The March 4th meeting of Economic Matters Committee currently in the room at the time is myself and Alderman Rob Savage.

Before we have an approval of the agenda, I am going to make an amendment.

We are going to move ID 4526, New Maritime District Business, Blackwood, to the top of the agenda in front of O4025.

Can I get a second on that?

Second.

All right, all in favor?

Aye.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as amended?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

So up uh next, can I get the approval of our February 4th minutes?

So moved.

Second, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Up first, ID 4526, New Maritime District Business, Blackwood.

Folks, can we join us up on the table, please?

Welcome.

So if you could please introduce yourselves, uh, make sure the green light is on on your microphone.

Yep.

Hello, good evening, Alderman.

Uh thank you for having us here.

And it's my pleasure to introduce Ryan Morris of Blackwood, the most recent maritime business to enter the city of Annapolis and receive their use and occupancy permit.

Um I'll let Mr.

Morris explain more about his business, but I can say that our office is um oh an Adam Stratt, economic development manager.

My apologies.

Our office is extremely excited to have them here and um and hopefully to build off their continued success and uh attract more businesses like theirs.

So thank you, Adam.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

Um and thank you for having me.

It's it's a pleasure to take a kind of take part in this process.

Uh my name is Ryan Morris.

I'm the president owner of a company called Blackwood.

And as you mentioned in the Maritime District, we're really a cybersecurity business, but we've specialized our services around Maritime.

Uh that's a large amount of the contract work that we do, and happy to kind of provide more detail on it.

But thrilled to be formally in the city of Annapolis.

Uh we've been based out of this area for quite some time.

So our prior offices, um, we we moved into an 82 prior to me uh being born.

Uh and it was time for an upgrade, right?

And candidly, um, we went through the process of determining whether or not we belonged in the state of Maryland as a whole first, uh, and then where we were going to go.

Um from a fiscal policy perspective, it made a lot of sense to not be here at all.

Uh made a lot of sense to move, and I'm happy to provide some more opinions on that.

Um, but from a personal perspective, this is the only place we can be.

Uh I'm highly attached uh to this area.

As I mentioned, I'm third generation to be running with this business.

I'm the one that's supposed to screw it up.

Um, but I I don't intend to.

Uh I want to celebrate this place, right?

And I want to bring business here, and I want to have a big impact on the local community.

So um that's why I was was so happy to get Adam's invitation tonight to come and talk to you guys a little bit about of our experience moving into the city, what that was like, uh, and things that can improve moving forward to attract more business here.

Thank you.

I really appreciate you one uh joining us here today, two, you deciding to continue to be here in the Annapolis area.

Uh we've been really trying to expand and grow our maritime industry.

Um, and having cyber security here is something that I'm very excited about, uh, especially with their proximity to the Naval Academy.

It's a growing industry and it's just going hand in hand with the defense industry.

Uh so I'm gonna start off first with that comment.

It didn't make a lot of sense fiscally for us to be here because I appreciate nostalgia and that growing up here keeping you in the city of Annapolis, but we can't rely on that to keep all of our businesses and recruit all of our businesses.

So when you say that, did you mean in the state of Maryland and the city of Annapolis, little A, little B?

Uh can you elaborate on that further?

Uh predominantly a little bit of A in the state of Maryland.

Okay.

So um just based on net worth, I I have my own challenges with the taxation policy here, and and I choose to be here regardless, right?

Like that's a personal decision for me.

What changed really last year was the tech tax, if you're familiar with it in the state of Maryland, the 3% tech tax, which makes us considerably less competitive in this area.

And so the the interesting part of that is a three percent tech tax doesn't seem like a lot, but when your margins are as thin as as we are in the technology space, um, it's it's a lot.

It can be up to 20% of our actual gross margin.

Um the the challenge there for me was a bit of a moral dilemma, right?

Because I can choose to live where I want to live and where my family is going to grow up, and that for me is gonna be in the state of Maryland.

This was the first time I was put in a position where that decision to incorporate here to be a business in the state of Maryland made us less competitive and impacted my employees, and that my employees who rely on my business for their own well being, now they're three percent less competitive than who they're competing with in other states.

So on paper, it actually is much easier to be an out of state business bidding on cybersecurity and maritime cybersecurity work in the state of Maryland than to be a Maryland business bidding on work in the state of Maryland.

So the moral dilemma for me came this is the first time I I've made very limited decisions on fiscal policy.

I mean, live life the way I want to live life.

This is the first time that my decision to be here in the city of Annapolis and in the state of Maryland actually puts my employees at a disadvantage.

And that was that was hard to swallow.

Thank you.

I um really appreciate that filling in.

So in the process of moving in, opening your office to the city, can you describe some of the things that our uh economic development team did that made this go really smoothly uh for you that really made Annapolis just this attractive place beyond our general maritime culture?

Yeah.

Um yeah, let me let me start with a couple of names to kind of give people their flowers, like people that really did a wonderful job for us.

Um of my regrets in hindsight is not getting engaged with the city sooner.

Uh I was local, I should have known better, right?

I bought a building, and then we started going through the process, and there was a little bit of a delay in making contact effectively with the city uh and kind of getting access to people like Adam that could help us out.

Um there were people that were amazing, right?

Like Chris Tacubiac was really helpful.

Um, because we're our a core cybersecurity company, but happen to specialize in maritime, there's some gray area there, right?

And we wanted to make sure we'd be able to move in and use this facility.

Chris DeQubiak was awesome in reviewing that request in pretty short order and giving us a letter to let us know that this is certainly within the scope of that districting to allow us to move forward in buying the building and beginning our whole planning process.

That was awesome.

Um that was the the Department of Planning and Zoning.

Chris, in particular, was he was just um a breath of fresh air, I call him.

That's not our experience with everyone there, right?

Uh there were certainly others that their mission seemed less about driving it, kind of reducing friction and driving progress to just enforcing code.

A code that in many ways kind of was was up to the interpretation of the individual at any given time.

So we did have some problems, which I'd be happy to kind of walk into in terms of planning and zoning.

But Chris himself, he seems like a change agent there that's looking to move the organization forward.

And I was very appreciative of his involvement.

Um Jill Porter and Carrie Long came out as well.

Um, Jill Porter's with the Anne Rundal Economic Development Corporation, uh, Kerry Long with the Department of Commerce, uh, and were really helpful, predominantly in connecting us into other businesses.

Um I've got employees in 26 states.

We're about a half billion dollars in revenue working with some very large organizations around across the United States.

Um, a lot of my network doesn't exist here, my professional network.

They were very helpful in connecting me to other similar business owners and organizations like the community college that can help us with some of the up-leveling and upskilling that I need to do in my business.

So wanted to call them out.

And then certainly Adam, once we connected, that was kind of the easy button in the fast track.

Where if I didn't know where to go in the city or how to get something done, Adam typically did.

Um, and so my my regret is not getting engaged with the city sooner.

Um, but there were a few people in the process I wanted to call out that did an exceptional job.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um and you brought up an interesting point with that gray area in the maritime code.

Um, after our reforms in the maritime zoning, we have these industry, we have these businesses like yours that cybersecurity and the maritime industry, that's definitely in the heart and spirit.

But when we were doing that maritime zoning reform, we weren't thinking of that at the time.

Um, Adam, do you have any ideas how we can potentially streamline that in the future, or could you guys look at that in the future for how we can um hopefully do this without legislation so we can like because if when you open up legislation, you open up accidentally opening up other cans of worms.

But are there ways to uh start streamlining that, making that a little more clear for these businesses that are more unique but certainly within the spirit of what we wanted to accomplish with those maritime zoning reforms?

Yeah, yes, Alderman.

I I would I'd make first off, I make the comment that businesses that necessarily or don't necessarily have vessels on the water, right, are still you know, with still within the maritime industry are vital components of the overall supply chain.

And then that allows for that industry to continue to grow.

So additional vendors or suppliers will find Annapolis as an attractive place to land because other components of their supply chain are already here.

So, in terms of the actual process, right now it's very much it's it's very prescriptive.

It's sort of based on what the director interprets it as.

So the director has the ability to make that determination.

Um it's fairly open-ended, but I think that if we were to understand that businesses like Blackwood in the long term help to grow an overall industry that which can continue to cluster here in Annapolis, then we should be more receptive to those businesses that that aren't necessarily maritime in the traditional sense of having vessels in the water, but that will eventually track those types of businesses to be here.

So you can think of like um you know a high-tech high-tech companies that are receiving funding from the federal government to to build and test seaborne drones, for example.

The seaborne drones themselves um, you know, they are that they are going out by themselves.

They have a crew on a vessel that's bringing them out there and then bringing them back, and then that that company is utilizing the services of the traditional maritime industry, the marinas, the mechanics, um the um electricians, any anybody that works in that sphere, and they're providing the underlying economic base for recreational boating, which is right now the largest industry in maritime to continue to flourish, right?

Because they create that baseload demand.

So that's why it's so important to look at these other types of businesses as vital components of a larger supply chain and diversifying the economic base of our maritime industry.

All right.

So uh thank you for that clarification.

Now, before we get into some of the hurdles that you mentioned, because I would love to get into what can we start streamlining to continue to attract fantastic businesses such as yours and help yours grow.

Um, I'm gonna yield the floor to my colleagues to see if they have any questions.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um yeah.

Well, let's see.

Before we get into the code issues, um well, so first of all, thank you for your uh your uh interest in staying in the area uh in Maryland, but also in Naples.

Um sounds like a great fit for the maritime districts and the maritime industry here.

Uh so but it sounds like you were actively looking for a place to buy in the area.

Okay, and so it wasn't until after you went through started to go through that process that you found our economic development office.

Mm-hmm.

Correct.

Okay.

Um let's see, and yeah, so as far as any potential gray areas with the code or things that are up to interpretation, one way to do it would be we could get an internal rule drafted, internal policy.

And um, we already have provision in the code to do that.

And um it's not necessarily long-term stability, but it'll give us some kind of short-term path forward.

Um but I was gonna ask a bit, but just so I understand as far as the code issue, that had to sound like that had to do with the definition of maritime business.

No, so that was that was if anything, the easy part.

Um, once we start working with planning and zoning, um, the nature of many of our contracts is it is truly maritime security.

So if you think about a ship, it's on the water, but it's a floating city, right?

It needs to be secured, shipped to shore networks, equally the same.

All the cloud services that the Navy leverages to enable the mission need to be secured.

So we do a lot of that work, both for big Navy, for specialized programs, for shipbuilding facilities.

That's a lot of our core work.

And um, so it made a lot of sense for us to kind of be districted here.

That piece was relatively simple because we were we're given basically a a tip to go and just go have a conversation, and it went really well.

It was everything that came after that.

So what would have been nice in hindsight is is getting connected to Adam far, far sooner.

Like if I acquire about planning and zoning and we're gonna likely move in, I'd like to be tied to their group immediately.

Um the places where we we kind of fell apart, a lot of it was just timing of approvals.

They were just absurdly long.

Um we were hoping to be in the building by June.

We didn't start building until closer to August.

Um these are approvals for what permits?

Uh approvals for work permits, et cetera.

So exactly.

So that that took entirely too long.

Um through the process uh when we were submitting for various approvals, there was very inconsistent code interpretation where we're told it's good here, but then it's just applied differently and very liberally elsewhere.

Um so that came up a few times.

I can give specific examples of helpful.

Um, and then what I mentioned to Adam tonight actually was just there, we would consistently get in these scenarios where it was not their first time through the building, but third or fourth time through they'd find something new.

It's like, well, we're we're not here to talk about that.

We we've been through this before.

So we had uh consistent late stage additions um or additions late in the process that would further set us back and really really tore apart my timeline.

So I felt that for for smaller business that have X amount of runway and capital, I don't know how they go through that entire process and come out the other side still in business.

We were lucky to be in a more uh have have the capital available to sit there and float and and we weren't as dependent on the facility, but um it was a it was a painful process at times.

And how long did it take you?

Um it ended up being like formally in process about six months.

And what kind of um was it extensive work that you needed to do?

For us, we just wanted to add two bathrooms to the bottom floor.

Um and that's where a lot of this this the challenge came in.

We wanted to add, we were the facility itself, our intention for it beyond some of the lab work that we do is actually to bring industry in for off-site, get the whole executive team in, let's come here work on things, and then also to use it as a facility to bring students over from the academy for their capstone projects, um, have them work in the lab and collaborate.

So it's really a collaboration facility more than an office space.

Um sorry, lost lost train of thought there.

Um the bathrooms.

Oh, so we we need to expand the bathrooms on the first floor.

So our intention was to add two ADA-approved bathrooms.

That was the scope of work.

Um we were being forced to add bathrooms upstairs, which was not in scope, uh, nor did we have the room for.

We'd have to eliminate the conference room to add the bathrooms.

It didn't make any sense at all.

So there's very clear code.

I I'm trying to remember, I had some of it written down, but um there's a 20% disproportionality provision in there.

Uh there were a number of things that would flag against this being the ruling, but we kept coming back to it, having delays tied to bathrooms, renovating bathrooms that were out of scope for the project.

So, yeah, the the point of this was to bring the the first floor up to code, and it just kind of snowballed into a project that no one wanted.

Okay.

I didn't want to step on your toes.

You're gonna were you gonna get into that, Mr.

Chair?

Yeah, so I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

So basically, there was parts of the code that were requirement, you were trying to do a bathroom renovation on the first floor, but there are parts of the code trying to require you to install additional bathrooms on the second floor, or if is am I understanding?

Exactly it.

They say, hey, if you're we're gonna give you the permit, we're gonna force you to do upstairs as well.

And our point was upstairs wasn't really at all in scope, nor do we have an elevator to get people that would need an ADA bathroom there.

This doesn't make sense for anyone that's looking at the the scope of the project, um, but it just was a sticking point.

Uh Stroud, if you could do me and the members of this committee a favor and try to find where in the code that provision is.

Uh, I feel like that's a pretty good uh starting point on a place to streamline.

Um I'm assuming that's your question as well, I was just gonna uh offer a comment that I have heard from multiple businesses in my word, the same issue of we don't have any way for someone who needs additional accessibility to get to the second floor, and yet we're being required to put an accessible bathroom on the second floor.

Yeah, so clearly it's not just an issue you've had to deal with.

Yeah, right on.

There were some very sensible recommendations as well.

Let's make sure that we have water fountains and correct signage and things for fire escape safety, like all of that makes all the sense to the world, and we we put those in.

The bathrooms became a sticking point that we just couldn't get people to respond and just sat and sat and sat for a code that doesn't make any sense at all.

So to your point, I think there's just some some cleanup on the code.

Candidly.

No, Mr.

Chat.

Alderman, if I may very quickly to address Mr.

Morris's um initial point about getting connected with our office at an early stage.

So we now have our contact information in the email that every applicant receives as they apply for a commercial building permit or use an occupancy permit.

So they have my contact information early on in the process, know that we exist.

Um I receive uh an automated email every time anyone applies for a commercial permit, so I'm aware as it's coming in as well.

So it's just a way that we've our office is increasing that awareness and being able to better respond as those applications arrive.

And uh as per your request, I will certainly look into that um tomorrow.

The uh code uh where provision the code requiring ADA accessible bathrooms on the second floor.

Uh ultimate sense?

Just it's a bit of a tangent um getting into the budget.

But um is would you have enough does the office does the well, I guess for start with excuse me.

The department, does the department have the particular ombudsman that works with applicants as they come in?

And I guess with coming out of it, it would it be beneficial to have more capacity in your office to do that, or do you feel like you have enough capacity to both hope hope and I fulfill that role to many different degrees?

Um I'm I'm becoming very well acquainted with the entire process.

I'm I'm in you know, layers of you know different different levels of of just advising versus actually holding someone's hand and helping them apply.

So um at this point, my recommendation would be to for us to continue to gather data, Hope and I to continue to gather data so that way um we can make better recommendations.

So I'm working on that right now, but for the time being, between the two of us, we we work hand in hand to make sure businesses like Mr.

Morris's can get through the process.

So thank you.

For for what it's worth, I think a lot of business owners in the general public um has have preconceived notions about government in general.

They're unlikely to reach out and say, hey, like I want to I want to get you more involved in my project, thinking it might slow it down.

Um that was certainly my initial interpretation until Adam kind of reached out to me.

So I do think that one of the lessons there is simply like anything you can do to proactively reach out to business owners and let them know the intent of involvement.

Uh, I think you're gonna end up having a lot more people take advantage of the service essentially.

Um so do I have any other questions for my colleagues?

All right.

Seeing seeing none.

Um, so that I think is uh everything that we have on our end.

Do you have anything else that you want to share with us about this process and coming into the city?

I'll just tell you what's appealing about the city, because hopefully you can take that and and and build a tear sheet that attracts other similar businesses in.

Um what a cool place, right?

Like I grew up here, I have such a special appreciation for it, both the historic city itself and the academy.

And for us, that's what's really really appealing.

The academy is a customer for us, a smaller customer, but a customer nonetheless.

But really, the midshipmen that are there are some of the best in the country, and working with them on their capstone projects and helping them to develop the disciplines that I have in house.

What a wonderful place to do it.

Um for us, we're gonna be pulling in a tremendous amount of business that doesn't exist here, our partners, our suppliers, uh the service providers that we lean on to enable outcomes, some of the technology and software manufacturers that we work with.

They're all gonna be coming here to spend time in an off site, get to know the city and make progress in their work.

So I think businesses like mine bring a lot of people through the city um to the benefit of the city.

So I mentioned to Adam, one of our intentions is to kind of work with some of the local hotel organizations and uh and and tourism, basically to provide concierge services to encourage them to come use our facility and spend time here in Annapolis.

I think it ends up being a really good result.

But the reason that Eastport in particular is so appealing is it's still weird.

Like it's it's a really cool place, right?

It's a great community, and you have access to a beautiful sites and you have great restaurants close by and wonderful people, especially with the academy.

It's just a really cool place to be.

So there's a lot that we have to offer here.

Um I think that you can use all of that to your advantage when you're soliciting and encouraging business to come.

But if we can influence at a state level policies that make more sense for business to move to the state, much less the city, um, and then also kind of reduce some of the hurdles to get businesses kind of open faster.

I think you're we're all gonna be in a much better position.

Thank you.

Um now one uh that actually reminded me of a question that I think was regarding to workforce.

Um have you ever made relations and contact with um you said you made contact with Annoral Community College, but have you ever reached out to like Annapolis High School or any of the other uh local high schools for job training, apprenticeship programs here in the city?

We recently launched our own maritime apprenticeship program.

Uh that's not quite a one-to-one for what you guys do in cybersecurity, but we do have an excellent student body here in the city of Annapolis, and I think what you guys offer I could be appealing to students who have skills and technology and want to find a good job here in the city.

I have not.

Uh however, I believe it was South River.

I need to pull up the email.

Uh I can send it to you, Adam.

But um they just reached out last week saying, like, hey, we have incredibly talented STEM students looking for internships.

Uh, and we are interested in doing that.

So it's a little bit up in the air if we'll be set up in time for this summer, but over the next 12 months we'll be offering internships for high school students.

In addition, our intention is also to sponsor, formally sponsor the capstone projects from the US Naval Academy to bring basically first these out to work through uh their final project there.

That is so incredible to find out.

Um you guys are exactly the type of business that we want to see here in the city.

You're building these relationships with our community partners, and it's very clear from your passion that you want to stay in Annapolis, you want to improve this city, and you're here for the long haul.

Amen.

I have any further questions from my colleagues.

Excellent.

Mr.

Morris, thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you, yes.

Appreciate it.

That's very helpful.

Thank you.

All right.

Up next, we have 040 25 12-month moratorium on short-term rentals.

Um the director is not here, but we heard a fantastic presentation from him on our last February meeting.

So just wanted to run get your thoughts on something, because if you wanted to start with the amendments, or I know there's a larger legal question for office of law.

Um, so whatever you prefer as far as before or after the amendments is fine, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

I am aware of the larger legal question with the office of law.

Um, so here's what I'm thinking for the overall course.

What's that?

I think we're all right.

Actually, if she could join us.

Yes, please.

All right, so we're gonna go fetch the deputy city manager.

Here's what I'm thinking for the structure of this.

We have two folks in the audience.

I'm guessing you're here for this bill and not to testify on the good of the order.

Um so for these committees, we don't do back and forth on questions.

We do allow testimony for the interview split.

The amendments are publicly posted uh through legistar.

Yes.

Okay, email to get a copy of those.

And I didn't get a copy of those, but they're not on call.

And did she actually send or not posted on the if you were to go to Annapolis MD.legistar.com, uh you could find the legislation 040 25, and that will have all of the amendments posted publicly.com.

There are several tabs you can search uh by legislation is one of those tabs.

Make sure the year is uh either 2026 or 2025, and the bill is 040 25, and that will have all of the amendments posted.

That would be great.

Annapolis.

Annapolis MD, no dots in between those two.

Okay, this is the city protocol.

Yeah, city clerk's also gonna come over and help you.

Anyway, um, but I guess what I was going to go is are you hoping to testify?

No.

Okay, cool.

All right.

So in that case, how we're gonna run this is we're gonna discuss the larger legal issue with the office of law.

Uh we can discuss that first, and then I want to dive into the amendments, and then I am hoping to get this out of committee today with either uh recommendation of some form or no recommendation because I do hate being a roadblock.

So, office of law.

Um thank you.

Ashley Leonard, I'm an assistant city attorney.

Um I believe the issue that um Alderman Savage was referring to was um making sure that we have a reasonable basis for all parts of the moratorium, including any exemptions to it, correct?

Um so generally speaking, with a moratorium, um you have to be careful to make sure that you are not um there's a couple things.

First, a moratorium when it deals with real property can be considered what's called a taking.

So you have to make sure you have a reasonable basis for the moratorium to begin with, which I believe is already in the whereas clauses.

So my concern arose specifically with exempting out um the owner-occupied portions.

Um where that can not necessarily, but it can get into trouble is the Dormont Commerce Clause under the U.S.

Constitution, um, which basically gives broad powers to the federal government to regulate commerce amongst the several states.

Um and what that sort of they have now courts have applied the other way, is basically that states and local governments can't actively prohibit commerce among the states.

So that was the piece with the ordinance as originally drafted that I wanted to make sure that I I know there's been a lot of discussion behind the scenes about the reasons for exempting out um the owner occupied, but I don't think they made it into the actual legislation.

And that is what I I would recommend that, and I believe Alderman Savage has already um suggested, I don't know what amendment it is.

Um he already suggested you already suggested an amendment that included some of that.

I thought I saw at least it was getting closer.

Included what?

Um new whereas clauses about um I think it was owner-occupied versus non-occupied.

That's been a long day.

Uh kind of, but I don't I think it was getting closer.

Um so um sorry, so that's sort of my legal concern is just to make sure that our whereas clauses that are sp specifying all the reasons for the moratorium include very clear reasons for why owner occupied are not part of the moratorium.

Was that uh your amendment six that got into that or is that that was it was getting closer to it, I think.

Well, may I so the so the I don't not to get into too many much detail yet, but just briefly uh amendment six the the part that has relevance, I guess, is I was trying to make a distinction that the legislation that I think that's where I'm proposing to change the title and some of the other language to be clear that it's the moratorium applies only to non-oneroccupied short-term rentals.

Um because that's what the body of the legislation says, but I don't believe the title currently um makes that distinction.

So that was not done, that was before I knew of Ms.

Leonard's concerns as far as needing to provide more if I'm summarizing this right, provide more justification for that underlying separations.

Right.

We have a lot of good where as clauses that justify the overarching reason for the moratorium, but I think we're a little weak on why owner-occupied aren't going to be subject to the moratorium.

Um have may I um you have the floor.

Okay, and so I did um I did give a heads up to the sponsors to see if they wanted to.

I don't know if they're working on something or not to try to strengthen it.

And I I did share it with at least one of the sponsors, I'm not sure if I shared it with both, but um I have been trying to, but I I don't think it's I think it can be an easy amendment because I think it's already been thought through.

I just don't think it's been verbalized concretely into this moratorium.

The process with our new amendments though means they take time, and if we end up bumping into Ms.

Reuter, do you know where we are with this potential amendment or are you working on this anywhere in the process or hi, Cynthia Reuter legislative legislative and policy and list for the office of law.

I have not been requested to draft an amendment that deals with this, but this could be easily dealt with as an amendment to amendment six is that something that we can get knocked out before hypothetically the Monday meeting, because I understand this is potentially coming up for the Monday meeting if we can get it out of economic matters today.

We can sure try.

I shouldn't say it's not like that.

Not that it's not you trying your best in the law office, it's just I don't like uncertainty when it comes to this legislation.

Um so in that case, then the more guaranteed way is addressing it through amendment six perhaps the the sponsors, Alderman Chandelmeyer sponsor not Shannelmeyer.

Savage.

Savage.

The sponsor in amendment six.

So I mean, if he's open to adding a warehouse clause, but nothing is drafted, nothing's ready.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yes, sir.

Uh so just I mean, on this, I'm I think it's no secret that I don't support the underlying moratorium.

Uh I'm raising this not as a not as a uh to be an obstructionist, but you know, I'm raising it to to make clear that you know this is a concern that I heard.

I wasn't even asking the law office for this, so I again I wasn't digging.

Um, but I do think it needs to get addressed.

And so um I I'm not again, even for the purposes of today, I'm not bringing it up as far as uh reason to postpone.

I do think it gives me even more pause as far as supporting the legislation.

Um but I you know leave it entirely up to the committee as far as how you want to proceed with that.

But ideally, I would think that the spot one of the sponsors should take this on since it's their legislation.

I don't want to put because I I think it's too much for us to do today, right, as far as trying to work on language.

Um I'm gonna acknowledge Alderman Huntley, uh see if Alderman and Os Johnson has thoughts, and then I'll share my thoughts.

Alderman Huntley.

My suggestion is just that the uh if the office of law is some concerns that they draft up a little something, something the one of the two sponsors can be uh sponsor of this amendment to the would be uh it would be like six A, right?

It should be it should be within this amendment six, and then they could just do it.

And and as long as I mean, if if it doesn't, if they aren't able to do it in the next three days, they're unable to do it in the next three days.

But it seems like the direction should be just all right, go ahead and write this one or two, whereas clauses is six A.

Alderman Oswets, do you have any uh thoughts, concerns, questions on the larger legal issue around this.

Well, as he they mentioned that it's gonna be bringing some employment for the students training or to help them have jobs.

Oh, this is uh the STR moratorium, not the okay.

I'm sorry, no, then I don't have all right.

I'm sorry.

Um we moved on.

Um here's my thoughts on this.

Again, I don't want to hold this up another meeting in committee for a whole month.

Uh I will highly suggest our primary sponsors get the necessary legal amendments in, even if it means kicking it back one primary city council meeting.

Um that's better than us waiting a whole other month in economic matters.

And if they don't, they can risk potential lawsuits.

Um their legislation up to them and Mr.

Chair, if I could also offer again, I don't even know yet if I'll be supporting it coming out of committee, but the committee could certainly make a motion that would have a an additional recommendation to address this issue.

I think that's a good plan, Alderman Savage.

All right, so let's go on to the amendments.

Amendment one by Alderman Smith Brown.

Uh my understanding of this amendment is it changes our definitions of owner occupancy or establishing uh residency.

Um yeah, I can speak to this a bit because I've have been in um conversation with the alderman.

Um so and and please uh law office speak up if I'm missing something, but I believe this the sole intent of this is to refine the proof of residency.

Uh because uh the Alderman and I share had share concerns as far as the language in the in the ordinance as written as introduced, um is based almost entirely on uh uh relying on driver's license, and a number of residents don't have that, including uh potential military, and so um we we wanted to draft an alternative, and this is what he came up with.

Um I I do have a kind of a competing substitute um amendment to this, but that's where he is coming from with this, and it has a couple of different categories.

Uh if you look at category A goes into uh needing a certified copy of a recorded deed, uh some s that information, and um it says that so for I guess the the applicant has to provide details from each of the categories.

So the second category, category B is state or US military issued identification, uh, and then category C is residency corroboration, which would be utility bill and um tax return, that kind of thing.

So that is I believe in a nutshell, a description of what's being proposed.

Thank you, Alderman Savage.

Uh so you said you had your own counter, not exactly counter amendment, parallel amendment, I suppose.

Uh 1A.

What is the primary difference between these two?

Well, so the primary difference is when I was reading through uh Alder Mr.

Brown's amendment again.

I just felt like well, there are two things.

One, there was a bit of a contradiction, because in one place it says um you have to be resident 183 days or 184 days, and then later on it says six months out of the year.

And so there was a bit of a contradiction, uh potential conflict there, and then um and then uh the other issue was I just felt like the proof of ownership could be a little bit burdensome as far as trying to offer proof, and there was also an issue with the military exemption maybe a little bit too narrow and not cover National Guard reservists or other federal personnel.

Um and so what I was proposing is just to kind of simplify it to if you look at mine, it just requires um one government-issued photo identification, and then one document linking the owner to the property address, such as the utility bill bill, vote registration, uh tax return, that kind of thing.

And then it has another C talking about military service, uh, may provide military identification.

So it just kind of broadens the language, makes it a bit more general, with I hope um is the same intention.

I agree the same intention is uh certainly there.

Uh Alderman Ossip Johnson, do you have any thoughts on the amendment process or amendments uh one versus one Aaron?

All right.

So um what I am going to recommend from the committee is uh I have a personal preference due to the broader language and uh expansion and easier process establishing residency, uh which can be difficult, uh more difficult than a lot of people think.

Uh going with 1A.

So I'm gonna recommend that we do no recommendation on one and a positive recommendation on 1A.

So can I get a motion for no recommendation on amendment one?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Can I get a motion for a positive recommendation on one a?

So moved.

Signate a second.

Second.

So I'm all in favor of a positive recommendation on 1A.

Aye.

Favorable, yes.

Favorable positive synonyms words.

All right, up next, amendment two, Alderman Smith Brown, uh requiring an interim report from the city manager and a final 60 days before the moratorium on no new non-owner occupied short-term rental licenses ends.

Uh Acting Manager Buckland, do you have thoughts on this?

Um on the the previous one, I mean just sorry, I I I didn't catch catch your attention.

The I'm not sure that I would agree that you know, the pro being able to provide an ID card plus like a utility bill is not the same thing as it's your primary residence.

Um that's an option here.

I I'm not sure that I think that's something you may want to reconsider is that um that may be too loose to to really have owner occupied.

Um, but as far as um as far as the second one is concerned, um uh having um presenting uh interim findings um is is fine given some of the later ones we were talking about changing the timing, the timing that's in here may not make sense.

Uh so there's I have some questions about harmonizing this amendment with later amendments.

So my understanding as written, the legislation as written, you are okay with this if the other amendments changing the timeline on the moratorium were to be adjusted, you would have a more difficult time with this.

Is that anything?

Yeah, I mean, having uh an interim finding of like we're six months in, how are you doing?

Now 60 days prior, right?

The 60 days prior was in the original language, so that's not really a change.

But having an interim briefing of how are things going, that seems normal to me.

It's just that now, given the that's something to consider in the later amendments, is that that timing doesn't would might not necessarily work.

So just want to flag that.

Mr.

Chair, do you just want to take on amendment five first?

Yeah, we're gonna go ahead and skip down to amendment five in that case.

Um so we can go over these timelines.

I think that's important.

All right.

Uh amendment five changes moratorium on short-term rentals from 12 months to six months.

Uh Alderman Savages is yours.

If you could uh speak to it, please.

Yeah, and it's I guess this also is kind of tied with one of my other amendments, but uh intention is just to shorten it from 12 to 6 because I I feel like um a lot of the information already listed in the moratorium as far as what it would do, um, is already required by code.

It's things we are already collecting, such as the compliance and enforcement data.

Uh they just gave us some of that information, and so um the other thing that was listed was looking at other jurisdictions for um just to compare what they're doing with what um some of our concerns are.

Uh and again, that I don't think really we need um 12 months to do.

Um the one thing that I think might take more time is just analyzing, which I think is also listed in the legislation, which is analyzing um some of the uh the impact, potential impacts short-term rentals are having on the housing in Annapolis, uh, as well as uh the relation to the zoning code.

Um but again, I I just I I feel like that really shouldn't need a whole year either, but I do fully acknowledge and I'm aware that the department is saying that they need this much time.

Um but I just kind of I just I just felt like I wasn't personally entirely convinced that a whole year was justified.

And I I just think this is kind of a big step to begin with, and so um I'm trying to make sure that we don't have an unnecessarily prolonged standstill for this sector.

So the thing that I would would point out it's it's the it's the findings and any recommended changes, and I think that's part of where some of that time comes in that the department had said we we probably want.

The other thing to note is that given the 60 days prior to the expiration of the moratorium, that shortens it not to six months, but it shortens it to four.

We haven't so you're essentially going from 10 to 4, right?

So having those recommendations due 10 months after the moratorium starts to having a that's just that's a different piece of legislation.

I mean that's a different amount.

Okay.

Um before I get to you, Alderman Huntley, uh Oscar Johnson.

Do you have uh thoughts on six months versus twelve months on the moratorium date?

Nine months.

All right.

Uh Alderman Huntley, I believe do you had uh questions, thoughts?

No.

Well, I was just gonna say one little piece of information, which is that the short-term rental report that's already required on our code came out in August of last year.

So I think one point of benefit towards six months is that then would be closer to when it came out last year, but then the director uh the city manager reminded me it's gotta be 60 days beforehand.

So then that puts us more like in June.

So I was wrong, can yes, sir?

I do apologize, city managers uh pointed out.

I think where you're I was misunderstanding you what you were saying is that looking at the underlying legislation on page three line 32 the city manager or their designees shall present to the city council findings uh no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of the moratorium.

And I think you're saying that my amendment number five does not change that.

Is that correct?

Uh yeah, just it point I'm just pointing out the effect of having the moratorium last six months instead of twelve months, means that the time allotted for doing findings and crafting recommendations means that you'd have four months to do that rather than ten.

Right.

Yeah, and I I hear you.

That's that's a good point.

So I think if if the committee decided that six months is a way to go, then I would recommend the committee change remove that number five.

So that's if number five stays in there, it would essentially be four months, and that's it.

Um so just to point that out for the committee.

But if the committee doesn't want to go six months is a moot point.

But but sorry, thank you.

Uh city manager.

Um I'm a little uncomfortable with this one.

I do think when we got into timelines with required reports and also seeing how long it takes any type of legislation and policy to get drafted and through the process, I understand the length of time that it takes that to go.

Um it may end up not needing to be the full 12.

It may end up just needing nine to get everything drafted and ready, but I think they're aiming for trying to get as much time as possible to get a quality piece of reporting.

Um I also think that was some of the goals that we want with these 60-day reports out and snapshots of where we are in time.

We do need that longer time frame.

Um I understand where we're coming from when it comes to the moratorium being seen as a seizing on property.

We don't want to just do that to dawdle.

But I do think our planning and zoning director has made a good case for why the full time frame is needed.

So um hearing that uh Alderman, I'm assuming you're gonna make a motion for a favorable recommendation on this.

Well depends on what you're gonna entertain first.

I hate doing motion, I hate doing motions for unfavorable because I think that's petty.

All right, well, that's fine.

So yeah, I'll I'll move um uh for a favorable recommendation on amendment number five.

Can I get a second for a favorable recommendation on amendment number five?

You got it.

All right, so we have a second.

Uh all in favor of a favorable recommendation on amendment number five.

Um say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

No.

All right.

So uh Mr.

Chair, since since it did pass, I would just recommend that the that the committee make that change to uh remove number five as well to make it a amended amendment basically amendment.

Yeah, so the city manager or their designee shall present to the city council findings and any recommended changes to the city code no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of the moratorium.

Uh you'd like that removed?

Yeah, just address the city manager's concerns.

All right.

Um Ms.

Reuter, are we able to scratch that as part of the excellent?

Thank you.

Let's see if there's any proposition.

Um do we have any opposition from the committee on that removal?

Seeing none?

None.

All right.

So uh let's go back to amendment two.

Um now we have heard concerns from the city manager's office now that amendment five has been given a favorable recommendation from the committee on this 60-day report.

Um I personally on the legislation as written like this, but I'm going to try to be consistent for what the committee has put forward.

Um so do we have uh general thoughts on this aside from that?

Um, I mean I had I kind of had concerns either way with it, just I guess I I just I don't want to have staff unnecessarily present preliminary data unless there's a really valid reason for it.

But um yeah, so I I I would say maybe just uh no action on this one.

That's what I'm leaning for the sake of consistency for what we have put forward.

Uh Alderman Osap Johnson, do you have thoughts now on the amendment two now that we've put forward a shortened timeline?

No, not me.

All right.

Uh so can I get a motion for um no action on amendment two?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor of no action on amendment two, say aye.

Aye.

Uh uh up next, amendment three, Alderman Huntley clarifies that the city already receives a comprehensive annual report on short-term rentals.

It eliminates the whereas clause discussing a short-term rental report to the council and reiterates in subsection five that the city council will receive an annual report from the city manager on short-term rentals in the city, their impacts and potential legislative changes.

Would you like to speak to this one, sir?

Sure.

Thanks so much, Alderman Chandelmeyer or Chairman Chandelmeyer.

Yeah, so the bottom line here to me is the last thing I think we should want to do is have our staff duplicate efforts already doing.

So the underlying legislation, I mean.

So what I tried to do here, and and if anyone has suggestions on a better way to do it, I am open to that.

But what I tried to do here is make it very clear that we're not saying, hey, you already are required by code to have an annual report.

And then also this legislation is requiring you to do another report in the next year, uh, because that would be silly.

So the way that I went about doing that is the we're striking two parts, which are the actual establishment part saying that there has to be a uh a report with recommended changes to city code, right?

And and if the way I think about it is that that's the only requirement really for this report that's actually put into the meat of this non-where as part of the legislation.

It's also striking this, whereas it's describing the purpose, um, which I think the the reason for that is because that is the place that lays out in some ways what this duplicative report would do.

So the idea here really is just to say we are the report that we're going to get at the end of this, it's a report that's already required in code that's very comprehensive and not some additional report.

Thank you.

Um do we have before we get into responses from my colleagues, do we have any thoughts or responses from staff?

I I want the the main thing um I wanted to clarify was whether because that's an annual report as of a certain point in time, whether you want what the purpose point was here was to have an update 60 days to that same report, 60 days prior to the end of the moratorium, so that you'd have sort of more current, so it might be the same content, but you'd still rerun it.

And I wanted to see whether that was what the intent was here.

My intent is is to not rerun it.

It is to say in so let's say say this legislation gets passed in March.

12 months from then would be next March.

60 days from that would be next January.

So the annual report for 2027.

Sorry, took me a sec to do all that map.

Would be that code requirement would be satisfied by the what we're getting out of this moratorium.

That is what I'm trying to say.

With your understanding of it.

Okay, I was um I what I was track the part I was tracking with was um that the last report, I think you said you'd gotten in August.

So you'd want then you'd want a new report as of January.

As a the there's already required to have a report in code, right?

Every year.

Right.

And so what I'm saying is the report for 2027 would come out in January.

And it would and then a year, so you in some sense you'd reset the timing.

Sure, we could think of it that way.

Yeah, okay.

I just I think it would be really bad.

And or not not the end of the world, but like a waste of everybody's time for us to get one report about short-term rentals in January of 2027 and then get another one in August or April or May or whatever other month in 2027.

Point is we've already got a report that we get every year that actually does more, it's it's required to talk about more on short-term rentals than is in the this underlying legislation.

Alderman Savager.

I think Mr.

Chair.

Um, I guess I would just ask to be consistent with our other recommendations.

Uh the committee to um I guess recommend a version that would that would be um uh compatible with the other amendment number five.

And uh well, regardless of if that passed or not, I think this may still work.

But proposal would be uh an amendment to the amendment that would strike sixty days prior to and then it would read so it would read no later than the expiration of the moratorium, city manager or their designated that way, whether or not it's six months or twelve months, it'll you know it'll work.

Uh I would be supportive of that if the moratorium gets cut down to six months.

Yeah.

Um so here's where I'm coming from from this.

Um then I'll see if any of my other colleagues have thoughts.

I do greatly appreciate this amendment because a source of frustration that I have had with this moratorium, which I am largely in support of because I do think it can help us benefit some of the regulations that we've passed in the pat that we've put forward in the past, is it's not acknowledging those strong regulations that we've put forward in the past.

I'm really proud of the work that we've done.

I think this can help benefit it, but I've found some of the whereas is a little critical of the hard work that we've put forward and not acknowledging your successes disappointing to me.

So I'm a fan of this.

I think it helps acknowledge that we have had success and that we do require some very vigorous reporting already uh while not going against the overall standards or intent of what the moratorium wants to put forward.

Did my colleagues have any thoughts on that before uh we move forward?

I agree on your all right.

So in that case, can I get a motion for a favorable recommendation on amendment three?

Uh so moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

And Mr.

Chair, could we would it make sense to have it remove that 60 days so it works with whichever way it gets amended?

Yeah.

Let's do that committee amendment uh committee amendment removing that portion.

Um where is that parts?

That would be on number five, Mr.

Reuters.

I guess it'd be on the legislation it would be page three line 31, but on the amendment it would be the first line under our number five to remove 60 days prior to.

Oh we got that.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

For the sake of consistency out of the committee.

All right.

Alder amendment number four, Alderman Thorpe, uh requires the city manager to report monthly to the city council on the number of short-term rental licenses and regulations as well as city of four as well as city enforcement actions.

Uh and then there is also some changes in the whereas clause.

Um my understanding is this takes our yearly reports and starts requiring a monthly reports.

Uh that seems like it may be difficult for staff to accommodate, but before I put that as my formal opinion, I would like to hear from staff.

Yeah, I I appreciate the desire for that data.

Um and I think providing um some granularity in the timing in that final report so you get a sense of like what's the monthly volume.

Uh I I don't object to that idea, but the but the sending of that information every month, I'm not quite sure what that changes in terms of the timing of council's actions.

Uh I'm gonna put a pin in this conversation real quick because I've uh been informed we forgot to uh vote on the committee amendment to amendment three.

Uh so can I get a favorable recommendation for uh committee's amendment to amendment three?

So moved.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, let's continue.

So it would be difficult to staff and difficult for staff, and we're not really sure what else it would accomplish.

Um I understand wanting the consistent updates, but if this gets in the way of us trying to accomplish the goals of coming up with reasonable policy recommendations, uh yeah, and and like I said, I I don't object.

I don't object to the idea that when we report that data, you'd like to get a sense of what the flow over time looks like.

Um I'm just not sure what formally presenting that to council every month.

I'm not sure what that gets you.

So what's our definition of formally presenting to council?

Is that just sending a report to us by email, passing us a report onto our desk, or does that require like a full work session?

Um because if it requires a full work session, I can certainly understand that would just become next to impossible if it's a generic email.

Maybe we can adjust this from monthly to quarterly.

Uh perhaps.

If the moratorium is down to six months, yeah.

All right.

So with the quarterly would work if the moratorium's 12.

It would be tough with six.

Yeah.

All right.

So for the sake of consistency, we should treat everything like it is the six months out of this committee.

Um in that case, I'm going to treat what our city manager has said as just the standard here.

And like this would become too burdensome to staff.

Uh before I give it to you, Alderman Huntley.

I'm gonna see if any of my colleagues on the committee have thoughts.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh yeah, I I uh tend to agree with the city manager.

Um I I'm also just don't I don't see what we would do with the monthly data as the councils since we're waiting on the final results anyway, which are gonna provide a big picture analysis of the data.

I just um so I would be in favor of no action on this one, but Alderman also Johnson.

Any thoughts?

Alderman Huntley.

So I have some problems with the whereas on this that I'll get into a sec, but I actually think the uh underlying requirement is good.

I would I would be inclined to defer to the city manager, but uh I know that getting the number of active licenses and registrations is not particularly onerous.

I mean it's it's right there in our CSS portal and it can be exported.

So that that part of it should be, I think.

Well, you're telling me if you're gonna if you're gonna tell me I'm wrong, go ahead.

No, I I think the question for me um comes more from um enforcement actions and what the scope of enforcement actions is.

So okay.

Uh I was gonna say, yeah, that's the part that seems harder.

Um the the benefit to me of this is that what we keep hearing from the public is we want enforcement.

I mean, that's what everybody agrees on.

It's we want enforcement of any time that people are there are illegal, unlicensed short-term rentals.

And so I do think that showing the public how hard our staff are working and the number of enforcement actions to get taken, which I take to mean a notice.

Like what I would like from this is I walk around and I see all the orange placards to get put up on doors.

And if we just had a number come out each month of how many of those got stuck up, that to me would be very helpful to hear each month, even if it's not going to change my legislating month to month, it's it's almost an argument for why we don't need to change legislation.

And I do think that's important data to have.

Um so that it's my two cents on it.

Um if I can go to the whereas, uh the first one's fine, uh, it's basically what I just said.

But the second one is uh I got a big problem with because it presupposes the idea that staff are going to propose legislation.

And I think that why the heck are we doing a survey, a study, if we already know that they're gonna propose a bunch of legislation.

So uh the simple solution on the whereas seems to me to be to just change will to would or may um that's the that is alone is enough to make me not support this amendment, but I think the underlying intent is good.

All right.

Yes, sir.

Alderman Savage.

Well, yeah, I I show your concerns over that whereas, and I just think it's unneeded because in the next in the next whereas if you go down to E, it says staff is going to draft review and I'm sorry, let's just say um that's for the city council.

But the intent of the moratorium, so the city council can draft review, adopt regulations.

So I just currently worded.

All right.

So here are my thoughts on this.

Um I think this is very well intentioned.

Data collection is always fantastic, but I think regardless of if the moratorium outcome on the front of the full council becomes 12 months or six months, the collection of data and the sharing of this data is going to be too difficult for our staff to conduct.

Um I think we can informally request certain of these things.

I would hope our staff can uh maybe provide us with quarterly data without us legislating it, but um this as written, regardless of the timeline becomes a little too problematic.

So I am going to make a room, I'm gonna ask for a motion on uh no recommendation on four.

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor of no recommendation on four.

Aye.

All right, amendment five.

We've already covered amendment six, Alderman Savage.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So yeah, six, I think, tries to do what I've heard, I should think uh you mentioned Mr.

Chair, which is the first priority is to um well, first of all, the first priority is to make it clear, like uh Miss Leonard mentioned earlier that this moratorium implies the intention is to have it only apply to non-owner occupied short-term rentals.

And so you'll see in the title that's inserted, and I think a couple other places that's uh that distinction is made.

But the second part of it is I to your point, Mr.

Chair, I wanted to make um I wanted to make sure that we acknowledge uh some of the hard work that we put in um last uh council term, and um and so without because I think the current wording has introduced really I felt like it was weighted too way too heavily towards with already with the assumption that the short-term rentals have like for example in the second whereas uh I'm trying to strike where it says uh short-term rentals have uh impacted residential neighborhoods, public safety, public health and housing options.

And I feel like the whole point of the moratorium is to determine those impacts.

Yet the whereas is really kind of assuming uh already that it has all these negative impacts, which again I would point out I felt like feel like we've done our we've worked quite hard in the past to try to address a lot of the concerns listed, including public safety, um, which uh you know all older women O'Neill actually led on trying to get the three strikes and you're out kind of thing.

So and then the third thing the legislation does if you look at uh yeah, page four.

I struck a the current A through E in an added new A and B.

My intent with and granted this is just the where ads clause, it's not like it has much legal weight, but I wanted to remove things that I think the Alderman Huntley's point are already required with the annual report.

Um and also uh it's mentioned in here in the number, let's see, D, which I was proposing to strike says hold public hearings and gather input.

I personally I just feel like I've maybe because I've been dealing with this issue for at least six years.

Um we've had a lot of public comment on legislation, and plus this whole again the intent of the moratorium is to recommend legislation to us, which is going to have dedicated public comments.

I just would rather skip a completely separate uh public comment period, which wouldn't even be part of the record anyway.

Um and so the two I was proposing to put in here is to make it clear that for the new A that they would be um intent is to have them draft review, adopt further enhancements to our regulations that balance property rights and community interests, and then in B the new B to review the short-term rental compliance program to identify additional needs, and this kind of has an eye on the FY27 budget, just so we can get some of that information um in time before we or at least well I'm not sure if we'll get it before we pass the budget, but um yeah, so that's the intention, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Um I think this is largely really good.

Um I know the director had concerns about this regarding reducing the overall scope, but when he brought forward that this reduces the scope uh studying affordability and its impact on neighborhoods, I think you have pretty much those exact same words on housing affordability and its impact on neighborhoods still in this amendment.

Um in a different wording of order.

Uh the one issue that I have is striking um gathering input from residents, property owners, and other stakeholders.

I do think getting a robust collection of input from all the stakeholders involved in this process would be really important for overall legislation.

Uh I think hearing from folks who live in neighborhoods where there are short-term rentals, along with hearing from short-term rental property owners and the surrounding business community helps us come up with overall a better piece of legislation.

Um if we're willing to get rid of that, I'm willing to put forward a favorable recommendation.

Um if you're not, I understand it's how you wrote it.

I'd be willing to put forward no recommendation.

Okay.

Up to you.

So yeah, I would um I'd be fine if well with slight slight tweak to that.

Um still a little concerned about having additional public hearings, but I'd be fine with saying if if to say uh keep hold public hearings stricken, but just say gather input from residents, property owners, and other stakeholders so they could still present um information as opposed to holding public hearings.

My worry with that is if you don't do it publicly, we end up with potential we end up with potential ethics law.

I don't I don't know if that's the right phrasing, but it murky's the waters.

Um people might on one side might accuse of uh funny business, people on another side might accuse of funny business.

I think just keeping everything out in the open is just the easiest, most direct way to handle it.

Um I think in this case, uh we can just go forward with uh no recommendation, as that sound.

Yes, Saldman Huntley.

Uh I I just wanted to note one um maybe this is like a friendly amendment, Alderman Savage.

I think we've talked a bunch.

I overall I love this.

Um we've talked a bunch though about the that we may need additional legislation or we may not.

And so I would just suggest that in your uh A here that it add sort of if necessary at the end of it, right?

Because the way it's written, I think it kind of presupposes that good point.

We need time to adopt uh further enhancements.

So just wanted to get that in.

Here's how I see the best way to gather this is like additional.

I hate no, we hate to we're joke about how many times we bring together task forces, but bring together no man.

Uh, but bringing together bringing people together at the table, and again, if we don't do those meetings publicly, it ends up creating issues.

But um we've been on this for about an hour, so can I get a motion for no recommendation?

I make a motion for no recommendation.

I get a second.

Unless you have further thoughts on that.

Well, I would love to get your support.

I I I don't want to um say so.

I would love to find some language that would work as far as getting I I can see the wisdom and gathering some public input.

Yeah, I'm just nervous about the public hearing.

So I don't know if you have more because it how would that work?

Because we're not gonna do them as a council.

This isn't a body meeting, it's city staff meeting.

So, how would they have a public hearing on their process?

That's I think it's normal to have like a public comment period, right?

Um, and people can submit what they want.

We do that with staff does that with a lot of things, and that wouldn't interfere with their timeline.

I guess I want to know what the sponsors had in mind for public hearings.

Was that in the form of we open this up and we all sit here and people deliver their thoughts?

Do we do it as a task force?

Do we do it as meetings?

Does staff have any idea for what was intended by this portion?

Do you have no the way it's worded is that the city council would hold the public hearings.

Oh so we would be here taking direct input from the city code lays out a process for not a council meeting, but just a solo public hearing that's standalone all by itself.

Well, you have witnesses at the table, and then council members ask questions.

Um so it could be that type of public hearing rather than during a council meeting.

So like a work session is sent, which uh something along that line, yeah.

Something along that line, yeah.

Um hearing that.

Yeah, if it ends up just being a grip session, that's not gonna get us anywhere.

Um all right.

So thank you for that clarification.

Okay.

Knowing that I feel like if we keep it in this way, uh, it would just end up becoming a gripe session.

Um similar to regular public comment.

Um I do think that when we get this moratorium for any recommendations on legislation does require robust input from some type of public input.

Sorry, my stutter's coming out whenever I get tired.

Uh during the public normal process.

The normal process, and I do think we need a task force of some kind with our stakeholders because having all those folks at the table is going to be significant.

But uh yeah, thank you for that clarification.

I think I see this a little more in line with where you were coming from originally.

So uh seeing my original motion got no second.

Um can I get a motion for a favorable recommendation on amendment six?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Okay.

Uh so 4025 as amended.

Um I am going to be supporting this as amended.

Uh I just would like folks to know on the day of.

I do think we need the full 12 months, but I think this committee worked very hard on coming forward with a well thought out process and to vote against what we put out is disrespectful to y'all's time.

Um so I am going to be supporting outside out of the committee.

Uh, and we had a an additional recommendation for the sponsors to address that issue with the whereas clause and the owner occupancy versus non-owner occupancy.

So can I get a motion for a favorable recommendation on 040 25 as amended with the addition of asking the sponsors to address the whereas clause regarding owner occupancy and non-owner occupancy for legal sufficiency?

So moved.

Ms.

Jackson, do you have all that?

Yeah, yes.

And to the law office, did I phrase that correctly or yes, you're good.

And I'm I'm already taking notes on it.

Thank you.

All right.

So it has been made.

A motion has been made.

Can I get a second?

Yes, I second it.

All right.

So the motion has been first and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Uh up next on the agenda we had ID 4026.

Uh but Director De Kubiak is unfortunately not able to make it tonight.

Uh so we will postpone that until our next meeting in April.

And uh so moved.

Do you want me to make a motion on that?

I don't think we need a motion on that.

I mean, it's just city here.

Not here.

Okay.

Um and so up next is ID 826 economic development updates.

Uh Mr.

Dutt, welcome back to the table.

Hello again, council members.

Um Adam Stroud, economic development manager, Department of Planning and Zoning.

Uh I don't really have too many updates this month.

Um working on a number of initiatives, including some concerning community development.

Uh, but next month I'll have updates for both February and March.

So I'll have more comprehensive list of both business information as well as um more on the on the let's say housing side with community development.

So but um I'm I'm here to answer any questions.

If anybody has any questions, I'm always here for that.

So please I open the floor to to you.

Thank you.

Uh and um Alderman, do you have any questions?

No, I think uh any other updates on the um city doc.

The business is down on City Doc.

Yeah, um you may have seen that the magenta shuttle is now stopping at City Doc.

Um that was uh an uh a joint effort between myself, public information office, and most importantly, transit.

Um Marcus Moore is absolutely a pleasure to work with.

He's been he and his whole team.

Uh so we're hoping that that would help.

I I conducted another series of interviews with city doc businesses this past month, sort of understand their situation.

As you can imagine, some are doing better than others.

Um the construction activity, you know, it's it can become a double-edged sword for some of the businesses in that now you have a slew of construction workers who need to take breaks, perhaps get a coffee, something to eat.

Um, but those benefits aren't being felt uh felt universally on Dock Street.

So we still have a number of other initiatives we're working on, specifically around signage.

I know a big problem on Dock Street right now is traffic.

Cars going the wrong way down a one-way street.

Uh so been working with public works to make sure that we have proper signage as well as the uh the loading zone signs in front of the building where where Bidium Bows and Blowfish Pokey are located.

Um I know I've I've heard some rumors that there was a nearby business that is closed, which isn't actually the case.

That business is um undergoing renovations.

So uh to my knowledge, the um the the businesses down there still going strong.

It's just that they are um they are struggling.

So in their own words, I should say.

Um, but uh our efforts are um you know continued and we hope to be able to support them.

So what the one way so with the dock streets now going east or is it going west of the it's going east, yes.

So you would make you make that right onto whereas it was prior, yeah, going the other direction.

You make that it's what you make that right off of Randall if you're going up towards the Naval Academy, and then you go around up Craig and then back on Prince George Street.

That's all one way.

Yeah.

So people are they're going down Prince George Street, which is already one way and has do not enter signs, and they're going on so they're consciously making a decision to go in that direction.

So once we have once we have signage out there, what we've been working with public works on placing additional one-way signage, um, and APD has um mentioned that they you know they they could potentially they haven't made any guarantees or promises, but maybe have somebody out there helping with traffic.

It's just I mean they couldn't do that before.

Right.

I'm just I I'm it's puzzling why they're doing that now all of a sudden.

Yes.

I've seen it on a number of occasions.

Most are a lot of out of state plates, so I think it's just a matter of being confused and then going down and seeing parking spaces or going that realizing I went the wrong way, I don't know how to turn around, so I'm just gonna ride this thing out.

Um yeah, maybe that's yeah.

So it's it it becomes more difficult because if that were to happen when you did have two travel lanes, right?

You could say, oh wow, okay, I can turn around here instead of realizing it went down one way, but now it opens up into two-way.

So um that that's been the biggest issue right now.

Most of the complaints I've heard from from the proprietors are around that, around the traffic.

So but um, but again, it's a team effort.

Public works has been great.

They've been they've been responsive.

Um this has been an ongoing issue, but obviously they've been concerned with cleanup from the winter weather.

Now that that has subsided, uh they've they've taken this on as well.

So no.

On one.

Um with the restrictions of the academy being on, not it's been I was down at area this morning, and it was crazy.

Yes.

That's a great point.

So how's that affecting you know the area?

Yeah, so the with the Naval Academy, so are you you're referring to the the restrictions on being able to visit the Naval Academy versus okay?

So there's yeah, that that's an issue, and there's also the fact that the fence has gone up along Prince George Street for the Naval Academy to conduct its own um its own resiliency project there.

So now you have added construction and added complexity from that along Prince George, which is then affecting Doc Street.

Um but i the Naval Academy, you know, it's it's a federal agency, right?

It's a military base.

You know, so it's more than just the uh a place of higher education, it's an active military base.

So when those restrictions go into place, um you know there isn't really much that we can do about it other than try to understand the best we can.

So I have um you know, I've been in contact with with members of their civilian um um, I'm sorry, civilian staff to try to coordinate that, especially regarding the construction side.

That's really what we can coordinate on is a construction on Prince George Street.

So it's um it's a challenge.

It's arguably the Naval Academy's one of our lar you know largest tourism assets that we have here as well.

So visitors, you know, we I'd like to understand the implications long term, what that means if um visitation to that site is restricted.

So thank you.

Of course.

All right.

Uh so thank you for this update.

Um I am something that I've had a conversation with in regards to uh something we've discussed before with the pickup drop-off spot in front of uh a couple of those businesses.

Yes.

I had a pretty productive meeting with some of the folks from premium parking uh on Friday.

Uh they are very on board with the idea, uh especially after I explained the situation around Biddy and Bowes, right, where some of those employees need that pickup drop-off spot right there.

Um so I am optimistic that that partnership can yield a solution soon.

Um I will ask though if you as staff can try to make that soon be by our April meeting if possible, because April is when weather's gonna get real nice and people are gonna want to start hanging out in that area.

So the the contractor that public works uh uses to install signs is waiting on Miss Utility.

So they need to map the utility.

So as soon as the utility is there and properly mapped, then they can drill and install the signs.

We will have them available.

So I I'm hoping the issue is that with Miss Utility can it can take weeks to be able to get a an appointment.

So I'm hoping that yes, indeed, we have that.

We have those signs in place.

The signs have been printed, they're on site, they're ready to be installed.

It's just a matter of ensuring that no utility lines are struck as they they dig those holes and place those signs.

Uh now Miss Utility, that's gonna be handled through BG and E, right?

Well, it's the pub the um the contractor that public works were is with uh using this utilities.

BGE has overhead lines.

Okay, yeah, so it's more you know, there's gas.

Well, yeah, I guess your point they're gas lines as well, so that need to be Miss Utility marks all sorts of utilities, right?

BGE as well as like um internet providers and any state, cities.

They're a universal map, so it's they do like a universal map.

Yeah, so it's the always easy to coordinate multi-jurisdictional entities.

Right.

I mean, Miss Utility has been around forever, so it's it's what they they do and they m a lot of it is they don't have to coordinate with the jurisdictions, they generally already have like the records for for where everything is.

It's just a matter of getting out and actually physically marking stuff.

Yeah, okay.

Well, it is good to know that we're literally only waiting on one thing.

Um it's frustrating that that one thing is a TBD timeline, but I understand um we're working as hard as we can on that.

I really appreciate you guys pushing for this issue when those merchants came forward with some very solid straightforward recommendations.

You guys bent over backwards to try and accommodate them.

Um colleagues, do we have anything else regarding City Doc?

Mr.

Straut, do you have any stratt you have anything else regarding uh City Doc?

Uh no, other than you know, I've I've been down there multiple times this week.

Um, you know, it's it the construction's in full swing.

It's um but being able to support those businesses is still vital.

So if you can get the word out to your your friends and colleagues that they're open, I mean we all know that, but a lot of people still come to me and ask, or you know, City Doc open.

The doc isn't, but the businesses are and they and they still need our support.

So um, you know, I just keep keep letting people know that those businesses are open and they and they you know they're happy to have you as clients.

So I got lunch at Pips last Friday.

There you go.

That's right.

Um all right.

Well, thank you.

And uh just so folks know for the good of the order, uh, we are getting an update on the maritime apprenticeship program at our next meeting.

I'm very excited to hear the progress that we've made on that.

Um it's one of the leading innovations that we've done in Annapolis, and uh I'm really happy with what we're doing.

So thank you.

All right.

Next on the uh Jet is their final pumped on the agenda.

Uh do we have anything else for the good of the order?

No.

Seeing none.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

All those in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Sir, if you will raise your right hand and repeat after me.

I, Jared Littman.

I, Jared Lippmann.

Do declare and affirm.

Do declare and affirm.

That I will support.

That I will support the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States.

Of the United States.

And that I will be faithful.

And that I will be faithful.

And bear true allegiance.

And bear true allegiance.

To the State of Maryland.

To the State of Maryland.

And support the Constitution.

And support the Constitution.

And laws thereof.

And the laws thereof.

And that I will.

And that I will.

To the best of my skill and judgment.

To the best of my skill and judgment.

Diligently and faithfully.

Diligently and faithfully.

Without partiality or prejudice.

Without partiality or prejudice.

Execute the office of.

Execute the office of.

Mayor of the City of Annapolis.

Mayor of the City of Annapolis.

According to the Constitution.

According to the Constitution.

And the laws of this state.

And the laws of the state.

And the charter.

And the charter.

And the code.

And the code.

Of the city of Annapolis.

Of the city of Annapolis.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mayor, General.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I now invite the first uh uh four members of the incoming council to join me on the stage, please.

And Mr.

Huntley, would you join me?

Alderman Huntley.

Will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me?

Aye, name.

I, Harry Huntley.

Do declare and affirm.

Do declare and affirm.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States.

That I will be faithful.

That I will be faithful.

And bear true allegiance.

And bear true allegiance.

To the State of Maryland.

To the State of Maryland.

And support.

And support the Constitution.

The Constitution.

And laws thereof.

And laws thereof.

And that I will.

And that I will.

To the best of my skill and judgment.

To the best of my skill and judgment.

Diligently and faithfully.

Diligently and faithfully.

Without partiality or prejudice.

Without partiality or prejudice.

Execute the office of.

Execute the office of.

Alderman of the City of Annapolis.

Alderman of the City of Annapolis.

According to the Constitution.

According to the Constitution.

And laws of the state.

And laws of this state.

And the charter and code.

And the chartering code.

Of the city of Annapolis.

Of the city of Annapolis.

Welcome back, Altamir Huntley.

Thank you.

Alderwoman O'Neill, will you please raise your right hand and repeat after me?

Aye.

State your name.

I Karma O'Neill.

Do you declare and affirm?

Do declare and affirm.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

Constitution of the