Uh, Alder Roman Finlayson present.

We're gonna unmute ourselves.

Sorry, Alder Roman O'Neill.

Uh we're calling the role.

Uh are you present?

Okay.

Uh, we saw that I can't hear she said.

Can you say something?

Can you hear me now?

Yeah.

We're still getting together feedback.

I hear a lot of feedback.

The next item on the agenda is a little bit more.

And then just do it.

And then I'll rejoin.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We're redoing.

Uh, we filled the order, we filled the role.

Oh, I think I didn't say I'm present, but of course I'm present.

Uh, Mr.

City Attorney, would you please present the next city attorney?

Would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is business and miscellaneous, beginning with ID dash one three four dash two four, a proposed closed session of opposed closed session pursuance of the annotated code of Maryland.

General Provisions, Section Three Dash Three O Five B, Ten, and Seven.

Discussion Topic, Public Safety Appropriation.

At this time, I would entertain a motion to move pursuant to the annotated code of Maryland, General Provisions Article Section Three Three O Five B, Ten and Seven to go into closed session.

Is there a second?

I'll move to go into closed session.

And uh Okay, good.

Uh is there any discussion?

Seeing none, uh, I will call the role.

Alder Roman Finlayson.

Hi.

Alder Roman O'Neil.

I and Alderman Huntley.

Aye.

The motion passes.

The council is now in closed session.

I'll ask everyone to please turn off their microphone.

They never called.

Yeah.

Uh visually, I think we are they can see us, I believe.

Okay.

Um, and then we need to vote.

Got it.

I'm I'm we're gonna do the F T first and then we'll go through.

So everybody all right.

Caleb, we're good on the TV.

Um, all right.

Is there a motion to approve FT three twenty-six?

Move approval.

All those second oh, thank you.

All those in favor of uh approving FT three twenty-six, please say aye.

I motion motion carries.

Uh moving on.

We need an approval of the agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the uh finance committee meeting agenda for October fifteenth as written?

Move approval of the agenda as written.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Um next, approving our minutes from the first, the meeting on the first.

Is there a motion for approval?

Move approval of the minutes from the October one meeting.

So all those in favor of the Oh, sorry, that must have been the previous one.

My bad.

Would you like to uh all right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I all those opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

On to FT two twenty-six, which is also from APD.

Hello.

Um, Captain Miguel, do you want to come up and talk about this one?

I guess we gotta get you a mic.

We don't have a mic for you on the table.

Yes, Captain Amy McGeth with Annapolis Police Department.

The SAP state aid for police protection.

It's a grant we receive every year.

Um they calculate the number based on statistics of number of officers and crime rate.

And that's how they decide how much to send us.

This I guess the number I guess it fluctuates, and maybe that's why it's on the agenda.

Yeah.

May I this says the grant was not awarded for FY20.

For SAP?

FY26 PAC grant.

It says the grant was not awarded.

Sorry.

I thought you were talking about the state aid for police protection grant.

The police and community together grant.

No, it was not awarded to us this year.

We uh did not get it.

Uh Ms.

Moran, why is this a fund transfer?

Because we're de-appropriating money fund transfer.

The way that the grants work is that this the salaries are included in the general fund.

Yeah.

But then we reimburse ourselves with the grant and the grant funds.

I don't we didn't get the grant.

I'm not gonna spend a bunch on the specifics.

I trust you guys got the paperwork right.

Um any other questions?

Well, I just may I um I just want to be clear, we didn't get the $70,000 grant that we traditionally get.

So we are absorbing the cost in our salary line item.

Yes, of the general fund, correct.

Okay, can we find out how much is left in that line item?

And I'm not in in disagreement with this, but um we seem to have money that we can use, and I think we should know um how much is there that is being utilized.

Yes, we can update, but just keep in mind that it's very early in the fiscal year.

I'm sorry, say that again.

I said just keep in mind it's very early in the fiscal year still, so we can't give a definite of what is left.

We can't really predict overtime or any of those things, but I will say that in the FY26 budget, we built in a vacancy savings of six positions.

Um, and with the elimination of the other, there is still vacancy savings, but I we can give you an update.

And particularly the cost of those six positions that would give us a general idea of what we're talking about.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I'll move that we give a favorable recommendation.

F226.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Yeah, there's a nodded second.

All right.

Um all those in favor, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

Motion carries.

Um we have no, I thought we maybe had another APD grant.

We do.

Uh I'll exercise my prerogative to not make Captain Migus jump up and down too much and jump ahead to SA 1226.

Now, is this the state aid for police protection?

It's is Anna Rondo County 911 grant.

Oh, okay.

So this is also something that we receive kind of automatically.

These are from fees that we all see on our cell phone bill and other bills.

Um, those funds go to 911 funding.

So we get a portion of the amount that goes to Annondo County.

And we can only use this for phone related uh expenses, and I believe the salaries as well, but I'm sure finance could tell you more where the money goes once we get it.

Um for that.

Does it go to salaries as well?

Salaries and supplies, yeah.

And this so only supplies have to be related to like the phone, it can't even be the radio system or that it has to be specifically related to the phone where we answer 911.

Got it.

Um just to add a little bit of clarity, so it's we've consistently budgeted at a certain amount, but it's the grant is coming in much higher than we've budgeted.

So this is just correcting the revenue coming in and offset it by the expenditure.

So we did budget for this grant.

We just under budgeted.

So in order to increase the appropriation to spend the money, yeah, we have to increase the revenue received.

You know, this is my favorite kind of supplemental appropriate.

May I ask uh the savings goes into the contingency fund, the general fund.

Is there any notation to that?

So that if police needs that funding back, that there is recognition that that 250,000 went into general fund.

Yes.

So the it the reason is it goes into the general fund contingency is because the general fund has been traditionally funding those salaries.

And if we get the grant, the grant would cover a portion of those salaries, so it would be less of an expense to the general fund.

So it reverts back to the contingency line item.

Um, but we do maintain a tracker of what's in contingency.

And I trust Captain McGuez will track that also.

Yes, they always ensure that the money is used appropriately to the grant.

So we track it.

Thank you.

All right.

All those in favor.

Um sorry, is there a motion for approval of FT 1226?

Um, Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion to give a favorable recognition for SA 1226.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Hi.

Thank you to our police folks for for being here for uh interesting meeting today.

All right.

Uh back up.

We're on FT526.

This is gonna be if the last one was one of my favorite kinds, I'm not so sure how much I like this guy.

Uh uh.

Do we want Ms.

Kevin?

Yeah.

Yeah, you I figured it was you.

Um I'm sorry, Allison.

I called you Jennifer.

Um yeah, I think I understand what's going on here.

We found an oil tank in the street when we were trying to repave it, right?

Uh yes, that's correct.

So Alice Namadio, Department of Public Works Engineer.

Um a sinkhole had opened up in 4th Street last year or earlier this year, and we did emergency repairs to remove fuel tanks that were actually in the ground that was causing the sinkhole uh during the excavation, they found additional tanks.

Um we were not funded to remove all those additional tanks.

Um that's really what this is requesting now.

We do need to remove those as once we started removing the initial tanks.

Uh MDE oil control oil control program opened a case for us.

Opened a case as in we're in trouble.

No, it's we have to report it to MDE oil control program, and they open what they call a case number, and they basically will follow us through to make sure that we do corrective measures.

Gotcha.

And this said Hour Street um whatever is oil oil tank removal project or something, that's not its own CIP, correct?

It was not its own CIP originally, and that's where we're asking for this to be created so that we can move funding from the roads program to this, so that can we can complete the oil tank extractions originally was done as an emergency repair because the road had opened up.

So I guess I'm just a little bit unclear of the mechanics here.

If if we're doing all this as part of the general roads, I mean, we're doing it to fix the road.

So why do we need to transfer anything?

Maybe this is more a question for Ms.

Moran.

Why do we need to transfer anything if there isn't a separate CIP that it's going to?

And we're really still trying to fix a road.

There would be a separate CIP project associated with so this creates a new CIP.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

And it takes the funding from General Roads and puts it into a separate project.

May Yeah, go ahead.

May I?

Um it is more than from what I'm understanding from what I'm reading here, it's not just a road repair.

We have to remove these tanks.

Correct.

The tanks need to be excavated.

Um, environmental testing also needs to test for contaminants.

And then if any downstream contaminants are found, then remediation measures will have to be executed.

So it is beyond the scope of the general roads program.

We're just asking it to this to be a new CIP and to utilize some funds from the road program so that we can get this done.

MDE was gracious enough to allow us to close the road when the additional tank was found and let us get past the boat show traffic and then also impacts to the restaurant.

Um it was impacting their outdoor dining, so they agreed to allow us to pause and come back, but indefinitely they will want us to address this sooner rather than later.

Um are they is there grant funding from MDE to assist with uh removing these contaminants, or is that a bigger question?

That is a larger question, just knowing from other grant opportunities.

I just thought maybe because they were saying that this is necessary.

Yeah, usually the funding isn't available as money, it's usually as a tax credit situation.

Um, but I can't speak to any specific grants at this time.

Okay, I just thought, and I know I'm out of my head to think that MDE would say you need to do this, and here we have some funding to help you with that, but that's not being realistic, so I'm gonna move on.

Um do we know who owns these tanks or are they city property?

The tanks are sitting inside the city right of way, and they are so old that we can't determine ownership.

So at this point, it was impacting our roads.

So we had to move forward with the removal, and they are contained within our right of way.

So we're assuming responsibility for them.

We are estimating they were installed somewhere in the early 1930s based on our environmental team during the extraction of the original tank.

So um my last question, I think, is what other roadway projects are going to be impacted by removing the 600,000 from that line item.

If any currently it will not impact any, it would be more long-term funding just to resurface additional roads down the line in years to come.

We could essentially ask for additional funding in the budget next fiscal year to recoup it.

But I mean, we have three million dollars allocated for general roadways.

I I'm of the opinion that that's probably not enough, as much as I love public transit and walkability.

Uh and so taking a fifth of that away, frankly, I'm rather loath to do it.

So what's the consequence if we don't approve this?

I don't know what MDE's consequence will be, but it will be something through the state, because we do have to address the MDE oil control program open case.

So I don't know what their consequence would be for that on the roadways.

No, no, I mean, if if we do approve it, the consequence on the roadways is 20% fewer roads get resurfaced this year.

I'm saying if we don't approve it, because I don't want to do that, what happened?

So you you are answering my question.

Well, may I follow up?

Could MDE come in and close the road because this is an environmental issue for them?

And it should be for us also.

I can't speak to what MDE will or will not do.

Um I'm just asking their capability.

Could they, because this is an environmentally sensitive issue, umpose restrictions on us, whether it's closing the road or whatever.

And maybe uh Ms.

Buckling can weigh in on the seriousness and the severity of this um issue.

I'm seeing it as an environmental issue, yeah, a contaminant.

Um, and so while we may not want to take money from roadways, this is a contaminated problem on Fourth Street.

Correct.

Which is kind of a big part of our business district in Eastport.

So what happens if we don't do this?

I don't think that um given I think that that your your instinct, everyone's instinct of taking the situation seriously, is um is is appropriate.

I I hear the reluctance to take money from this particular source.

I think that that in some sense the question of um whether we want end up wanting to backfill some of the.

I was thinking our plate was 230, but it's 150.

Um just so you know, older Romanon, you're you're unmuted.

Um I think the question of whether you end up wanting to backfill that I think is um something that we can something that we can look at.

I'd rather not put this off or not do this only for that reason because I I here's um the the project had started here because it initially had been a roadway project.

That's why this had been the initial source.

Um it's obviously grown beyond that.

Um but it's connection with with that original project.

Um I mean that that's why this is the the source of funding for the new CIP project.

Um I'd rather in some sense deal with the question of do you really want do we end up wanting to backfill some of that?

I'd rather deal with that as a separate question, if that's all right.

Um I'd rather not put this off.

Um if I were if we're making choices.

The alternative if the holdup is because of the reduction in the roadways, would be to use a portion of any remaining capital reserve, um, which I know we we talked about with the 400,000 dollar um revision we did, there's about 500 left in that reserve.

But if you wanted to have an amendment to use a smaller portion of roadways, the alternative to a revenue source would have to come from there, but just know that that balance is about 500,000.

So there are options for revenue if that's the holdup, and not so much targeting the actual expenditure project, but looking at the revenue source.

Um that's that's up to you guys.

Well, babe, 300,000 from there's only four.

Well, you just you just said 500.

There's 500.

Oh, 500.

I'm sorry.

So we could take 300 from capital reserve.

Yeah.

I'll do one.

Oh, Neil, are you hearing us?

So I guess comfortable with it.

There is an amendment then proposed to this that would close.

That would uh reduce this from six hundred thousand dollars.

Well, it would it would have still be six hundred and thirty thousand dollars going into this new CIP, but only three hundred thirty thousand dollars would come out of general roadways and the remaining three hundred thousand dollars would come out of capital reserve.

And I expressed a lot of skepticism the last time we were here about taking money out of capital reserve, but in my mind, this is exactly what it's there for.

This is a we were doing a capital project and we found an emergency.

So I I am very comfortable with so uh Mr.

Chair, I'll make the motion for you that we amend this essay to uh reflect 330,000 coming out of general roadways and taking 300,000 out of the contingency.

Thank you.

Is there a second to that?

Second.

Can I just clarify it's not the contingency, it's the capital reserve.

I'm sorry, capital reserve.

Yeah, just to make just clarify.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um those in favor of the amendment to the FT say aye.

I'll all those opposed, none amendment carries.

Is there any more discussion on the fund transfer itself?

I do have a question from a thallist and that has to do with Annapolis Walk.

Is that project in roadways or is that in a different line?

I no ma'am, Annapolis Walk Park is its own capital improvement project.

Okay, so this funding won't impact that correct.

This is just the general roads is okay just for road repair.

Thank you.

I'd love an update on that, by the way.

Uh, Mr.

Chair, then I would make a motion that we give FP5 a favorable recommendation as amended.

Sorry, second to that.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh Miss Rand, thank you for helping us come up with a solution there.

There is a second one from public works.

Isn't Ms.

Allison handling that?

Oh great.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

Uh oh my god, did I dismiss the I did dismiss police before we got done SA 826?

That's what I get for skipping around the agenda.

This one's a simple one.

I can answer for them.

Thank you.

You want to explain it to us, Ms.

Brand.

Or uh the SA 826.

Is that one?

Yeah.

So this is just a grant that we received.

The initial, it's a four-year term for the grant funding that we were awarded.

The first portion was already budgeted.

Um, and now this is just we we did not include in the original grants budget for the two years of 20 um fiscal year, or I'm sorry, calendar year 25 and 26.

So it's just allowing us to recognize the revenue from the grant and the offset of the expenditure.

Got it.

Yep.

I remember approving this previously.

Any questions?

No.

Is our motion for approval of SA26?

I'll make a motion for.

I guess it's not approval.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Favorable recommendation for F two or FA twenty SA eight twenty-six.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Uh OEM.

Good time shine, buddy.

We got a a lot of these ones where we're getting money from somebody else today.

I like so.

Uh you want to briefly explain to us what this $3,940 is for.

Could you turn your mic on, please?

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

Uh so this is coming from it's return funds from um Maryland Department of Emergency Management due to the incident management team moving under a new state agency.

So they are returning funds allocated for that.

Uh our plan is to use $2,900 um going towards going towards OEM equipment, um, which will go towards sustaining our Prepare Meanapolis app that we use to send out public notifications to anybody who opts in.

Um and then we would plan to use the remaining 1,040 and six cents to go towards our training and education.

Great.

Um that prepare me anapolis app.

How much do we spend per year on that?

Uh I believe I would have to look up the um last numbers on that, but we usually set aside about 4,000 order of magnitude of money.

Yeah.

Um questions?

I do not.

Thank you.

Auto Roman O'Neil.

Oh.

All right.

Is there a motion for approval for favorable recommendation of SA 926?

Mr.

Chair, I'll give uh make a motion that we give a favor recommendation.

SA 926.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

There we go.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Next up, we got off street parking.

Parking.

This one was uh a little confusing.

So I'm looking forward to understanding some more about it.

Um in in short summary, the what happened was with the FY26 budget.

This project was closed because it was a completed project.

Remaining appropriation was um then put back in for use for other projects.

Later down the line, we found out there was an expenditure that hadn't been recorded to the project.

It was an actual expenditure of the project.

We have to reopen the project and bring that funding back into the project in order to pay that expense.

And again, it's coming from the parking fund.

Right.

So they will we'll be using their reserve to pay the difference in the capital projects fund.

Got it.

Okay.

That that makes sense now that you explained it.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Chair of the transportation committee.

Any questions?

No.

All right.

Uh is there a motion for a favorable recommendation of essay 1026?

I'll make a favorable recommendation for SA 1026.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

Okay.

Now we got our friends from the fire department here.

Thank you very much.

SA 1126.

I have a feeling this has to do with our fire boat.

Yep.

Our fireboat.

Good morning, Nathan Powell.

Operations Deputy Chief Representative Chief Remally with me, Shiny Cognick, Fire Admin specialist.

This is a grant we received from Maryland Department of Natural Resources Waterway Improvement Grant.

It's a 50-50 match grant that we need an essay for that we budgeted.

The grant is for the purpose of the grant is to purchase new items for our new fire boat that is ordered.

Great.

And I'm sorry, so you said the city had already budgeted for that match part, right?

That was already expected.

Yeah, we knew if but we didn't know we get the grant.

It was pendant getting the grant, and the grant has takes two years to find out if you get it.

Gotcha.

Yeah, it's good.

No, I've actually done DNR on other things.

They do take away with their grants.

Um, so this is not we're not having to take away money from something else for the match portion that we were already expecting.

Okay.

Great.

Works for me.

Any questions?

Um, well, quickly.

The boat's not in yet.

Correct.

I'm reading at the end of the year, maybe.

We're anticipating delivery of the boat next summer.

Oh, next summer.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Next late July, early August is the last time frame.

End of fiscal year.

I'm sorry.

It should have said end of fiscal year.

Oh, okay.

Oh, I see.

Wow, it's a good thing we don't need it.

Uh it's an emergency.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, what what um takes so long with those?

I guess they're custom.

There's not a lot of folks making them.

They they are, yes, sir.

It's a uh custom design built.

Um they build them to order, and as with many supply chain things in our industry right now, they are uh they are pretty extended lead time for them.

So I'm sorry, I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but I'm just curious.

You know, I know in the US we have so many restrictions on commercial shipbuilding.

This is ship, a ship that is for my mind, kind of a commercial purpose.

Not a it's not a pleasure boat.

So are these built in the US or they're built outside of the United States?

So the company Meadowcraft Marine that we have purchased from has facilities in Canada and in New York.

Um, so it will be a registered documented built in the United States.

There's components that are being built in Canada, but final assembly happens in New York.

Interesting.

Cool.

Thank you.

Sure.

May I follow up, Mr.

Chair?

We do have a boat.

We yeah, we do, yes, ma'am.

We currently our our fire boat's currently in service and still responding.

This is a replacement for when we take delivery of the new one, the current one will be 20 years old.

Okay, it's sitting at Carol's Creek.

I've seen our boat go out many times.

So I know we have one, and I know it's very busy.

Yes.

So thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation to essay 1126.

I'm sorry, we didn't ask Alder Women's Neil.

I'll still make the motion.

I did not have any questions, and I'll second that motion.

All right.

All those in favor of a favorable recommendation of essay 1126, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, motion carries.

All right.

Thank you guys for being here today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now we get to get to the fun stuff, the legislation.

Miss Leonard, Mr.

Flinner.

Um, from the market house.

I'm sorry, I'm forgetting your name.

You want to you guys all want to come up to the table?

Keith, I'm sorry, Keith.

I forgot your name.

Caitlin has a much better memory for names than I do.

Mr.

Bouchard.

Um can I already just start by introducing yourself real quickly?

Yeah, uh, Keith Bouchard, 18 Bryce Road, 21409.

Ashley Leonard, Assistant City Attorney.

Matt Flinner, director of central services.

Can we afford um more than one mic at that table down there, Mr.

Chair?

We do have another one.

Cynthia.

There's one over here.

Yeah.

I think someone was smart enough to move them off before the uh uh closed session.

Yep.

Well, thanks for some uh quick work on this, guys.

In the last two weeks since we talked about it.

I'm sure it was not easy to do the additional negotiating, but I understand from uh Ms.

Leonard's email this morning.

We do have a new version of the lease.

And would you like to just give us the highlights on what's different?

Um sure.

And I I sent a summary with what essentially we um updated the security deposit amount um from to 15,000.

The basic rent is going up to 11,000 per month.

The performance rent is gonna be 1% of amounts over 2 million.

Um basic rent will increase by 10% every renewal period, which is every five years.

Um performance rent will increase 5% every renewal period again, every five years.

Um the terms are gonna be set so that um there's an initial term of five years.

There is an option for an initial renewal period for another five years, provided the tenant expends 100,000.

And then there are also two additional renewal terms of five years each that will be at mutual agreement of the city and the tenant.

Um and I broke down um with help from the um acting city manager, sort of in the email what the current is, meaning what's in the current lease, what was first introduced, and what is now being introduced.

Excellent.

Yeah, I think one of the things in here, I the only thing I didn't hear you say was this change to the increase in each renewal period, or maybe I just missed it, but I like that we've gone from five percent increase each renewal period up to 10%.

Yeah, so yeah, so we went from from basic rent was at 5% for every five-year renewal period.

That's up to 10% performance rent before had no increase on it, and we add it five percent for every five years.

So we went from zero to five on that.

So we increased both by five percent.

I also will add, um, I forgot to add that we in section 26 on reporting.

We also um changed the reporting requirements to be a little bit more consistent with some of our newer leases to give you guys some more information.

And when you say give us more information, you mean also the public gets more.

Well, yes, it would be it would be an annual report that would be presented to um the mayor, the city manager shared with city council, and would become a public document.

Yes.

I love that.

Um so I'm so I'm gonna have a couple of questions, but I just want to go back to one thing you just said that I didn't see it in your email.

So the there's going to be an increase every five years.

Correct.

That baseline amount for the performance rent is going to increase by five percent you're saying?

Yes.

So it goes from 2 million dollars to 2.1 million.

So that's 10.01.

2.1.

2.1%.

Thank you.

Matt's checking my math.

2.1, yes.

Um that's great.

I think that's very reasonable and and I um that's kind of a concession on our part, but I think it makes sense.

Yeah, we were trying to, as with every negotiation, you're trying to balance what both parties are able to manage.

In a working relationship.

Uh thank you.

Um Autor Ruin Phillips looks like she's about to ask you questions.

We could just go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh, and thank you, Miss Leonard, for um your very concise uh description of the negotiated agreement.

And and I'm using my terminology deliberately.

So both, and I'm gonna ask Mr.

Bashard next.

Um, but these are the agreed upon conditions for the uh new lease.

That's what's been agreed on by the city negotiating team as well as the market house.

Yes.

Okay, so in my mind, that's the agreed upon.

Could we have a copy of or did you send it to us?

I sent a PDF of the red line so that you could see what the change is.

Okay.

If you would like a clean as well, but it's PDF, so you should be able to pull it up on any device and see exactly what changes are matching for what came through from the last time.

Okay, what I find most helpful are the is the summary that you gave today.

Okay.

So if you could share that with us.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I I put it in the email, but I could make it into an official summary.

If you sent it by email in that one, two, three bullet, I'm good with that.

Okay.

Um, so uh Mr.

Bichard, what's your reaction to I I think we're, you know, we're in agreement.

I think we've um we've worked pretty hard on this back and forth.

And um, you know, our team is is um satisfied with with where we are.

Um we think that it keeps us um in a position where we can continue to contribute to the city and perform in the way that we've been performing without significant um alterations to the business plan that could be necessary if the rent went up extraordinarily high, right?

So we'd like to keep this a locally owned business.

We'd like to keep it um, you know, uh as a uh, you know, in in the model that we've created through the market house.

So I think this does it.

Um you know it um I think it uh it's it's it's not it's not a layup from our standpoint.

I think we're gonna have to work hard and manage it very well to um continue that, but I think we're in a good spot.

Well, thank you.

I'm I'm really glad to hear that.

Um, and I'll tell you from my perspective and my 19 years here, we've seen market house um folks come and go, and we've seen very difficult negotiations going on and sometimes not successful at all.

Um, and so I find this very comforting to know that, and I know there's been lots of criticism about the number of years, but I find that as a benefit because now we can count on our vendor who's in place and who has wanted to work with the city, and uh the new agreement is uh a testament to that.

So I think we are in a great place, and I look forward to um the what what you're bringing to the market house in the future.

But I think, and I'll speak to the city manager, you know, we're this this is a good place to be in.

And if you like I said, you go back and look at our history over the last 20 or 30 years, it's not pretty.

This is what I would consider very um ideal.

Ideal.

So I want to thank you, Mr.

Bishard and your team.

I want to thank you, Miss Leonard, for negotiating this for us and uh Mr.

Uh Finer for kind of overseeing.

Um, but I I'm real proud of where we are now.

So thank you to everyone.

I feel much more comfortable about this.

I feel like we've taken it from a 20-year lease down to essentially a five-year lease, maybe you can argue 10.

But um, that just having a lot more control for the city makes me feel much more comfortable.

Uh, I do have a couple more questions.

Um she turned her video off.

You might just be doing something cool.

Um the security deposit part was not something that we that that this committee had suggested being negotiated on.

So I'm just curious how that change was suggested.

Um, was that something from economic matters?

Why was that seen as a change that was worthwhile wild?

Um it it came from me, it was just sort of uh it was one of the numbers we hadn't updated.

Um, and so just with everything else, we thought it'd be a good idea to update it.

That makes sense.

Um the there's a section in here related to the part about um additional renewal terms that says something about compliance, uh renewal terms came into compliance for any, you know.

I'm looking at page two, but um and there's two lines to start with came into compliance that are struck out.

Could you explain those?

Uh well they still have to comply.

So the old the old language was set that's basically the tenant that they would get automatic renewals at their choice as long as they were in compliance.

We've sort of shifted it.

They still have to be in compliance with everything, but now they have to do much more than simply be in compliance.

They have to expend the 100,000, and that has to go through the whole process in sections 10 and 11 about repairs and updates.

So they still will have to be in compliance.

We've just sort of changed the bar.

Compliance is sort of like a minimal bar.

Um, we've upped it.

So I did I did not legally feel like we needed that extra language because we're already going to have to have that in place.

And the additional renewal terms um in particular are at mute mutual agreement.

So we would be part of that table versus um we would be at the table to agree to that versus it just rolling automatically.

We tend to put in the compliance if it's gonna be rolling automatically.

If it does make you uncomfortable, we could add it back in.

Um, but they are there are other sections of the lease that already require them to be in compliance.

Uh yeah, I I think I get what you're saying here.

It's we're not we're not taking out the need to be in compliance with city law.

It is covered in other sections.

Yeah, it's covered in other sections, and we're just changing it so that to get the renewals is a something a bit higher.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Um I have a feeling this might be my toughest question on here, but the requirement to um invest 100,000.

Somewhere else in here, there's the suggestion, and I'm sorry, I'm not finding it at the moment that uh certain investments can be deducted from the base rent, right?

Is that $100,000 subject?

Well, it'd be from the performance rent, not the base rent.

Base base rent has to stay.

So the um performance rent.

I mean, that is that is one of the things I didn't get.

We could maybe more expressly, I don't think the two were meant to overlap.

I think it was they had to spend a hundred thousand dollars.

Um I don't know if I fully clear, I mean, I could make it more clear if that is your desire.

But yeah, the base rent, it would never touch.

It would just be a performance rent thing.

But when I was negotiating that, I did not I guess double check how those two would interact, I guess.

May I ask you a question, Mr.

Kair?

Your your question, is it that they would deduct any expenses uh towards that hundred thousand from the not the base rent, but the other rent.

No, the part about the performance rent was that if it was essentially as if the city had to do repair.

We do have certain repair obligations.

And we asked them to do it, then they could deduct those rather than us having to mobilize and procure and everything.

But I will, and I think it reads clean, but I I didn't double check that section, but I can double check the section.

But that's more for that part.

The hundred thousand was for what they need to spend.

The deductions from just performance rent is if for instance we are in charge of exteriors, a lot of the exterior repairs.

If we didn't want to do the exterior repairs and we had them do them on our behalf, then obviously they could deduct that because that's city responsibility.

Yeah, yeah.

But Mr.

Michart, it's your understanding that this hundred thousand dollars is not uh is not deductible in that way, right?

My my understanding was that it was uh uh it part of it could be um deducted from the performance rent um based on you know necessary capital expenditures to maintain the building.

So and that would, you know, that would be up to discussion between us and the city to uh determine which of those qualify.

I I and I I I'm not a real estate expert myself at all, but uh my understanding what I'm what I've learned and been told is that uh that is a typical arrangement with the performance rent, is that you know it often is used for build-outs and maintenance and and things of things of that nature.

So that's that's the way we were looking at it.

All right.

Um that it has to do, so I found the section, and it's in it's on page six.

So it's it requires mutually agreeing, it requires a written amendment.

Um it allows the tenant to use some or all of the year's performance rent to make specifically agreed upon for improvements to the premises in accordance with the the sections on alterations instead of paying such money to the state's performance rent.

So if you wanted to tweak the section, that would be it.

But what we were looking at here is they can't automatically do it.

They have to have a written agreement, an amendment to this that says exactly what they're doing, which would be deducted.

So it wouldn't just be uh um they can do something and back charge it.

It would have to be an upfront discussion about what we would be using.

And if it it long term, if it is in the benefit of our facility, and um everyone at the city thinks it's it's a it's a good use to improve our asset, that's when it would become the written amendment.

Yeah, I I'm comfortable with that uh the way that it was in the the lease that we saw the the yeah, and that that that hasn't changed.

My question is just I don't want this, we're essentially making some relatively minor, but we're making some concessions who have gotten this additional hundred thousand dollar requirement of investment, and I don't want that hundred thousand dollars to then just get deducted from the performance record.

You are thinking then you want that more clarified in either that section, probably one or both of those sections essentially, is what you're saying.

Yeah, and and with that being clear that that hundred thousand dollars is actually a hundred thousand dollars, not something that they're putting a hundred thousand dollars in, and then we're giving them a fifty thousand dollar credit for or something like that.

Uh, then I am I would be comfortable moving forward.

If if I can uh maybe an example of something that I think is uh was in the spirit of the of the way the lease is written, uh might have to explain it, is uh like the renovations of the public bathrooms.

Right.

So those are publicly available bathrooms.

Um we maintain them, we uh clean them, etc.

Uh and people that use them don't have to be customers of of the of anything, any business within the market house.

But uh we'd like to do a very significant renovation on those, basically cut them and redo them uh you know in January, hopefully, uh pending the approval of the of the lease extension.

I think that would be a great use of of that part of the agreement, right?

So that some of that can be used to qualify towards that hundred thousand dollars.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

I just want to make sure we're not then turning around and deducting that from the performance rent way that we've just described, which in general I think makes sense, right?

But for city obligations, it makes sense to be able to deduct that.

But I think the the point is that 100,000 should be a lessy obligation.

So if we can make that clear, then I'm I'm willing to make a favorable recommendation.

Uh seems we've lost auto room.

But auto room, Mr.

Laston, you had anything else?

No, I'm very comfortable with that.

Thank you.

So, Ms.

Leonard, how would what would be the appropriate way for us to do that?

Uh um presuming that new market house is in agreement with I would probably add language to like section two that says that the hundred thousand dollars does not qualify under um as a possible deduction under what is it, section six.

So under section six C, I'd probably tie section six C and Section two B two sort of together and say that um the $100,000 required under section 2B2 may not be um deducted from performance rent under Section 6 C, provided that's it would be something along those lines.

Works for me.

So are we looking at that as an amendment to or yes?

I would consider that uh an amendment to what okay.

So we would our motion would be favorable with uh so are you ready for yeah, I'm ready to do that.

And just to be clear, I I I'd have to go back to the partners on that because that's something that was not in the way it was written.

So we'd have to we'd have to you know confirm that.

I understand.

And I I you know I I've said this before, I do hate the idea of the city council getting too involved in negotiating, but I think I think that's an important guardrail if we're we're kind of if this is one of the terms, I just want to make sure we're clear how it would it would it be acceptable to uh to add the language in there that that offset the $100,000 requirement is is a given, but the the fact that it could offset the performance rent um would be tied to a uh a capital expenditure that is deemed to be beneficial to the city and the building itself.

Example would be the the bathroom renovation, right?

That is a permanent fixture, uh well, for the life of the of the of the you know renovation, of course, but uh it's a permanent fixture in the building, it's an investment in the building, it's a it's a community benefit.

Um it's it's publicly available.

I think that would be a reasonable accommodation to that.

Well, let's ask Mr.

Leonard.

Um, I mean, I can write it however you guys want to.

Um so what he is essentially saying is that I would write out language that says the hundred thousand dollars cannot be deducted from performance rent unless it's tied to a capital expenditure that benefits the city.

So that would remove things like if he's replacing ovens or you know, right tables or things of that nature.

But there would there'd still be a little bit of just flexibility that we would have to determine if it's you know beneficial to uh to us.

But that that's what that's essentially it would be hundred thousand cannot be deducted from performance rent unless it's tied to a capital expenditure that directly benefits the city.

Basically, it it's in another way of saying it, I think is that the city would be agreeing to um commit to spending some of the performance rent on city agreed upon capital expenditures.

That's really the same thing.

Because we're gonna be we're gonna be paying the the performance rent anyway.

We're gonna be committing to spending a hundred thousand, and the city would then agree or pair perhaps a portion of that that would be allocated to a capital improvement on the interior of the building itself, like the example is the public bathrooms.

I think that's reasonable.

Um requests and the way Miss Leonard has outlined it.

I guess my only question is who would decide, or would it have to be a CIP item, or how do we make it?

Because it would go through a written amendment, it would go through the normal approval process for any amendment, which is the director would propose it generally, finance director would sign off on it, city attorney would sign off on it, city manager and then mayor would sign.

Well, that would that says that's the amendment that you're referring to.

But in order to do this, they would need an amendment.

So it would have to go through, so it might initially be done at a technically the director of central services is assigned as the overseeing director for it.

He might make the initial determination, but it would still have to get vetted all the way up.

Yeah, that's not my question, though.

I understand uh what you're saying.

Uh, but getting beyond the agreement the you know, next year, January when they decide to do the restrooms.

Is there a process?

Did they come to Mr.

Center?

Yes, and get um the okay to move forward.

Is that what correct?

Yeah, there's um there's paragraphs 10 and 11 already in the lease deal with how they have to get any sort of alteration or repair approved, and that would be through directory planner.

Okay, and renovations of a bathroom is considered an alteration.

Alteration, it I use a lot of other words, but yes, it basically covers pretty much any change in that okay.

That that's a reasonable amendment in my mind.

Um I'm not sure I uh um I'm for it.

I think the 100,000 should be 100,000, right?

If we're if we're making this big um so my big issue all along has been with the the terms that we're extending it for.

I think the argument behind why we want to have a longer term for it uh and why we want to extend it all is so people can make investments.

If we're putting 100,000 in here, I want it to be the money that they're investing and not not city money, not money that would otherwise be coming into the city's general fund.

So I'm not sure what the appropriate thing to do here is because I'm not gonna sit here and negotiate every bit of the lease.

So the thing that I want to come back to is something that that Ms.

Leonard said earlier, which is that any offset it has to be mutually agreed upon.

So that's not it's never just automatic anyway.

So I I think part of what I I hear from you is um is a concern that the city would not have a voice uh in deciding that, but that's already part of the lease, is that the city has a voice in that.

Um, and I I think that um as a long-term matter, um, you know, you know, this this spans years, and we don't necessarily have a crystal ball at this point to know what all will come up, what ends up being reasonable on which side, which is why the lease is structured in a way that requires communication over an agreement over what are we doing here, and I think that mechanism is the is sort of the important feature in there, not necessarily trying to decide now what things fit where, because I I think our ability to predict that far into the future is is sufficiently limited.

I think having that ability and that control that the city always has a voice, um, I think is is that's why it's there is as a safeguard, um, so that that's not um uh that's not a one-sided decision.

Um I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we're looking for um an impact that the vendors will have on our property.

So, for example, going back to the restroom option, that's gonna benefit us in the short term and the long term.

Um, and so there is not a direct benefit to the vendors for doing this, other than you know, the obvious, but it will benefit a city property into perpetuity.

So I want us to keep that in mind and in the forefront that you know this whatever projects come along that may want to utilize some of this funds, it should be something that's gonna benefit the city and our property.

So, Mr.

Chair, I don't know where we are because I think Alder Woman O'Neill has left the party.

Yeah, she has um I would make a recommendation that we give a favorable recommendation for 033 as the finance committee has amended.

So I want to be clear on what that amendment is.

Um I know we just we've just had a couple spitballs from from uh Ms.

Leonard.

Um it would be the best thing is that the the what do I call it?

Hold on.

Um that the hundred thousand dollar investment for the initial term improvements cannot be deducted from the performance rent unless tied to city agreed upon capital expenditures.

Okay, I think I can I think I can live with that, right?

Unless the city is saying we're okay with that, that it is so worthwhile to us that we're okay with it.

All right, I I can live with that.

You're gonna second it.

So I'm gonna second your um your motion.

And I and I understand, Mr.

Bishard, this is new language we're introducing it in a committee meeting.

I I hear you you have to make sure that's okay with your partners.

Yeah, I I you know we we're we're trying to be good partners, and I think that that's um in the realm of partnership, but I have to I can't speak for the I understand the partners of the business, so I have to go back to them.

But yeah, all right.

Uh so I seconded your motion.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And with that, we've made a favorable recommendation on uh 3325.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um last up, 03725, City Capital Facilities Charges Payment Plan.

I hope this is a relatively easy one.

Um I don't see anybody from public works to speak on it.

I know this is Alderman Chandelmeyersville, and I've had a fair amount of discussion with him on it.

I've talked with planning and zoning.

So I I could explain it a little bit if you want all the room into lesson.

That would be great.

Um basically it's changing when I think it's planning and zoning, it might be public works charges for capital facilities upgrades on certain development.

So right now uh folks have to pay those fees when they before the units are are built, and this legislation would give the option for the director only on small projects, right?

And that's really important.

Only on ones that are six or fewer dwelling units who pay those fees after the units are built but before they are occupied.

So the idea here is to just try and minimize a borrowing cost for small developments so that we can put those folks who are um, you know, if you're doing a hundred unit development, you've got financing, you've got you're fine.

But if you're somebody who is, you know, building a corplex on well, maybe on Tyler Avenue, right?

We passed Monday, you might not have that.

So that's uh that's his logic on it.

I think it makes sense.

Um I'm willing to approve this.

Um, but does the city manager have anything to add?

Yeah, that's um that my understanding is the same that the it's it's a timing um intended to um help minimize um minimize those borrowing costs and and make it easier um for poor folks.

Um it's not it doesn't reduce it's just it's just time.

Yeah.

May I ask how this impacts the resident uh the buyers um I it doesn't have a direct impact on the residents, wouldn't like um delay people moving in, right?

Because you all that stuff would still have to be in place before a use and occupancy came in anyway, presumably minimized borrowing costs from the developer would um uh be reflect obviously be reflected in their overall costs for the project, which might make that uh potentially have some benefit for residents.

Um obviously not my area of expertise, so that's theoretical on my part.

Um but any of those impacts are are in dire are indirect, um, and the indirect impacts potentially are in a positive direction.

So this is totally uh borne by the developer, which they are now.

Which they are now.

I mean, yeah, yeah, it means the developer that pays those now, right?

And they would continue to.

Um, and then they they pass those costs on to the homeowner.

Um, and so that process won't change, correct?

It won't uh increase the homeowners um you know opportunity to buy okay.

It might slightly decrease those costs, I think as the city manager was saying, because well, and and hopefully significant because you the person building them would not have to finance the cost of these for as block, they wouldn't have to float them on for quite so long.

So it would hopefully actually decrease the cost of those units for the buy.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there a motion for approval of 03725?

Uh I'll make a favorable recommendation for 0375.

All those in favor, oh, all second it.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Um, all right.

We just got our finance director update.

So Vicky, myself, the mayor, we all um just got back from New York, our bond rating agency presentations.

Happy to share the presentation.

It highlights a lot of things about the city.

All went really well.

We're optimistic about our rating, and we should be receiving reports next week um over a continuance of three days, and we will issue reports and ratings at that time in anticipation of our bond sale the first week of November.

So that's the only real update I have.

Um, all good things and um looking forward to our ratings.

Me too.

Well, we actually get a copy.

Of the rating report.

Yes, yep.

That'll all be public information, and we will send it.

We have to approve the report that the um the um Moody's and the the financial um whatever they put out to us, we have to approve it's a quick turnaround of what we're going to allow or be um in agreement with.

So we just fact check their numbers and make sure there's nothing that shouldn't be in the report, and then it's released its public information, but we will let you know as soon as it comes out.

Did I send did I hear you say that there has to be an approval or an acceptance by the council?

No.

Not by the council.

It's just um my I will review the report just for factual information, circulate it to office of law just to make sure there's nothing in there that legally cannot be public information because they are publicly released reports.

We don't get to argue our our rating.

We just get to we get to agree to what information is in the report.

Well, let me ask, did you meet with all the age the rating agencies, all three of them?

Yeah, just just she's under selling quick turnaround.

She has she has two hours.

Whoa.

And they come and it can we get rating reports from three agencies, and it's they give us a time frame and said block off your calendar, be ready, you have two hours to turn it around.

So that's three days of next week.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I think that's I don't think I have any questions.

Oh, everything uh looking good.

Uh so we I mean we do have a new council potentially coming in.

Are there I think I was discussing this in this book the other day, or maybe it was somebody else, opportunities to educate the new council.

I think particularly on the budget and finance.

So this is less a question more request of just we're gonna have a bunch of new council members, and it might behoove you all to start thinking now about how we teach them about.

Oh, yeah, we've we've been thinking about definitely been thinking about all of that.

Um there's there's a lot to learn, um, as as you guys well know.

Um budget is definitely part of that.

Um, but but only part of it.

Um it really is in many ways an introduction to um to all of the city.

Um, you know, as you guys know all too well, uh you are you are charged with understanding and overseeing and shepherding kind of the whole city system, the stuff that that um that's very visible and the stuff that's not very visible.

Uh and so um having some familiarity with how do those pieces fit together and how do they work and um yeah, it's it's a lot of information, and so yeah, we're we're definitely in a may ask who's doing the orientation.

And so yeah, we're we're definitely in a may ask who's doing the orientation.

Um it ends up being everyone.

Um there are some of the more technical parts of introduction to the code, how does the council itself function as a body and stuff like that that really gets led by office of law?

Um, but then every department um ends up having a piece of describing their own part of that system.

So there's obviously, you know, part of my task will be to help build some of the skeleton that then that detailed information gets hung on.

Um, but everybody ends up having a role in that.

So who's coordinating it?

And it's sounding like there's gonna be several days when the new council and the existing council should be coming in to be exposed, I'll say, to each of the departments and their roles, which is separate and apart from the roles of the council itself.

So are you coordinating all of those pieces?

I yeah, I the the overall coordination in terms of kind of what happens when, what are the main topics, yeah.

That that sort of falls to me.

Um we've been having some conversation about that with the directors for a couple months now, so um, well, may I encourage you to step up and take the lead in it?

Because you know, I've seen over the years how scattered it can be, and everybody doesn't get everything if there's no coordinated effort.

I know it's a monumental task, um, but you've already put certain pieces in place, and that is your directors who come, you know, they are under your line of authority.

Um, there are other pieces that don't fit into department um that have to be shared, I'll just say.

So I would hope that um maybe you would be able to coordinate all of that and and make it clear that it's important that all the new members attend.

Yes.

And I don't know, you can't make people do stuff, but um, I think it's vitally important that they come in with a strong knowledge of what of how this city works.

Yep, I would agree.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I think um I'm finished.

How about you?

I'm finished, thank you all.

Then uh an old woman O'Neil, she was with us a minute ago.

Um, if she is nothing else, I'll make a motion that we adjourn.

Thank you very much.

Uh have uh oh, I'll second it.

And all those in favor say aye.

Hi.

Hi.

Is this our last of Annapolis as the capital of the great state of Maryland is proud to lead the way in honoring this great American hero and this great son of Maryland?

Uh I do wish we hadn't been rained out today, but this memorial will be here for generations.

Uh we simply have to make an individual commitment uh to uh to admire it in in person when the more weather is more cooperative.

Are you gonna hear a lot of speakers today?

Uh rightly so about Congressman Mitchell's national legacy and leadership.

You'll learn about his place in history as Maryland's first African American member of Congress.

Uh but I want to talk about something just as important.

How his story is rooted in the fabric of community.

Because Congressman Mitchell's legacy isn't just national, it's local.

Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill has a famous and often quoted saying that all politics is local, intertwined with the very name of this building, Pip Moyer, Perrin Mitchell's story is about when national politics gets local.

Intertwined with the very name of this building, Pip Moyer, Perrin Mitchell's story is about when national politics gets local.

Back in the 1960s, Perrin Mitchell's nephew was arrested here in Annapolis at a sit in protest against segregation.

It was Mayor Pip Roger Moyer, yes, a white mayor during a deeply divided time, who personally went to jail and posted bail for the Mitchell family member.

That act wasn't just a favor, it was a sign.

A sign