Can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

So moved.

That is seconded.

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Up next, can I get a motion to approve the minutes from our January 7th meeting?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Up first, 04025, 12-month moratorium on new short-term rental licenses.

O'Neill and Littman.

We do not have anyone from the mayor's office or other woman O'Neill here, but we do have Director Kubiek.

So, sir, if you could please come up and join us at the table.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you for joining us.

Good evening.

Good to see you all.

Good evening.

All right.

So you can please go over the moratorium.

I am assuming you have been working with the administration on the intended goal and outcome of this legislation.

I'm familiar with the legislation.

I've had a chance to review it and the various amendments to it.

Okay, but you have not been working with the administration.

This is not coming from your office.

It's not coming from my office.

It's okay.

Yep.

Okay.

So in that case, um one of the main questions that we have is the 49% of the non compliant, roughly 49% of the uh non-registered owner 49% short-term rentals are not registered, uh, according to that report that came out uh approximately at the end of last year.

How was that determined?

Well, um, you know, I I believe in that um you're referring to the annual report, our first annual report.

Um and um you know at the time we didn't have a way of differentiating between uh registered or licensed short-term rentals.

What that is is a measure of the percentage of listings on host compliance that were actually licensed by the city.

So when we began engaging with the property owners and sending letters out for enforcement, we learned that quite a few are in fact the short short-term rentals, meaning they're they're set up for the two special events each year and not long-term rentals.

So our notion of what was compliant or not is narrowed down considerably.

Uh and as a result of the letters and the outreach, more people have signed on and become licensed.

So there were a number of individuals that were operating beyond the bounds.

Um, and we also got a better handle on the fact that a lot of a lot of license or a lot of short-term rentals were simply uh listed.

Uh and they're listed, but they're um only being used during those special events each year.

Um so we've we've narrowed down and become much more refined and continue to refine the data, and it's not particularly easy, frankly, um, using the sources that we have available to us, but we're getting a better handle on it.

So that 49% contained a lot of our special events which don't even require that license.

So, like Boat Show uh graduation week for the Naval Academy.

Right, right.

Um do you have an approximate idea of the true number of year-round unlicensed short-term rentals in the city?

No, I don't.

I don't have a I mean I we have a true idea of those that are actually licensed.

Uh and that the number to as of today is 339.

Uh we have uh three that have been applications that have been submitted this week.

And uh also this week we had to deny two uh two of them.

So um so it's it's constant flux.

We we expect the number to continue to rise.

So it it is higher than the number that was in that staff report, partly because people got into compliance based on our letters, and we re provided uh a grace period for compliance.

Um and our letters had the effect of surprising a lot of people.

Some people didn't realize that their property was listed on Airbnb.

That's what they conveyed to us.

Uh that they bought the house, they didn't know it was listed or that it was still listed.

Uh so there was some cleanup going on.

So I I I think the the number of short-term rentals out there that are listing is becoming more narrow and and uh being coming much more in compliance with the short-term rental uh law in the city.

Okay.

So kind of fascinated by how we get people who don't know their property is listed.

Yeah, one of the last little mysteries there.

So the number proposed for the moratorium, um, 12 months.

Now, how would your department do in that 12 month period that it could not do in say a three-month or a six-month or a seven month?

What could be done in that 12 months that those shorter proposals would not allow?

The 12 months would allow us to uh coordinate with key stakeholders, including other city staff and cities leaders, uh, to evaluate the current conditions in a very clear way, present evidence, share what we have, and go a little deeper in our research.

Um, but also provide uh the city as a whole time to reflect on any policy changes or ordinance changes.

Certainly, if there were a text amendment or two uh to the city code, that would take considerable amount of time to get through the approval process.

Uh so um you know that 12 months you know is more aligned with the uh process that would be more far reaching and involving other people and still allow the council time to change policy or change code.

So that 12 months allows a more robust stakeholder collection period.

Okay, all right.

That is all the questions I have at this current moment.

Uh I'm gonna turn the floor to my colleagues Alderman uh Savage.

Do you have any questions for the director?

Uh yes, sir, I do, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um, a number of questions, and you know me, Mr.

Chair, I like to opine and get on my soapbox, but it's not gonna be directed towards you when I do more towards just the sponsors.

Um trying to think of where to start.

So first of all, I guess I'll just say I do appreciate the annual report that you put together back in what is it, June or July.

Uh a lot of great information in there, and I'll get into some of that.

Um, I guess I get into some of that now.

You mentioned in the report.

Oh, let's see.

So you have recommendations on because one of the things we require.

Actually, maybe I'll just read that now.

So the code requires a number of things.

And that's not it.

One of them is I'm trying to find it.

So the report includes a map containing location of short-term rental properties in the city, uh, statistics on the number of short-term rentals, including new rental permits over the past year, any increases, decreases.

Um C is analysis of the impact short-term rentals are having on the city, and then D recommendations any on any city code changes regarding short-term rentals, and then E.

Other information the director deems appropriate to help the city council set policy on short-term rentals.

That's something we built into it back three or four years ago, I think when we did the the last major overhaul.

And um I just want to compare that a little bit to and I know this is larger for my colleagues as well, but just point out in the legislation itself.

If you look at page two, line 22, it talks about the purpose of the moratorium.

It says it's to provide the city council with adequate time to do it lists about five five different things there.

And um for A, it talks about conducting a comprehensive study of the impact of short-term rentals.

And this really I think is already addressed in the code or I just read, right?

It's something you're looking at already in the annual report.

Uh if you look at B, it talks about reviewing and analyzing short-term rental regulations adopted by other jurisdictions.

Uh this one is not required in the annual report.

Certainly good information, but uh I wouldn't think this would take too long to put together.

Um how much time do you think you might need to assuming this would be handled by planet zoning?

Would you or other staff you think need to do a uh analysis of what other jurisdictions are doing around short-term rentals?

Um probably about 20 hours of professional time, effectively coordinating with city management's office and meeting with key folks and law office and and and the like probably a month of you know practice a month of time to coordinate and share information and get feedback and understand what what the various jurisdictions are doing around the country.

Okay, and then C talks about evaluating the effectiveness of current zoning and land use regulations as they relate to short-term rentals.

I'm not quite sure what legislation is getting at with that.

Um effectiveness is not really defined.

Um I think I mean let me get to I'll have an amendment that seeks to kind of clarify some of these and narrow them down, but do you have any more information on that particular item?

Yeah, I mean, I I think any serious study of short-term rentals has to look at it in the context of our housing supply and the impact on our housing supply and our impact on land use within those areas where there's a concentration.

Because it's clear that where there's concentration of short-term rentals, there is in fact a change of land use.

And it is felt by people by residents.

We hear it, and not everything that we hear triggers a code case, but it's but we know it.

I mean, it's the case, I mean, we we we understand it.

Um so when we talk about the effectiveness of the zoning and our land use, we're thinking does uh a concentration of short-term rentals or a certain number of short-term rentals create a need to reassess where we our goals are, what our goals are for Annapolis, and our comprehensive plan of challenges us to do that, and it addresses short-term rentals as you know.

Um in that way.

So I think a really critical thoughtful review will take some time to really understand and assess the tolerances among the city's decision makers for uh the the amount of short-term rentals, the level, the concentration, and and what other jurisdictions have encountered in terms of their approaches.

Uh in Annapolis, short-term rentals are regulated entirely through the licensing authority, not through zoning, but other jurisdictions do take a zoning approach or blend the approaches.

Right now, the this the city allows by right essentially a residential property to be put to short-term rental use without regard to its location or its impact or anything else, it just allows it.

Um and um the fact that this moratorium is before us suggests that not everybody's uh square with the impacts on that.

People have concerns about it.

So I think my my broader point is that and again it's not targeting you, just but just to say that I think the proper process in my mind is to utilize the information we have, seek out some additional information, and figure out what kind of policy we want to introduce as legislators, and get that set in motion with staff working with staff, but that doesn't require more moratorium, kind of assumes the outcome, right?

Is it's a moratorium on new licenses, which assumes we're gonna make changes that we're all gonna agree on making changes that may prohibit somebody from having a short-term rental uh in certain areas of the city.

That's a large assumption, and and I think it's a bit backwards to again lead with the outcome as opposed to leave the legislation, have the dialogue, develop the consensus as the council.

Um I think the moratorium assumes that there are some adverse impacts of short-term rentals, and suggests that before those adverse impacts grow through increased licensing, let's study them and come to terms with what the best approach is to mitigate those impacts.

But it like any moratorium presumes what's being stopped temporarily has some adverse impact on the community, and we need to get our arms around the issue in a way that uh is thoughtful and gives us time to to grapple with it.

Um I read the whereas statements and recitals, and of course the recitals are not part of the the ordinance themselves in a meaningful way, but they're important to set up.

And I occurred to me that um it hints at this, but it doesn't really say we we're concerned about the impacts of short-term rent.

It sort of it sort of assumes everyone has a shared understanding of what those impacts are.

And I it occurred to me as in preparing for this meeting that maybe the real dis amendments to these where else statements should be that whereas we understand that short-term rentals have had first impacts, including the following.

Uh, and it's typical of communities have struggled with these issues, and and uh before we are open ourselves to continue them, um, we'd like to study this uh in a in a way that builds consensus on a different approach.

I mean, that's effectively what a moratorium does.

Yeah, oh for sure.

And and and I and I do they do voice their concerns, and that is again one of my disagreements with the moratorium, is it makes a lot of assumptions about the way it's worded that there they present a crime public safety issue, that they create noise, and and those things which I think are are they are assumptions, as you said, right?

We have and whenever we've heard those indications, like we did back when we did the big overhaul um back, you know, what was it now, six five six years ago, with the first time we did this, we responded to those specific public concerns.

That's why we have processes built in to address noise.

We have processes built into to address the nuisance, any nuisance issue that pops up.

And so uh, and as well, we just passed the density right legislation.

And so um, but that that's my one of the big issues with it, it assumes that they're all bad.

When I think there's a bit of a fundamental, and this is one of the things I want to ask you about, because the comprehensive plan talks about you know, aiming for uh what is it, 15 minute city, 20 minute city, 15 minutes, 15 minute city, uh walkability, right?

Uh mixed use, and in my mind, short-term rentals, even if it is non-owner occupied, is just it's another it's a non-residential use, yes.

I fully uh acknowledge that, but from a planner's perspective, uh and this is something I think Autumn Sandermeyer has really helped to teach me over the years, is like our exclusionary zoning that's just limited to one particular use, in this case residential, is different from what we used to have in the past, right?

We have a lot of neighborhoods that used to have um you know remnants of like corner stores and things like that, and it seems like the comp plan is trying to get back to that.

So but the moratorium is almost like trying to keep us on that exclusionary track instead of embracing ideas in the complan, which is like no, having non-residential uses are not bad as long as they're kept in moderation, right?

Right.

Can I add some speak candidly and add to the context to that?

Um so we have 330, I think by tomorrow there'll be 340 short-term rentals.

Can you remember a time when the city approved the housing development of 340 units?

That is a it's just a negative.

There's 340 occupiable housing units that are not on the market now, and that's about two percent uh just over two percent of our rental housing.

Um that's a substantial thing, and when we talk about walkable communities and and 15-minute cities, um, what short-term rental does is provide that benefit to visitors.

Uh we don't have a walkable community when the our residents don't live in units that are walkable.

So we are trying to build uh walkable neighborhoods and and walkable development projects elsewhere in the city, but we have a major development project distributed across the most walkable parts of our city, and city residents aren't living there.

They're not providing to the long-term stability of the community.

There are short-term rentals.

Of course, there are benefits to uh certain aspects of the tourism tourism industry, but um the short-term rentals are not necessarily aligned with a walkable community, like building our community.

We're actually walking away from walkability by con the conversion to uh short-term rentals.

Uh and uh so that's the balance.

I mean, I that's that's the reality of the.

Yeah, and I don't I don't disagree at all as far as the uh some communities have too many short-term rentals.

And I think the thing we would need to look at, and again, this doesn't require moratorium to look at is to forecast based on the 10% cap how much and the lottery, assuming that survives legal challenges, what number would that get us down to, right?

Because that is going to lead to a significant reduction on some of these streets that have 50, 60 percent short-term rentals, right?

Um so what is the number after that?

Is that is that gonna get us down?

Because I don't I hear you, and I don't think you're saying that there's no that there's no valid use of a short-term amount, right?

I'm assuming the well, what do you think?

Do you think there's a valid use for short-term rentals in our planning perspective?

Yeah.

Uh I I think the the cost are significant to a community where housing is in such need.

Uh and I mean there are studies that done by academics to do to demonstrate the increase in rental housing on account of uh short-term rentals for every you know, additional short-term rentals, the the rent increases uh marginally, but it does increase the short-term rental uh the long-term rental increases.

But I it's a matter of priorities.

It's it's a matter of um um goals.

What type of community do we want to be, and to what extent does uh short-term rental growth impact our housing goals, and and it's a balancing act essentially.

Um if I were in your shoes, I'd have uh I'd have uh other some opinions that are clear that I'd advocate for, but in essence, the the I think the full council reflects a diversity of viewpoints on this question because there it's a tough question, and it does, I think, but it's clear it does have impacts on our availability of housing, and certainly within of many communities when the neighbor next door is not there anymore.

And even short-term rentals are not those units are not occupied year-round, right?

I mean, they're it's they're peak seasons where they operate.

Um so there are often many units that where the lights are out all week.

But I don't see the differ there's not much difference when it comes down to as far as allowing a little corner store, community grocery store, um uh whatever a little office in a neighborhood bakery in a neighborhood that's still a non-residential use that's taking away housing, yet we're we want those, right?

And I would think having some amount of short-term rentals would be helpful as far as generating foot traffic and economic development.

And so um I guess that's one thing that we're looking for.

What are some of the ideal numbers, right?

When we threw out there was 10 percent.

Um I think before I yield the floor for now, there was one other thing related to this, which you mentioned in your annual report.

Um you had a number of recommendations.

Uh you supported the 10% cap 017, which we passed, but you did acknowledge you know, in that we would need a way to reduce the density, you know, um to actually achieve the 10%, which we did with um the uh lottery amendment.

Uh and then you recommended the a supporting the ADU legislation, which unfortunately we would we withdrew.

Um and then the third thing was let's see, you got into which I wanted to learn more about you mentioned taking a zoning approach.

Uh says uh if Napolis deployed its zoning tools, this use which inherently differs from standard residential use is short-term rentals would be designated as a distinct use under Chapter 2148.

Standards and related conditions could then be made applicable.

Now this approach then could you be used to place limits on the proliferation of short-term rentals by zoning district.

Um we don't have to have the whole conversation today, but I'm kind of curious what you uh what that would look like.

Yeah, I I think um it could look like a um a line in the table of permitted uses.

You know, there's a table for permitted uses for every zoning district, uh, and one of the permitted uses is is a short-term rental, it's permitted by right under certain circumstances in certain areas, but perhaps not in other areas, or perhaps there's an overlay district where short-term rentals are allowed, but not in other areas.

Perhaps areas that are further removed from the tourist hubs are more restrictive in terms of the allowable short-term rentals.

Uh where the land use changes is happened already, and the short-term rentals really contribute to the vitality of the tourism district.

Perhaps you're more lenient on that.

Um but it it is a change of use.

Uh, and it's one that comes about not through zoning but through licensing procedures.

But it is a fundamental change of land use.

And um, and so the approach that I think ought to be considered is uh the zoning approach uh in combination with licensing, but uh because the zoning is ultimately the land use control for the for the city council.

So for example, some some zoning districts it would be a permitted use by right, others might be permitted via I don't know uh special exception, um that kind of perhaps maybe not by special exception.

I I think we tend to make create too many special exceptions, but but but per perhaps it's permitted by race, but by um by um right, but still limited.

I mean you still have the concentration standards, there's no doubt about that.

And and typically those standards show up in zoning ordinances.

That's that's because it's someone counts them, someone relates the that within certain areas there's a rational basis for limiting those, whereas in other areas there's less larger lots, perhaps can be more lenient in terms of uh the concentration, closer in lots to where the impact is magnified to adjoining property owners might be treated differently.

But there's a a that lens of of geography and space and land use and zoning um I think has a lot to um lend to this discussion.

Uh and it it may be that it's a better approach than simply saying essentially wherever there's a house, a short-term rental can take place.

Except for the you know, now the 10% cluster provision is in place, of course.

But but the generally that's what the the code allows up to 10 percent on the block face.

But yeah.

Okay, yeah, I can see that as certainly.

So I mean I think that ought to be explored, Kennedy, and as the planning and zoning director.

We've talked about it in our office too, about how that how that's a kind of important discussion to have.

Well, and well, so going back to the moratorium, the other item it states is a purpose is to hold public hearings, which again I think we've done plenty of over the past uh six, seven years uh on this issue.

Uh the last thing was draft review, adopt comprehensive short-term rental regulations, which I think is kind of what you are alluding to.

Um but yeah, I don't think that requires a moratorium per se.

Uh a few other specific points, then I'll be done.

Uh so you how many I thought I heard you mention that you're posting roughly 30 prop 30 unlicensed properties a week, or was that a month?

I'm trying to recall.

Did you have a number that you're that were what posting?

A number of unlicensed short-term rentals that are you're posting notice of violation on no, I didn't I didn't say 30.

Um do you know how many you've brought into compliance or um uh roughly 50, 40 to 50.

Um 288 as of September to 339 now.

Uh 41, I think.

Um and also by bringing into compliance, we a number of have simply stopped doing it and are now complying with the code in the sense that they're not operating.

Um but we increase the number of um license operators just simply by forming people of the requirement to have a license.

Okay, and we have um the the we're most focused on renewing because with the base of 339 and they require annual renewals.

Uh we spent a lot of time processing renewals, then there's an annual inspection, so someone goes out and inspects the the unit.

Um so right now we have 52 in that process of renewal and with inspection scheduled.

That's an ongoing candidate, it's an ongoing uh requirement that uh does require a lot of manpower.

Um and um anyway, that's that's the bulk of this kind of staff time devoted to renewals processing.

And so I presume I think we're getting a work schedule, a work session scheduled with your department to go over some of the enforcement needs and just general assessment.

Um I'll save some.

On this topic, right?

On short-term metrics as we're calling.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, because that's personally that's why I'd like to see this more form focused more towards the budget as far as what resources do we need to enhance the program because we heard a lot of concerns about compliance.

Um one question uh oh one to just point out when I spoke with with uh Airbnb, they mentioned that I asked them specifically would you have the ability on your platform to require that they can't even submit it their home unless they have a license number.

And they do.

They said they uh I forget what state I'd have to look at my notes.

New York City.

New York City.

There's another one too where they do it where they're required.

Um so it's easy enough for them to do locally.

Um we just haven't that's probably a conversation to have with the law office at some point.

Um where maybe we need to tweak our code, but uh that would be a relatively quick way to get some of these properties in compliance.

Yeah, right.

Uh that's all I have for now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Alvin Savage.

Um do you have any questions for Director Kubiak?

Not at this moment.

All right, thank you.

Um I do want to say bringing up the point of when was the last time we approved 300 units and we're seeing all these neighborhoods or units taken offline.

It comes down to the issue of supply and where these are highest concentrated happens to be in the areas that it is the most impossible to add supply overall in housing, both long-term for long term, regardless, taking part in uh the C1, the R2, R1s, and R1NC.

So I do see this as a bit of a symptom of that larger problem, but we can get into that at a later time.

All right.

So we have some folks here, I'm assuming who wish to submit testimony.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, sir.

Is there another question from uh director?

Yes, may so uh you mentioned I forgot about asked this the uh needing to increase the fee.

Uh I'm trying to find, I think you mentioned that in the annual report.

Potentially need is that gonna come up with the budget deliberations?

I think so.

I hope so.

I I um I I think a fee increase would would be advisable.

Uh if we want to kind of deflect some of the additional costs to the city if and you know the time that staff is spending with short-term rentals, it's not applying to permit management and and and housing inspections and all the the other important things we do.

So um and I don't know what that fee exactly ought to be, but something we're considering.

Okay.

And have you received do you have a list anywhere of the complaints that have been received?

Because as we try to figure out what the impact has been on some communities, I think it'd be good to get be able to quantify some of those impacts through complaints.

Okay.

Um we'll be ready for that at the work session.

Okay.

Yeah, definitely.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That's Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Director Kubiak.

So we have two folks here, I'm assuming you're here to testify.

Uh, if you wish to do so, we allow three minutes of testimony.

Um after that, we will ask that you wrap it up.

Do we go there?

Yes, please.

Yep.

Just uh one second while I'll get the clock ready, please.

All right.

Uh if you could please say your name and address for the record, and then we will start the clock.

Thank you.

Katie McDermott, 55 street in Athletes.

Oh, Mike's not on.

Apologies.

Here, reset it.

Is it something I can do?

That's the one the wrong the right thing.

Okay, I apologize.

All right.

Name and address of the record, please.

Yes, thank you.

Katie McDermott, 50 Franklin Street.

I simply would urge passage of the moratorium without significant substantive amendment.

Uh I don't know what the amendments are that may be proposed to narrow the review.

But I think the fundamental issue is what the planning director has suggested.

STRs do impact housing and housing options.

And when you have less land, you need more management.

And on the zoning question is very interesting.

It's why I think we don't have a constitutional issue in regulating STRs, because it's a licensure issue, which is a privilege that can be waived and can be regulated.

But the impact on housing is quite significant and unexplored completely in the last round of legislation.

So in terms of the merits of the other aspects of the ordinance, I think having time to take a look at it would be very, very smart.

You may recall there was no staff or fiscal impact on the lottery amendments that were added to the bill.

So this is, I think wise public policy and a well-drafted moratorium that really will benefit the city long term.

So I hope you can give it some favorable consideration.

Thank you kindly.

All right.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

All right, let's close us out for today.

Uh so we do have a couple amendments that were submitted to us today, and then we have a couple more in the hopper.

Um seeing that the ones in the hopper are not prepared for us, I do want to give those time to get drafted.

Um, do we think we can get those finalized by the March meeting?

All right, excellent.

Um seeing as again, these ones were just finalized today, uh put up into Granicus incision today.

Um I would like to go over amendments one and two along with the rest of the amendments that are prepared.

Uh just give folks a quick update.

Amendment one goes over uh detailed requirements proof of representcy, and amendment two is an interior report for the city manager on the final sixty days before the moratorium uh ends.

So gonna hold off on going over those so we have time to go over them, wait until we can get those final ones updated and submitted and printed out, and then we can go over, finalize and vote on this in our March meeting is my preference.

I would move to the entertainment motion.

Yes, so I'd like to entertain a motion to postpone action until our March.

When is our March meeting?

March 4th.

All right.

Uh so moved.

Can I get a second, please?

A second.

All right.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Gretchen Kubiak, thank you for the detailed presentation.

We appreciate it, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Up next on the agenda.

Hold on, let me get my agenda up.

Uh Ms.

Jackson, do you have a printed version of the agenda that I can just look at real quick while I try to get the next up is ID 826 economic development update.

Mr.

Scrout, thank you for joining us, sir.

Very welcome.

Thank you for having me, as always.

So um I was able to submit my report prior to the meeting.

I hope everyone had a chance to take a look at it.

Uh this time, I thought it would be pressing it to add building permits as well as opposed to just you U and O, because they represent real investment coming back into the city.

So uh what I'm what I will be doing for subsequent uh uh committee meetings is creating essentially a pipeline.

So I have here the um the number of building permits that were issued for the month of January, as well as those that were in uh applic applied for for the month of January, so that you can have a sense of um uh progression as uh um building owners um make improvements to their properties because that represents real um or I should say a potential increase in assessed value for those properties over time, right?

This is investment coming back into the city.

So for the for January, total build building permits, as you can see based on estimated cost of the project, uh is two million five hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred dollars for one month.

I'd say that's substantial for a city of this size.

Uh as it pertains to UNO permits, we have three new permitted businesses.

Um all are new, and one is uh maritime.

It's a uh contractor for the U.S.

Navy.

So uh it's great to have them here.

I had a chance to visit with them.

Um in contact with their their leadership and they're excited to be here.

So just going through, I'm not gonna go through all the individual numbers.

I'm happy to entertain questions once I once I complete my report, but um, I just thought that having that additional data and over time could be a benefit for the committee.

So I want to quickly discuss the the recent winter storm that we experienced um and the business response.

So um uh thanks to Hope Stewart, um businesses were alerted well before the winter storm of how to prepare and what um responsibilities that they had, including clearing of sidewalks uh in advance.

So she sent out a mass email on uh the Friday before the storm.

Um and then after that, uh we didn't have too many reports the initial few days, but um a few problematic areas uh that we received um calls from, and then we added to the list of um areas that required more attention with Maryland Avenue.

So we had a number of businesses on Maryland Avenue reach out to us uh on Monday, this past Monday, um uh expressing issues.

Um, and then the same with um Dock Street.

So Dock Street obviously with the construction fencing uh made it difficult for snow and ice removal, but I'm happy to report that as of yesterday afternoon, and you some of you may have seen Dock Street's completely clear, no snow or ice, including that on the sidewalk.

And that's all thanks to a number of actors, including transit, public works, and Whiting Turner, who aided in the clearing of snow and ice.

So I was there this uh afternoon for lunch.

I can corroborate that statement.

Yeah, and it was perfect timing because we had uh a successful visit with the uh uh commerce secretary yesterday, and we walked down Dock Street.

So pristine for his visit.

So uh kudos to to all those other departments and most importantly to OEM for organizing the response.

It was a very seamless process for me to report these issues to them and for them to coordinate the response and the different departments to come in and and um and clean it up because transit worked with uh with um with premium to put no parking signs so that way that the other uh actors, public works and whiting turner could come in, clear all the snow of uh snow and ice and then premium very quickly came back, remove the signs.

So uh I I'm happy to report the businesses were satisfied by that response.

So um so uh as of now we just continue to monitor the situation, respond as uh we receive uh requests um from businesses.

I did receive a um did receive a an email from a concerned citizen who slipped on some ice from a business that um did not clear its sidewalk.

So while not necessarily in our purview, we take these very seriously, and um you know I I pushed that along to the proper channels to ensure that citations were met.

So um so city dock project updates.

So the city dock project continues.

Um the construction fencing is now present, so I'm sure you've all seen that.

Uh Mitchell um uh uh Stevenson and I, as well as uh Logan Ripps in new addition to uh public information office hung signs along Dock Street to attempt to create some sense of place.

Um it's an initial it's something initial that we're doing and we're expanding.

Um right now we're working on potentially signage in other areas, including the other side of the construction fencing.

Um the the directional signage is very important uh along along Dock Street, and it's something that I'm working uh with Public Works to ensure that's present.

I've had conversations with Annapolis Police Department as well for potentially uh helping to direct traffic if needed when things start to get busy now that it's a one-way street.

But um signage will play a key role in ensuring the flow of traffic along Dock Street.

I've also been in discussions with Public Works about developing as well as transit as developing a quick pickup drop-off area along Dock Street, so 15-minute loading on loading, which will allow for uh for patrons to uh to go in and and perhaps buy coffee or quick service meals or food delivery services to utilize it without having to take up other parking spaces.

So it's something that we're hoping to have implemented here shortly, along with additional directional signage one way, do not enter, keeping motorists from going the wrong direction.

Uh importantly, I have begun bi-weekly meetings with Whiting Turner.

So every two weeks, Whiting Turner and I meet, we discuss um upcoming upcoming issues, and perhaps they they need uh information conveyed to the businesses and vice versa.

So I play that role.

Uh first first meeting's been incredibly productive.

Um we hope to continue that.

So any concerns the businesses have are getting directly to Whiting Turner in an organized manner with a dedicated feed lap feedback loop.

So that's that's where we are right now.

Uh we have a number of other initiatives that we're working on, and I hope to be able to report to you in the next meeting.

Um streets, it's you know, it's under construction right now.

We need to make it the best place we can for visitors and residents because um a lot of those businesses rely on foot traffic.

So our two big um two big goals are just increasing foot traffic and quality of place.

We want people to get there, and when they get there, we want them to come back.

Well so that's uh that's my report for the month of January.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Strapp.

Um so first off, uh question on what you first stated about the new businesses coming in.

Right.

Uh would it be possible for you to ask if um a representative from that new uh Navy contractor could come in and introduce themselves at our next economic matters meeting?

I'd love to have them introduce themselves, say a little bit about their business.

I'm pretty excited to get a new maritime company to come in in Annapolis.

We've been making a lot of investments into strengthening our maritime uh business climate, and I see that as a success story for this committee and the work that we did last year, and I want to do their horn a little bit.

Absolutely.

No, I'd be happy to make that request tomorrow.

Um and to be clear, it's it's a it is a software provider, so not maritime in traditional sense, but one in the sense that um it's essential for the Navy's mission as it is today.

And uh and I think there'd be a great addition to uh to the east the mixed maritime zone in Esport where they're located.

So the maritime industry in the 21st century is more than what it used to be.

I fully assist it.

Absolutely.

Um second, I am really excited to hear about some of the updates and uh oncoming plans that we have to assist our dock street businesses.

Uh the pickup drop-up location was requested by Biddy and Bowes, and when I had forwarded that request over, uh was very pleased to know that you guys were already on that.

And for my colleagues, well, that was very important to Biddy and Bose is they have staff members with special needs.

So uh having a pickup and drop-off for some of those special needs staff is very essential from a safety standpoint.

Yeah.

Um spaces are we planning on providing.

So converse so initial conversations and what where we landed at would be two spaces.

Two spaces?

Two parallel parking spaces.

Yes.

Yep.

I'm waiting on final confirmation from public works, but that's that's where we landed.

And do we have an approximate timeline on when we think we could get those finalized?

I'm still waiting on that confirmation as is APD.

Okay.

Thanks.

So I I reached out today.

I know, and obviously the this is something that we've been working on for a few weeks now, but the winter storm has kind of put a halt on it for a number of reasons, logistically as well as just the you know, the the team team there at public works is prioritizing that as they should.

So could not possibly imagine why that would uh backburner that.

Yeah.

So um all right.

So uh that is all the questions that I have.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, um, yes.

So yeah, good to hear about the uh loading zone.

I think that's a great idea.

I did want to just focus in on uh questions on the dock street.

Yes.

So I'm hoping that for the spring we can look towards taking a different approach.

Because I think now pedestrian traffic's just gonna be slow anyway, to be because it's cold and lots of snow laying around.

Um but for the spring, I think there are a lot more things we could look to do.

So I guess I want to get a couple a clarity on a couple things.

Um currently is it go is it two-way or one way down Doc Street?

It's it is one way.

It's one way.

It's one way.

If so, coming if you're coming up um Craig Street, you take you would take a right onto Doc Street, it becomes one way.

You go down Docks, or I'm sorry, on Randall, you go down Dock Street, and then you take your take a left on Craig, and that's one way, and then Prince George, you would take another left, which is also one way.

So it's that's the flow of traffic.

So just east it uh eastbound.

Yeah, east.

Yes, yes, eastbound.

Um, and so for the parking, we're leaving.

I'm looking at the the sketch you sent us.

Yeah.

There's the diagonal slanted parking that we're leaving down there.

And I think you said that's like what 12?

And that, yeah, roughly, yeah, roughly, and that's been restriped as well to face the other direction.

Okay, that makes sense, yeah.

Um 12 spots.

And there's a there's an accessible van space at the end of um, it's a parallel space, is at the end of Dock Street.

It had been there before, and that would be maintained.

Okay.

Yeah.

Now what about because in the picture I see uh curbs on street curbside parking?

Is that mostly removed except for the two loading areas?

It's mostly what I'm sorry.

Are those removed or those still?

No, they're still in they're still in use.

They're still in use.

In fact, I've been in discussions with public works about potentially striping those as well, based on the feedback that I've received from some businesses along Dock Street.

So, how many uh curbside spots are there that currently do you know?

That would be determined by public.

I'm not I'm not sure that'd be determined by public works if they did currently though.

Oh, on parallel parallel parking.

It depends on how the size of the cars and how many fit in because they're not currently striped, but the only striped spot is the ban accessible at the end of Doc Street.

Okay.

Um so you may be striping that to allow for more.

Do you think you could find out how many if we stripe it diagonally and how many how many new spots we would get from doing that?

Well, they would they would need to remain parallel in order to have a uh the the right of way sufficient for for traffic to flow through.

So they would be parallel.

So they're remaining parallel, right?

They'd be parallel.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes, I'm sorry.

You know, those those would remain parallel spaces.

Only that they so as per city code, parallel spaces must be 23 feet long.

So they'd be in 23 foot increments.

Were that were that to be the ultimate decision made by public works.

Okay.

Um what I'm getting at is I alluded to last time.

I'm glad to hear that we made it one way, but I'm wondering if we could look at Craig Street and even Prince George, and for example, remove curb side parking on one side of the street to allow us to actually paint diagonal parking spots, right?

On temporarily on those streets, which would allow for more capacity, right?

Overall, um with the idea of then removing the curbside parking on Dock Street.

Because I'd really again like to see some outdoor dining, something like that, brought in, some attraction brought in to that area to get the pedestrians in the spring and summer.

Right.

And so I think if we remove those cars, we can talk to the I mean, assuming the restaurants are interested, and I I'd assume they would be.

Um but again, if we remove those parking spots, curbside parallel spots there, add some diagonal elsewhere on Craig and Prince George's, we might be able to even out the parking that would be removed.

Well, my my knowledge on this is somewhat limited.

Um, this is more of a a conversation with transit um potentially public works.

However, I can say that so um Craig Street, for example, uh the width there needs to uh be able to accommodate not only truck traffic and heavy vehicle traffic due to the um the construction.

So some of the deliveries uh that Whiting Turner will receive, or some of the traffic that would be going through, maybe through subcontractors will need to go the wrong way down Dock Street occasionally, wherein they would need to flag, have flaggers out to be able to safely move those vehicles through because they don't they don't have the capacity to make that turn on onto Craig and then back on in that direct, they'd have to come in the other way.

Um because they have another gate.

They have a gate that they can go straight in and then turn into the construction site.

Also, I know that the um that fire would need that lane open as well because that's how they would get their emergency vehicles through.

They would go through the construction entrance and then turn to go up Craig.

So and Craig also has uh an area.

One other thing that we're working on right now, it's very early, but we're hoping we're hoping to have this um deployed by March is actually create another stop from the magenta shuttle on Dock Street, sort of incorporated Dock Street stop, which shouldn't affect the the ride time of the shuttle in its entirety very much, just maybe a few more minutes, one or two, uh depending on the volume of riders.

But it will it will allow for um you know visitors or residents who park at um you know somewhere somewhere further away, right?

Whether Hellman's full or whether you know for whatever reason they want to park in in park place or somewhere else along the line, uh that will allow them direct access to Dock Street, and that we determine the best um for safety and and for convenience would be along Craig Street.

That stop would be along Craig Street.

So the addition of other parking in Prince George, I should say um the bottom portion of Prince George receives a significant amount of traffic from construction, so construction vehicles will go will back will back into Prince George, um, both for Burtison Welcome Center and for the entire project.

Down Craig then?

Down down Prince George, they would go, they go back down.

Oh, it's a gateway.

Yeah, they back down there.

Yeah.

And then the um the Naval Academy at from what I'm being told will eminently begin their construction as well.

So that would create an additional um additional challenge to have parking back there.

And then we've received um concerns from several residents along Prince George as well about the availability of parking.

Um so I think I think it would just in my opinion, based on the feedback that I've received to limit the amount of commercial parking on Prince George for the sake of the residents, um, if if possible.

I but I yeah, understanding, you know, and I you know, I certainly understand where you're coming from.

I I'm I I would need to work with um you know, transit and public works to understand where there might be other other areas for parking in that vicinity.

Ultimately, the the best place to park will end up being Hillman.

I mean, that's why it was developed.

So even now, I would argue Hillman you as a as a visitor or even as a resident who likes to come downtown, um, not as resident of the city, but nearby the periphery, I park at Hellman knowing that it's the most convenient option.

So yeah, I mean just personally, I'd rather.

Yeah.

People visitors should be parking at the parking garage, period.

Uh, unless they're disabled seniors, they want to get up close or they're doing DoorDash, want to pick up food.

Right.

Um again, I'm just I'll keep hammering the point.

I I'd like to try to continue to remove the cars to create some kind of attraction for certainly pedestrians.

What uh well, if there's anything particular you have in mind, I'd be happy to share with businesses.

Um, because ultimately I would imagine they would be ones who would have to activate the space.

Um so I'm working with with Hope Stewart right now to look at ways to maybe bring some programming down to the area.

It's very early, but we know that um you know having having additional reasons for people to come down and visit Doc Street will help that with foot traffic, and what you're proposing could be a way to do that.

Yeah, so thank you.

Thank you, uh Alderman also Johnson.

Do you have any questions?

Um, thank you so much for your presentation today.

We really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

All right.

So that has concluded ID 826.

Uh do we have and that or a listed agenda?

Do we have anything else for the good of the order?

Seeing none.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor.

Hi.

Thank you for joining us, everyone.