those R2 communities that do need some infrastructure work.

Um, you know, but then again, I also look towards you know, I have an entire a couple of entire communities in my ward that are um duplex communities, and they I've not heard any a single complaint about infrastructure impacts in those communities.

So that tells me that it's manageable, even if we did see a huge influx of of these, it it's certainly manageable.

Um, but I think there are a lot of to have some huge proliferation of duplexes, we would we would have to see a vast amount of residents selling their homes at the same time, right?

And so I I just don't think it's this is again very incremental.

Um that said, you know, I I'm not gonna get into it too much detail um yet, but um I do have an amendment to try to at least provide some kind of cap on that for the public's perception, but yeah, I really don't see how this would drive a a huge increase in duplexes.

Um but we do have a lot of R2 zoning in the city, it looks like I was just looking at the map.

Um if may I comment?

Yeah.

I I'm really glad you brought up the um the duplexes in in your ward, because it it it's really important to acknowledge that this isn't a hypothetical scenario.

The city has large areas of duplexes in almost every part of the city that have been here for a generation or more.

Some are more historic, some were built in the 70s or the 80s or even the nineties, and we have not seen the impacts to infrastructure.

We haven't, you know, it's um they are um in many cases seamless with surrounding areas, you know, they they build on the character that's already there.

Um and that's that's the kind of pattern that we look at as planners, you know, how has this worked in the city thus far?

And uh we just we can't point to specific issues that would discredit this type of housing.

It just by and large been a positive factor in Annapolis.

Do you think if I could ask one more question?

Like, do you think if this were to pass, like uh do you think any kind of cumulative impact of or any had you have any kind of projections in your head as far as um number of ADUs we might I mean not IDUs, number of duplexes we might expect um in future years.

Uh and do you think it would rise to a level where we needed we would need to think about some of the transportation, you know, impacts that I've I mean the reason I'm more concerned about that for the planned unit development is because that's a huge number of units all at once.

This I just seems weren't incremental, but did you have any projections that the sta that you know your department's in your head for this?

We don't have any projections.

It's really hard to predict just for all the various constraints that um make any kind of new construction difficult.

I mean in some conversations I've had with residents, you know, to try to clarify you know what might happen with this legislation, I think it's certainly more straightforward in many cases to subdivide an existing structure into two units rather than um building another unit or demolishing a house and rebuilding that whole house on like a similar footprint.

I just don't see that as likely in many circumstances.

Um people don't go into that permitting process um lightly, you know, it's uh um significant cost to doing this.

Um I agree with Alderman Arnett's assessment that there are parts of the city where the land costs might uh lead to more of the duplexes, but even then, those are places where generally duplexes already exist.

I think of Tyler Avenue, for example, it's a large section that is actually R3 zoned closer to Hilltop Lane that is all duplexes.

These would blend in.

There's um there's no reason to believe that a duplex would not fit in with that context.

Um it already exists there.

So um you know, I I just don't uh but it's really hard to predict the sort of how many we're gonna see.

It's too many constraints.

So I guess a follow-up that just occurred to me, my my final question would be um, because you did mention that there may be some certain communities, and one in mind I was just looking as uh Victor Haven in my community.

That is that has currently has some of our most affordable housing in the city, uh you know, predominantly African American community.

I would hate to see that I don't know gentrification probably is an overstatement there, but I would hate to see.

Do you think it's a danger that some of those homes could be bought up and duplexes put in that would end up driving up prices, or do you think you know if you get what I'm I'm trying to explain is like you know, make sure that the duplexes are affordable still when they're built.

So do you think that's a danger?

I don't see it as a danger.

I see um it's we um in the comprehensive plan, we really we added a section that talks about the importance of housing ownership, um, homeownership to build equity.

Um there are all kinds of reasons people choose to sell their property uh or hold on to it.

Um I have no doubt that there will be efforts by um investors to buy properties and see that happens today.

Um that'll continue.

I think, you know, could there be more uh education uh to homeowners to to uh you know hold on to what you have, perhaps, but I don't I don't see this as expanding the threat of people selling their properties.

Um I just I see it as a continuing challenge to um you know ensure that residents who live in the city understand their um their value of their property and you know, could there be policies at tax equity?

Perhaps um, but we don't dictate the value of properties, you know, the county does.

So I think it's a it's a more complicated topic to be honest, but um I don't see this legislation as leading to an uptick in uh um speculative purchases or anything like that.

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands.

Uh are we ready?

I'm sorry, Albert and Arnette.

Well, I had my hand up next, but we also have a question from the audience is there going to be any opportunity for public testing.

Uh yes, and I didn't see a hand because I can't see the audience.

No, I'm sorry, you probably got we did uh so let me before we do the public testimony.

Can I just make a couple of quick so first of all?

I'm pleased to hear the long-term planner admit that there is in fact missing middle in the city of Annapolis.

In fact, there's actually quite a lot of it in a lot of places, and that was one of the initial uh discussions for the beginning of the comp plan.

Um, but I did want to comment on uh what's going on right now in the political environment, and a comment that my colleague Alderman Chandelmeyer said killing an apple.

Annapolis is not being killed.

Annapolis is not dying.

Annapolis is a wonderful place to live.

Doesn't mean we can't make it better.

But we're not dying by any measure.

And we really won't die on the ups and downs of any of these pieces of legislation, but I really think we need to remember we're here because we want to be.

And we're not dying.

So in any event, and I'll give my sure there's a rebuttal.

And when a third of your city is cost burdened.

I'm gonna repeat that one more time.

Rule of three.

A third is cost burden when we are hemorrhaging young families because of high cost of housing.

That is not sustainable.

Those are the kids who grew up here who do love it here and want to live here and contribute, but can't the well, we don't know the harm that this will cause.

We know the harm of inaction is causing.

We're seeing it when people have to leave.

We're seeing it with the people who have to choose between rent and groceries.

I got some of the last working class housing in my ward, man, and the stories I get where people are going, I cannot, I am struggling to afford rent, food, and hygiene products.

Like it is hard.

And I understand some wards I have very well off.

There's a whole world out there who is struggling to get by because of housing costs, man.

I take your point, and we're talking about market conditions.

And one of my criticisms of all of this legislation to increase density is that none of it, none of it includes incentives for developers or subsidies for people who need the help, and particularly the people who are not eligible for subsidized housing and can't afford market rates.

And I don't think until we do that, we're going to address that third or whatever the actual number is.

And that's not in these pieces of legislation.

The ADUs and the duplex legislation are totally geared for money to interest to build units that are going to be sold to money people.

They're not going to be sold to people who can't afford housing.

They're going to be sold to the highest bid.

And until we do legislation that actually addresses the way that we bring down the cost of housing in the marketplace, we're not going to change that situation to the third.

In fact, if you look at the way the bifurcation of income in this country is going, it's going to get worse.

But we're not doing legislation to address that and to encourage a change.

If there are speakers, uh anyone who would like to speak on this ordinance to step to the mic at this time.

Please identify yourself, name and address.

Katie McDermott, 50 Franklin Street.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for allowing us to attend and speak for a few minutes.

I'll be brief.

It looks at what other cities have done who have struggled with this issue.

One of the real Achilles heel of the ADU and the duplex bill is there's no real prohibition on STRs, the opportunity for investor conversion.

And Boston, Savannah, Charleston, numerous cities in California have struggled with this and concluded that if you allow ADUs and duplexes to become investor conversion and short-term rentals, you won't achieve your goal of affordable housing, and you'll actually undermine neighborhoods.

And so this is sort of to me the Achilles heel.

So being owner-occupied, not allowing short-term rentals in both of these pieces of legislation, but go a long way to achieving a long-term rental market, which is what folks who introduce legislation say they want.

I want to tell you about an audit that some citizens are doing on Charles Street, and I think it should expand to every street in Annapolis.

Uh Charles Street, uh somebody pulled the licenses, the STR licenses on Charles, and then they compared it to the internet.

You know, the VRBOs and uh all of Airbnbs and such.

And about 60% of Charles Street is STR, legal and illegal.

So that's why we think we have a crisis.

And I was shocked, and you'll see this in the materials I send you, and I'd be honored if you'd read it.

Um, one of the houses is being rented there for 1500 a night.

And if you can't grapple and look at this in a coordinated way, and look at housing in a coordinated way, then you'll have these really skewed incentives to destroy uh long-term rental markets, which is going to destroy affordable housing.

So you can get on the internet and look at this yourself, but you know, some of the citizens pulling this information together is extraordinary compelling, and it shows us what our real crisis is.

And so that's why, you know, if you would do a moratorium and then go back to the drawing board with some safeguards and this legislation, it might be very, very useful.

The second thing is on the duplex bill, uh, with all due respect, there isn't really the development of data in there that leads to the conclusions that we have.

What is our housing capacity really?

Uh, the comp plan suggested 1500 when I read it, but honestly, I don't know.

I heard the figure 672.

Are we really in a capacity situation?

Particularly in the next 10 years, when you look at a lot of downsizing and the older generation moving on, I don't really see a housing plan in Annapolis.

I see a lot of ambition to fix things, but without coordination and a really deep dive in a comprehensive way on what housing is necessary, so you risk misjudgment and misfire.

And that's what these two pieces of legislation may do.

I also urge you, in addition to assuring it's owner occupied and no strong parking.

Because what I've learned is that when the folks come and they can't park in the garage, they park in the neighborhoods and reduce parking for the folks that live there.

So what are the parking solutions?

And as for infrastructure, I guess when you're a hammer, everything's a nail.

When you're a developer, all development is good.

But when you say it's incremental, and we've been told it's about 800 units, maybe they are going to be in a very specific area, uh R2.

So I don't know why anyone would view that as incremental.

That could be quite devastating for three, four, five different neighborhoods if you actually did that.

But I think what really happened if you don't have these safeguards investors will buy the duplexes, they'll jack up the land values, they'll have 1500 a night in Annapolis.

And that's where we are today, and we will be worse tomorrow with this legislation moves forward as drafted.

I urge you really pull back, give it six months, do a moratorium, and come up with something that really works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this?

Okay, seeing no one moving to the mic, I see Alderman uh Savage.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I did have a one amendment to move forward for discussion.

Do we have it?

It's another, it's another floor amendment.

It should be in the same email that you received.

It would do the same thing that I was proposing for the um for the um ADU ordinance, which would set a 10% cap.

And in order to get basically once the 10% cap is hit, it would put a freeze on any new permits.

Um and it would allow up to a maximum of 30% of duplexes uh pending a infrastructure assessment.

Um I haven't even necessarily 100% decided on if I want to move forward with this.

I just wanted to present it to the committee for thoughts and feedback.

And staff too.

Uh has staff had an opportunity to see it.

Uh just just this afternoon, Madam Chair.

Um, so similar to the last um amendment.

I I think my comments would be similar to what I shared for the Third Amendment on 015.

Just don't I don't see the I see the cap as working against the goal of the legislation.

Um the um speed at which we might see any new duplexes would not reach uh the the pitch that would require this type of um amendment.

Um you just just again uh knowing all the various complexities of doing this type of project, but um I guess the only other thing I would say that I didn't say the last time is no issues with the mobility assessment, just I think like not knowing what the goal would be might be challenging, you know, like how much available parking is enough.

Um, what is the ideal um certainly having sidewalks is uh a no-brainer, but you know, um bike or transit mobility.

I mean, I think with transit, you could say, you know, within a quarter mile radius or um perhaps with the bike mobility the same, but I think just that might be a um an issue to consider.

Um some of this, frankly, might come out of this mobility action plan that we're about to take on.

So thank you.

Uh committee members, do I hear a motion?

Or uh Alderman Savage, you said you didn't think this was ready, you just wanted it open for discussion.

So maybe uh any further discussion, and uh Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, I didn't really mind on ADUs because those only get built on two percent of blacks even under best case or uh two percent of homes, even under best case of circumstances.

Uh duplexes can proliferate a little more because they can come up for sale.

Um, I do think this might send a little bit more of a chilling effect than we may want.

Further discussion, yes, thank you, madam chair.

So I think this amendment actually is responsive to our one speaker, Miss McDermott.

Um, and I would be inclined to move it forward, but um, I have two thoughts.

One is um I'm kind of wondering who would do the assessment.

This is consistent with your thoughts, madam chair, about the burden.

I would I would assume this assessment would be done by the planning sector, and um in that regard, I'm wondering if the cap um isn't too low if we made the cap, you know, if it if it reaches 30 percent, 40 percent, maybe even 50 percent, it would be warranted to stop things and do this assessment.

The assessment will fall on the staff.

The staff are required to do these kinds of assessments anyway, but um I would be inclined to move this forward, but raise the cap.

I'm not really having a number of mine, but higher than 10 percent, maybe 30 percent.

We're starting to become quite a concentration, and therefore the impacts of this would be much more, and particularly again, I think the likelihood is that these kinds of developments are going to happen in certain wards more than in other wards, and um so it could start to overwhelm the whole character of and uh so I guess I would move it forward, but raise the cap to 30 percent, and therefore not put as owners burden on.

I think they think about these things anyway, but um if there's really something going on in a particular location, maybe it would be appropriate to have a timeout and evaluate what the impact of this uh kind of led.

So I would move it to change the tap to 30 percent.

Well, thank you, Alderman.

I I wasn't pushing for a motion either way, since the sponsor said he was just putting it out there for discussion.

So I trust he's making notes about co-sponsor since it hasn't been sponsored.

I'm not sure how that works, but okay.

So do we want to take a motion on 015 25 as Madam Chair?

I did make a motion to move this uh but change the cap to 30%.

I haven't gotten a second.

Okay, you didn't get a second.

Second for discussion.

Okay, second for the sake of discussion.

Okay, discuss.

I think this will have a chilling effect.

Okay, I think I think it protects particular neighborhoods that may be uh investment opportunities and are getting overrun.

And so it's a it's a it doesn't stop it, it just says time out until we evaluate what's going on.

Alderman Savage, it's your amendment.

Yeah, I mean, well, as as you said earlier, I'm just taking the feedback.

Um you said I'm I'm I'm not I haven't even 100% made up my mind on this one.

I just was trying to think of ways to address some of the concerns I've heard.

Um, but I want to take the feedback from staff and spot the main sponsor, um, Alderman Shannemeyer.

This is their oh sorry.

Well, yeah, well, I still want to take the comments from Alderman Chandelmeyer uh to heed before I move forward with anything.

We have a motion on the floor thanks to your friend Alderman Arnett.

So uh are we going to vote this down because it's not ready?

So what's your pleasure?

Well, he's not on the committee.

I'm asking the members of the committee.

So I believe the motion was for um the motion was just made to discuss it, correct?

Okay, it was to change it to motion to move forward this uh amendment to the title eight uh ordinance eighteen, but to change the cap from 10% to 30% and there is no second as yet.

Well, I think you did second it with the Alderman Channel Mark second it for the sake of discussion.

Okay, so it is moved in properly seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye opposed, nokay.

Going back to 018.

I'll entertain a motion.

Do we have a motion, Ms.

Jackson?

I'd like to make a motion for a fit recommend for a favorable recommendation for 01825.

Is there a second?

There is no second, so that will means it will die for lack of a second.

That means that the committee will take no position on 018 25.

Okay.

Next item, 02925, Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay District.

Is there uh anyone, Mr.

Leshinsky, would you like to speak to this?

Um, yes, I would.

I know the sponsor is not here.

Um as you know, I've invested a lot of time in this um Tyler Avenue project with other staff from our department.

So I'm happy to just give an overview.

Um I think you all were here to hear to um get the testimony that came to the full city council a couple weeks ago um from residents that was very positive.

Uh I think it speaks to the efforts we've made with this legislation to find um some common consensus uh among the residents, frankly.

We had uh series of community meetings during the spring into the early summer.

Um we had a survey.

Uh we had a lot of communication and transparency on this project and a lot of listening to understand um what would make the most sense to the residents who live on the Tyler Avenue corridor today.

And I should just back up and say the legislation is a overlay zoning district for the Tyler Avenue corridor from Forest Drive to Bay Ridge Avenue.

So it's that sort of dog leg um shape.

It includes um a lot of very large properties that um could be better utilized for housing and community open space in in that neighborhood.

It also includes some duplex residences that frankly probably will not change in the short term, but um they're just contiguous with those larger properties.

Um the goals here are threefold.

Um we're trying to make this corridor safer uh from transportation perspective.

We're trying to expand housing options, a greater variety of housing.

Um, and then we're trying to integrate community open space opportunities as properties redevelop.

We want to ensure that there are open space features that are integrated with new housing.

Um to a point where perhaps a new pocket park is created that is not just for um the adjacent residents, but for the whole neighborhood.

That would be kind of an ideal scenario.

But we shared all of these ideas with residents.

And you know, I think what this legislation includes is a strong effort to ensure that any new housing is consistent with the character that exists today.

And what that means is the height limits stay the same.

That's uh two and a half stories or 35 feet, so residents do not have to worry about a larger development next door that um would be out of scale.

Um we have sort of size increments for housing units in terms of the lot size.

So people wanted to see more smaller single family homes.

That's a that's a housing type that it's not really getting built in Annapolis anymore, partly due to our zoning restrictions, partly due to land costs.

There are some of those in the Tyler Avenue corridor today.

We put into this legislation to try to incentivize more of that type of small housing stock is a smaller minimum lot size.

So you only have to have 2,700 square feet of lot to do a house, whereas today you have to have 5400 square feet.

Um we think that might incentivize that type of housing construction.

Um we lowered the lot size threshold needed for a duplex or a triplex or a foreplex.

Uh for a duplex, you need 50, 400 square feet.

Uh for a triplex or a forplex, you need 10,800 square feet.

And then to do what's called a college a cottage cluster or a cottage court, which is a grouping of single family or duplex homes around shared open space.

I believe the threshold is 16,200 square feet.

Um these lot size increments are really important to basically ensure that we're marrying the housing types with the space that's available and ensuring that kind of density that comes in is compatible with the neighborhood today.

Um I think we we found consensus on that.

Um, we're also providing um uh lot coverage threshold.

So, you know, if you do uh a fourplex, for example, uh I can't recall the exact number, but you know, but essentially 40 percent of your lot has to be um preserved as open space if you do, I think four or more units.

So um last thing I'll say is uh, you know, it's not in the legislation, but something we talked about quite a bit was what we could do to improve that streetscape today, even outside of this legislation, and there is a plan in place working with public works to stripe that streetscape, formalize the parking along the street so that um it's clear where people are allowed to park, and that's really one of the causes of the um crashes today is that there's sort of a sporadic series of um parked cars that drivers aren't expecting.

There's no striping on the roadways, so people essentially have 16-foot wide lanes and it's a straight roadway, so they're encouraged to drive extremely fast.

Um those types of things are gonna happen in the short term in the next month, really.

Um but in the long term, the legislation requires an easement to be created along the streetscape for any new development to ensure that over time the city can improve that streetscape, and we have more space for an expanded sidewalk for streetscape planting, street trees.

And we we know that that's gonna have a huge impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood.

There's really no street trees on Tyler Avenue.

It's pretty remarkable for a major corridor in the city.

So that's that's also in this legislation, but I think I'll stop speaking at this point and answer any questions.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Lyshensky.

Uh Alderman Arn.

Thank you, madam chair.

So I've attended a couple of the community meetings and watched the others, and I have to say I have great admiration for Mr.

Leshinski's perseverance and persuasiveness.

I went at the council meeting.

I was quite surprised that the number of people who came and spoke in favor after an initial somewhat at least reticent attitude towards it.

It says what Mr.

Lyshinski just said new development in the coming years within this area may happen regardless of the legislation.

But the point of the legislation, the goals, the three primary goals are important.

And so I was very favorably inclined towards this legislation until I reread it after looking at 015 and 018.

And there's always been this niggling concern in the back of my mind about it, and it became clear when I realized this is in fact text amendment and a map amendment, but it's not planning.

Who knows about daycare and those sorts of things.

And so I'm quaking a little bit.

And I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised I'm saying these things because until yesterday I didn't have these thoughts.

So I am interested in Mr.

Leshinsky's reaction to what I just said.

It well, I am surprised to hear your reticence.

Um I think this is capital P planning, where you know, we have found a area of the city that is close to schools, recreation amenities, community services, transit routes.

It is um in many ways ideally situated in the city for uh housing uh for new residents for existing residents um to expand housing options.

It has a quite a mix of housing already, uh, but has a lot of capacity for additional housing.

Uh, we did a thorough investigation of this area to prove that out, and um that's why we're focusing on this area.

So let me just push back a little bit because I'm gonna vote for the so don't worry.

Um, but uh just as Alderman Savage was proposing the amendments to 014 to make sure that there were incentives for transit.

Isn't there some way we can have some kind of incentive because we're relying on individual property owners doing the redevelopment, we're not doing it.

There's no way we can say we need you to do something that would encourage a grocery store for a minimum, and and that's community benefits.

And by the way, one of the things I like about the community benefit aspect of the comp plan is it wouldn't just benefit Tyler Avenue, it would benefit all of the surrounding communities, but there's nothing really in here that incents those kinds of community services, and I don't know how we're gonna be doing it when we go to the Esport Shopping Center or to Nautilus Point or the other 10 opportunity areas, but um I I just feel like we need to do more.

Well, Alderman, um, that's a good point.

We actually started the process talking about activating community service uh, you know, retail opportunities, but what we heard was a strong desire in the community to maintain the residential character of that streetscape.

Um, and an understanding that the Annapolis seafood market site is one bookend of this corridor that is really its own challenge, and we're really strongly trying to get a dynamic mixed use development to happen there that would bring back some of the retail that historically existed there.

I mean, I'm old enough to remember an incredible bakery that was there on the back side of the seafood market.

Um we would like to see that kind of amenity come back, but would be very easy walking distance for everybody on this corridor.

So it's kind of for that reason.

And there are other potential retail opportunities in that intersection that um Tyler and Forrest.

So I understand where you're coming from on you know, walkable retail, and so but I think that's where it is.

And um the the big ask that we are making of property owners who choose to develop these properties is um to portion a part of their setback, their required 25 foot setback.

We are asking for a 10 foot public easement that would allow us to really improve that streetscape.

And that's um that's a significant ask.

I mean, I granted a lot of the setback areas tend to be underutilized, and that was kind of the intent is well, um, if we connect those, we can do something really great for this corridor.

So consider this at least from me.

Um concern about the success of the comp in that uh I know, like for example, in Laudless Point, we want that to be a plan development, mixed use, and we've already heard reaction from the owner's attorney about putting in retail and other kinds of things.

This is the first one out of the box, and those things aren't in there.

So I I worry about reaching the full potential of the comp.

Um, as I said, I'm going to be voting in support of it.

I'll make the motion to recommend favorably.

But boy, uh uh I'm hoping then the next one out of the box, we get a little more mixed use and improvement in services to the community.

So with that Madam Chair, I would make a motion that the committee make a favorable recommendation for 29 25.

Second.

Thank you.

Further discussion, hearing none, all in favor of a favorable recommendation, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, going on to 030 25 business revitalization district regulation change.

What?

Okay.

So Shinsky, is this you also?

Uh, we have two amendments from all the woman O'Neill.

She's not present.

I I can speak to it.

Yeah, the sponsor is not here, but um this um this legislation addresses um one of the city's smallest zoning districts, the BR district, um, which is located at the intersection of Clay Street and West Washington Street.

It includes the Stanton Community Center.

It's uh BR stands for business revitalization.

I think the district was created uh in the early 2000s, perhaps earlier, um, to really spur um private investment in this area.

It hasn't happened.

Um there has been some housing redevelopment nearby, but um not necessarily within the BR zone.

Um one thing we've encountered is a mismatch in how the um one of the reasons perhaps why the zoning today is limiting for property owners who might want to invest in this area is uh a mismatch between the floor area ratio and the height limits um for these properties.

Uh so we did an analysis and and found that if we increase the the floor area ratio um from two to 2.5, that would effectively allow property owners to reach their maximum height limit um that the zoning allows.

Um, and I know that uh we put we put in a standard that's related to ensuring that if you go above two stories, um you go to that third store, um, you could set back, you should set back that um face of the building along the street so that it meshes better with what's predominantly two story uh row houses.

So um those are really aimed at rooftop structures um and uh um that was one of the amendments um you know giving some allow uh additional height allowance for rooftop structures similar to the the piece in 014 and then the other amendment um if I remember correctly, it is related.

Let me let me see if I can pull that up because I'm blanking on it it appears she's just striking uh boundary justification.

Oh, that's right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

In the war three.

That that is a um that is a very good correction in our code.

It's something that we came across um recently, learning that there are circumstances in the city where properties are split across zoning districts, and it makes sense to consolidate them into the same zoning district.

And uh Alderman Arnett, I know enlightened us to the history of this.

Um that at one time there was an effort to correct the the zoning um zoning code to allow for zoning uh property consolidation across zoning districts citywide, you know, in in these circumstances, and ward eight was the only ward that agreed to this.

Um so there's a there's a clause that says this can only happen in ward eight, but this is not constitutional.

Um it wouldn't really pass muster to to do you're not allowed to do zoning based on just pure geography political boundaries.

So um it really should be a citywide allowance that's women thinlays and an older woman hoyle remember that, and and that's when we discovered that the Crystal Springs had split zone and split properties in it as well, but yeah, right.

So we think this is a positive correction to the city code.

So there are two amendments.

Thank you, Mr.

Lyshinsky for that um clarification.

Uh so committee members, um what is your pleasure?

Amendment one speaks to height, uh not to exceed 12 feet.

And I see Alderman Chandleman's hand up.

Uh I'd like to move amendment one.

Second.

Is there a second?

Second, second.

Further discussion.

I think this makes a lot of sense, and the builders and owners have said this is needed.

And the staff likes it too.

Uh all in favor, well, further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of amendment one, please say aye.

Aye.

And amendment two is the one that Mr.

Leshinsky just referenced about um cross boundaries.

Uh, and this really was in the wrong place.

Um, and so I'll entertain a motion on the second.

Second.

Okay, further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

I okay, and so I will entertain a motion to give a recommendation for 030 25 as amended.

I move we recommend favorably, but I would like some discussion.

Second.

Okay, Alderman Arnett.

Yes, just two uh things that I'm glad Mr.

Leshinski's here.

Um it struck me when we were talking about this uh that part of the comprehensive plan was to reduce all of these different zoning districts.

And I'm wondering if the BR zone isn't something that's gonna go away.

So this may be short-term uh legislation, but in recent discussion on another matter, um, we discussed the problems that the FAR flu area ratio presents in fully developing properties, and so I I think there's a better way to go than using FARS the measure in terms of being able to reach full potential.

So I'm hoping uh carried on by Alderman Schondermeer in the next term that we'll be re-evaluating, and I know you and I agreed on this we're discussing it, uh getting rid of the par and going to better measure.

So um I'm certainly gonna vote in favor of this, but hope it's not gonna be a requirement in the future.

Okay.

Further discussion hearing nine, all in favor of giving a favorable recommendation to 030 25 as amended, please say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Oh man, we got two more bills.

Not quite.

Okay, oh 3425 changes and exempt service job classifications.

Okay, uh Ms.

Buckland's not here.

Uh Ms.

She is here.

Oh, she is here.

I'm sorry, I don't see.

I was gonna call her Miss She was here.

Yeah.

I move to recommend favorably.

Yeah.

Was that a second?

Second.

Discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of giving 034 favorable recommendation, please say aye.

All right.

Tell Ms.

Bucklin, um, she can still tell.

Uh 033.

Uh Ms.

Jackson, Ms.

Jackson, we've given a favorable recommendation to 034.

It was unanimously voted to support it.

Okay.

Okay, so we're on to 035.

No, I'm sorry, 033.

Question.

Uh move forward on first reader.

Uh second, is this the um this is the market house.

So, madam chair, I've watched the last two finance committee meetings.

Um, and I thought a lot of good questions were asked, but uh my understanding is there's a new version of the lease, which uh we haven't seen yet, and um I think that was what came out at the last finance committee meeting.

Uh and I'm certain I'm certainly interested in listening to testimony on this, but I certainly would want to see the next lease um before we take any final action.

Alderman, I think uh Miss Leonard sent us that new lease.

Um I want to say on Wednesday, but maybe on Thursday.

Miss Buckler is a um what what we had done was take the um particular recommendations of council and uh translated that into um actual lease language um and sent that red line um over, and that there's uh um they're they're here can and can speak for themselves um uh if they so choose, but um they have given us a first set of feedback um about that red line, but we have not sat down to discuss it yet, and so there is not a final version that has gone um to council, and I um I would have to go back on that email, but I didn't did not think that that was shared with was sent to council that version.

I didn't see it, yeah.

I don't think so because it's it's not been we haven't gone through that discussion process yet.

So maybe it was just the finance committee because of the questions that we raised, but maybe not.

But I clear I sent Ash Ms.

Leonard uh a couple questions about the footprint because there was a um a copy of the the layout.

Um but anyway, um I suspect that uh Alderman Arnett's sentiment is shared um that we postpone action until we get a negotiated agreement.

Well, Madam Chair, if I may, if we postpone action, uh it dies in committee.

was a um a copy of the the layout um but anyway um i suspect that uh alderman our net sentiment is shared um that we postpone action until we get a negotiated agreement well madam chair if i may if we postpone action uh it dies in committee it it gets stuck and it uh it would just automatically go back to council without approval uh they without the approval okay so it wouldn't just get stuck it would just get kick to council yet so we can take no recommendation or we can just postpone but it all goes to final vote no matter what the market the market space people want to come to the table okay we can invite them by all means uh miss bucklin may i ask is this is the plan to put this on the next agenda do you suspect that you'll be finished with the negotiations by then yes um the my personal goal and um i again i won't i won't speak for um uh for the others but my personal goal is that we um be in a position to to speak um speak to that um at the next finance committee meeting which would be then uh on the 15th and that would then be on the next um be on the october yeah the 27th correct on the agenda for the 27th so um it it would not end up being at rules again um but it would get in front of some committees and would get to council okay right uh alderman arnett and well we'll probably get before environmental mat not environment economic matters um and alderman our net i'm not sure which of your other committees it would probably come before uh i think this is it for me um i do want to comment my i'm my sense in watching finance is even though we have a new director of central services we really haven't gotten uh everything under our feet in terms of managing and monitoring all those contracts i was a little bit concerned that i it it didn't it didn't seem like the city attorney was reacting to a draft from the lease rather than the city as the lease or creating their own lease contract it's certainly not the way it normally happens you wouldn't expect an apartment renter to negotiate or write their own lease for their apartment so I think there's a lot of things then in terms of the normal business operation of the city that have got to be sorted out to to be clear the city did the draft okay yes but I do think since people have waited through all of the rest of this meeting I am about to invite them to the table I'm not sure who's there because I can't see the audience Mr.

Danick and your team uh whomever please come up Jody Bouchard Viller do some good afternoon and thank you for your patience I'm sure it's been fun uh give us your name and address and share with us uh what you'd like to share yeah I'm Keith Bouchard at 18 Bryce Road 21409.

My name's uh Jody Danick uh 2981 Friends Road uh Naples Maryland we're really just here to answer any questions or any concerns that the board had I know you uh madam chair you were at the um finance committee and invited us to come here to maybe clear any airs or any questions I think um uh Alderman Arnett you did have a concern and uh hopefully um uh city manager has cleared that up that they had they I think what they did is they took all of the questions from economic matters and um finance committee and tried to insert those concerns into the lease so it was changed pretty uh a a little bit and and we've responded um as of last night with our um uh attorney looking everything over again and we we we're the yes people we basically said yes to almost everything and we want to get this over the finish line so if you have any question I do with version of the chairman yeah thank you so older woman then lays and I have lived through the market house we lived through the hurricane we lived through the empty space as older persons we were royally castigated about fumbling my next door neighbor was Mike Marvin who was the economic developer person under Mayor Moyer and he tried to bring in um um trying to remember the the fancy delicatessum from New York

And and we've responded um as of last night with our um uh attorney looking everything over again and we we we're the yes people we basically said yes to almost everything and we want to get this over the finish line so if you have any question I do with permission of the chair yeah thank you so older woman Ben Layson and I have lived through the market house we lived through the hurricane we lived through the empty space as older persons we were royally castigated about fumbling my next door neighbor was Mike Marvin who was the economic development person under Mayor Moyer and he tried to bring in um trying to remember the the fancy delicatessum from New York um Dean and yeah that didn't work um and so and then we had a tenant who left the disaster in his aftermath um and left the city and the market house quite a lot of repairs to make so the attitude my attitude as a council member and I think the attitude of the council has long been our primary objective is to have the market house up and operating and providing a successful service and in that regard we may have been lenient in the conditions of the contract but we did that we did an initial six month no payment we did relief during COVID we did that to make sure that we had a successful market house and at the last city council meeting Mr.

Burchard gave us a lot of testimony that talked about how successful this market house has been and so I I like all of that I understand all of that I'm not interested in you know milking every penny out and having revolving tenants because they can't afford what I am a little concerned about asking for reducing the amount of payment um I'm not concerned about the length of the lease I I had a meeting with a local very successful businessman and out of the blue I asked that person if you were renting this business space as opposed to owning it what kind of lease would you want and the immediate answer was 50 years and then said at a minimum 25 years.

So I and we're thinking the same way about the boat show we're thinking the same way about the Maritime Museum.

The length of the lease as long as we have performance measures so things are not going well and the city has some opportunity to pull back demand changes that's not what bothers me but I I do I am concerned about reducing the payments I haven't seen the new lease so I don't know what it says in that regard but um overall I would say as um person who's lived with the market house more than I wanted to I'm pretty happy we have a successful operation that a lot of people are not concerned about the length of the lease but I would like to share the wealth if we can and so that's basically my question I heard your answer you gave to the finance committee you have a lot of investments that you want to make there's nothing in the lease though that locks those investments in if you're reducing the payment so that's something I'm a little so that's that's where I'm oh well yeah so um yeah thank you if I may respond uh uh yeah you know I I I agree with the comment that uh you know the length of the lease is is really needed in order to really get behind um maintaining the building enhancing the experience there um you know doing it at a five year clip at a time is you're gonna the outcome is gonna is not going to be favorable right we're just not gonna be able to invest the money that we need to invest in it so um so the length of the lease is is crucial in that regard we uh you know we I don't think we're at liberty to really go into details about the draft leases at this point right that'll come out soon and we'll be uh able to talk in detail about that but once the uh final lease is sort of agreed to um I I think you'll see that that there is a commitment on both on both sides there's a commitment on our side to put money into the property on a on a go forward basis uh like we already have we've spent um you know significant amount of money so far this year right on the new floor and uh build out um some of some of the space we still have more to go we're gonna put a we'd like to put um pending you know the extension of the lease that gives us clarity on this we'd like to put a significant amount of money into a brand new bathroom facility which as we all know is a public bathroom uh and the associated utility rooms and things of that nature um and it's all that sort of thing that that we want it we we absolutely want to continue to do and if we have clarity on the length of the lease and control of that we're all in um we just you know we we don't want to be in a situation where we have

We're gonna put a si we'd like to put um pending you know the extension of the lease that gives us clarity on this.

We'd like to put a significant amount of money into a brand new bathroom facility, which as we all know is a public bathroom, uh and the associated utility rooms and things of that nature.

Um, and it's all that sort of thing that we want it, we we absolutely want to continue to do, and if we have clarity on the length of the lease and control of that, we're all in.

Um we just you know, we we don't want to be in a situation where we have to uh uh you know minimize the amount of investment put into the building because it might be taken away, you know, in a in a short period of time.

That just doesn't make any business sense to do that.

So I think I think we'll find that the you know, if if the current lease as it stands now is accepted or we come close to that, I think I think you'll find that to be positive.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh all the men Chandlemai.

There's other people thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I just want to say I think it's absolutely fantastic that we finally have a successful operation in the market house.

I I first moved here in 2012, and until this group came in, that building was either empty or floundering.

And uh while we could try to milk this for all it's worth, charge the absolute maximum rentress rate and lease rates that will drive out a successful local group and that will bring in uh bigger conglomerate like Atlas or the Yum Brands, or take a national corporation.

There's something to be said about when you push too hard, you push something off.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's a person who wants to speak from the audience.

Oh, there's someone else, please step to the mic.

I'm Jared, Mark Sullivan 25 Wagner Street.

Is it on?

25 Wagner Street Laurie Sullivan.

Thanks.

I I I concur.

We all love the market house.

I don't know anyone who doesn't love the market house.

Uh I've been on both sides of commercial leasing.

I've owned properties that I've leased out, I have been the tenant, and 50 years is not the standard, 20 is just for the record.

Um purely from a public interest perspective.

Nobody wants to gouge anybody to try to make the maximum dollars out of the market house.

I think we're all realistic.

I've been here since 2000.

I I've more than seen the catastrophe that you guys lived through in trying to get a good tenant.

And I agree they're good tenants.

Um but from a public interest perspective, this lease does not expire for eight years.

That's insane.

That does not happen in the free market.

It is not a good look given the relationships that exist.

I am not disparaging anybody here.

It's just not a good look.

You have an issue with the public thinking that there are backroom deals, that's maybe grossly unfair, but it's still the public perception.

And this lease will further that perception.

So I just caution you that while we love the market house, we want the market house to stay.

Um, there are a lot of of small business owners downtown who would love to have the kinds of terms that the market house enjoys, and that from a purely financial kind of um level playing field, there are a lot of small businesses who are afraid to speak out because they don't feel that they've got the the power to um draw attention to themselves, but they're not getting the kind of fair shake that these guys are getting.

And so for that reason and for the public interest and the perception of what this is, I I would really discourage you to to consider this.

I think that this is something that can be taken on by the next city council.

You've got eight years of runway before you have to really deal with this.

So for what it's worth, my caution to you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak from the audience?

You see anyone moving.

Um Mr.

Danick had another comment.

Mr.

Danick, I saw his hand.

Yes.

Hi.

And and I just want to address um Miss Sullivan's um comments.

And um, while I can understand that, um the reality is we want to be able to do the bathrooms.

We want to be able to upgrade that, and we haven't done that yet because we only have seven years left on the lease.

And so, you know, the city can certainly put the money into it and do it themselves, that would be great.

But we would like to actually have some say in how it operates and performs because we're the tenants.

So I don't think it's on um, I mean I've been fighting sort of that perception that Miss Sullivan has for the last 10 years.

I cannot wait until my business partner is no longer in city politics.

I believe me.

Um, but but the reality is we've had to work really hard to be able to make it to where it is.

We've had to invest a ton of money, and um, you know, there eight years ago or nine years ago now, there were plenty of opportunities for many, many restaurants to step in and restaurant groups to step in, and they didn't.

Only three did.

So um, and we went through the bidding process.

We won it.

We've improved the the property, we've improved the asset.

We're here for the long haul, and uh we deserve to be able to have that security um with a longer lease.

And and so that's how I would just approach that.

I I can agree that um you know, we can come back two years from now and do this all over again, but really who's got the time in their life to keep going?

You know, you guys have I mean, you guys have been around, you've seen this market house go in and out, take this issue off the table for the next 20 years.

I promise you, we will make you proud.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um colleagues, what is your pleasure?

Uh we have heard from Miss Bucklin that uh they're still in negotiations, and she's pretty confident that they'll be finished in time for the next meeting.

Uh we heard from uh Mr.

Danick and Mr.

Bouchard their interest in continuing to work with the city and uh negotiating fairly.

Um how would you like to move forward as the rules committee?

Would you, and we don't do this often, but would you like to take a tentative approach and say you give a tentative support of pending receiving the final contract?

I saw I Alderman Chandelmeyer raised his hand.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, I have the utmost faith in our staff and in the tenants in a full negotiation that they have fully done a great negotiation in good faith.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the final contract.

Uh I do think it would be a little bit bold of this committee to make a recommendation on a tentative negotiation, and I look forward to seeing the great deal that we've come up with at a later time, and then we can make our final decision in front of council.

Madam Chair.

Yes, uh, I mean you've heard my comments what we've lived through with the market house, but I could not in good conscience make any recommendation on a contract I haven't seen.

I don't think that's good stewardship on our part.

So I was in support of the recommendation to postpone, knowing full well that that means we unless we do a special meeting, we're gonna be relying on economic matters and finance committee.

And by the way, I think the finance committee's been doing a good job from what I've watched, and I'm I'm content to rely on them doing it because our time really after today has run out.

Well, then that means that um the roles committee can take no position with the with a notation that it is because we're we're wanting to see the finished negotiated.

I think that's a very wise way to approach it, madam chair.

I agree.

So I would like to make a motion for no position from rules of city government.

Second.

Okay, with the notation that is based on the fact that the negotiations have not completed.

Right.

Okay, further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor of the position of no position.

Please thank you.

Excuse me, on a personal note, I would just like to extend my well wishes to those retiring older people that have worked so hard um the last 20 years or more.

Uh and you guys do the due diligence and the hard work that makes this city work.

And uh we really do appreciate it.

You probably don't hear that enough, but um, after sitting here for the last couple hours, I can see how how how hard it is, and uh I really appreciate it.

Um good luck in your future endeavors, and thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that was done to I know I'm on my computer's freezing up on me.

Yeah, that was three, right?

Um I don't have anything else on the yes, we have Charter Amendment 115, uh Charter Amendment 1-2.

That's right.

CA one uh and that was sent to us so it is City Council Compensation Commission and this is codifying the recommendations from the commission, correct?

Compensation commission, right the council compensation commission.

Uh Ms.

Bucklin, are you coming up to speak to this?

Yes, I'm sorry, I I had left my computer in the back.

And so I was I was getting myself set up.

If you if you would indulge me for a moment while I finish that sure if uh Ms.

Reuter, did you want to speak to that at all?

So um this particular um charter amendment is um is part of the part of the recommendations that came out of the um salary review commission.

Um part of that got it um put within an ordinance, part of that actually had has to change city code.

Um so it does a couple of different things.

Um the um one of the things that it does, and I and I think the thing that um that it uh is sort of the the biggest change um is that it removes responsibility for setting the city manager's compensation.

Um and instead what you see within the uh the ordinance that went along with this was that the city manager then ended up um being placed within the the general executive um salary schedule.

Um and that was one of the recommendations of the salary review commission was that that really wasn't a uh a role that typically gets played by a body like them.

Um and that instead this other approach was more appropriate.

Um there um the other correction, the other change in there in some senses is a little bit more of a technical change of removing it from the elections article um and inserting it under city council itself.

Um uh but in terms of substantive changes.

The the biggest change here is the removal of the city council, the city manager set you're on mute.

Um may I also ask Ms.

Buckland, it also speaks to the timeline that's required in order to um get the recommendations and the amendments.

Uh and my misreading this, you know, we we should have had this back in June.

Um three months prior, I believe.

Yeah, this that actually is a separate um a separate piece of legislation.

This actually does not do that.

Um that is um ca two dash 25 that talks about removing the three months.

Um that's that this one does speak to three months on page two.

No, page four number three.

It it does this language.

Um so the this particular um charter amendment was submitted previously.

Um I think the I think the question perhaps uh is so this kept the original language.

Um CA two is the is what would actually remove that.

I'm actually gonna defer to Miss Reuter about the approprieness or the office of law about the appropriateness of simply making that kind of amendment here.

Um do you want to um so both charter amendments are coming up at the October 13th meeting?

And you could make that change here as an amendment, or you could continue to do it adopt CA2 separately, CA2 coming after CA1 uh would change CA one.

Well, wouldn't it be prudent that we change CA1 so that it's correct when we approve it?

I I would think that that would have been caught prior to this time.

Well, CA2 is a little bit more complicated than that because I believe let me look here.

And we're just dealing with CA1 right now in the language that's in CA1.

Well, I'm looking to see if if changing making it an amendment would be with throw off something else, unintended consequence.

Um, and it does not look like it.

Um would you like me to prepare an amendment to CA1?

I think it should be corrected, absolutely.

I can certainly do that.

Is that something we would do from the floor at the next council meeting?

You would do it because we don't have any action to do, we don't have an amendment in front of us.

No, but you you could just make the motion that that amendment be created, and then the minute amendment would be considered during the October 13th council meeting, and then uh CA2 would have to be withdrawn.

This Charter Amendment 2 have to be withdrawn.

Does it only speak to um that window?

Yes, I I would like for you to revisit this because I'm not sure.

I thought I read Charter Amendment 2, and I don't recall that that's all that there was so Charter Amendment 2 strikes um at least three months, and it changes um it adds general election.

So basically it says that the uh recommendations of the Solar Commission must be um voted on before the general election, whereas before it would be before the primary election.

That's the consequences of it.

I think that we need to go back and look at both of these and make sure one that they're not contradictory, and two that we have the correct data in both of them if both of them are needed.

Colleagues, what are you uh thinking?

I um I understand where you're coming from, but I have two thoughts.

One I don't want to do this on the fly.

I'm not really sure what it is we're thinking about doing.

Um time is up, you know.

Um, so unless I mean I'm prepared to recommend favorably on this and then vote 02, which would make the proper correction that doesn't complicate what's already in the process.

Um, or if that's not comfortable for you or my colleague Shawnamar, I would um take no action at this point.

Well, let me ask is Charter Amendment two on the agenda for the next council meeting or charter amendment one channel.

Are you raising your hand?

Are you stretching?

Uh or do you I'm in a sense of exacerbation and flattergastery.

I understand.

Um, I'm asking our um analysts.

Are are these both gonna be on the next agenda?

Where are we?

You know, what's the the rush or the charts?

You want it completed while we are in session this session, CA1 25, time's out of committee um prior to the October 13th agenda.

So it will go on the October 13th agenda because it's running out of time in committee.

CA2 would also go on October 13th because that's the next step for that bill, but that hasn't been before the rules committee, it was not referred to a committee.

Should go to committee.

I I'm not sure how a charter amendment doesn't get referred to committee, but that must be something.

Uh so what's your recommendation, gentlemen?

That we take no position.

Let's take no position and then get it out of committee.

We can fix everything and uh I agree.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion that we take no position.

So move second charter amendment one.

So move.

Moved and seconded further discussion.

Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

All right.

Okay.

Uh Miss Ruder, I'll trust that you'll get these this these two pieces all lined up in time for our next meeting and the floor discussion on them.

Already done.

Okay.

Sounds good.

All right.

Uh next item on our agenda.

You're supposed to say there is none.

I think I think it's um repairing to the library.

Oh man, no, don't say that.

I can't go to the library today.

Okay, but I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

No move.

Second.

And I want to thank everybody who's been with us for the last four hours and 49 minutes.

Uh important work, though grueling.

Uh thank you to everyone.

Uh so I'll all in favor?

Thank you, Ms.

Kale.

Ms.

Jackson.

All in favor.

Aye, I think.

Okay.

Take care.

Talk soon.

Be safe.