Good afternoon, everybody.

Call into order the March 12th meeting for environmental matters committee.

Um for roll call, have Alderwoman Conte.

Here Alderman Huntley will be here shortly.

Um see.

So as far as approval of the agenda, do you need to add see R126?

Because that's performance standards for fiscal year 27.

Just because we uh forgot we actually postponed action on at the last committee meeting.

So we just need to put that back on here.

And so could I get a motion to add that and postpone ID 626 to next meeting, which is the stormwater presentation.

Motion's a postponed.

Am I seconded?

So moved.

So move.

Uh I'll second it since Alderman Huntley's not here.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

And I have minutes from February 12th.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

So move.

Uh second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries, thank you.

And then for legislation, we have 026 mooring requirements in city waters.

Um I so I believe um I'm looking at the city deputy city manager.

If you correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that we're still waiting on a report from Port Wardens, and then I heard staff might be working on some changes to this legislation.

Jackie Gyle, Deputy City Manager for Resilience and Sustainability.

Um this um will we don't have a report from Port Wardens, but it can go before Port Wardens again.

I mean, go before Port Wardens, and we can get their opinion on it.

I thought it went to them already, but we were just waiting on their findings.

I could be mistaken.

I thought that's what I heard.

We're waiting on findings.

All right, we'll see.

So it's already we will speak to the chair about the findings then.

I don't know if they had any findings, but waiting for their findings, and then the four boards.

Yes, has it?

Yes.

Okay.

That's it's it's a maritime advisory board, right, Caitlin?

Because I didn't believe the port wardens hadn't considered this at all.

Sorry, it's maritime advisor.

Okay, okay, maritime advisory board.

Okay.

Uh actually, sorry.

Friday, are you still on the maritime advisory board?

Do you have any information on it hasn't come to the board yet?

We looked at it, but I think we deferred it for further information.

Yep.

They have a meeting on the 17th on Tuesday.

Okay.

And is staff working on changes, or is that there are some changes.

We we discussed them yesterday.

Um we were discussing mostly um how to deal with illegal moorings that exist in Williams Creek, which we're gonna deal with separately outside of the legislation.

It doesn't need to be part of this legislation, and just going over some of the language to make sure it's clear.

Um, Alderman Thorpe wanted to add language about no private moorings are allowed in city waters.

That's currently in the draft.

Um, and I don't think I don't know if Cynthia will have Ms.

Reuter will have to tell me if there's any further changes that have been made so far.

We've just made the language very clear on what's a transient mooring and what's an annual mooring, making clear that they are actually city-owned GPS points and not private moorings.

That was the main confusion and why some residents became kind of um concerned about the legislation was they thought that private moorings are being taken away when in fact those are annual moorings that are leased each year with a contract with the Harbor Master's Office.

When you get a GPS coordinate, you can put in your own tackle and anchor if one's not existing.

If you decide not to release that mooring, you can take your tackle with you.

Most people would not bother the expense or the trouble of taking the anchor with them, but otherwise they just turn it over to the city of city property.

But you're leasing a GPS point.

You do not own that GPS point.

So if somebody installs one on their own, that's illegal.

It comes okay.

Yeah.

Because there is if Meriton Advisory, you can come up if you want to speak to that.

Okay.

You can just take a seat, Miss Wildley, and uh introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Frieda Wilde 403 Chesapeake Avenue member maritime advisory board.

Um I just looked at our agenda next week, and we are scheduled to do a revote on this legislation.

Okay.

But that might change given what's sounds like what's going on.

Right.

We'll have revised legislation.

Um we were just discussing this with the Harbor Master today.

So I think it's in good shape now to present to Maritime Advisory Board.

Okay.

And they can make a recommendation, they're an advisory board.

They don't make a determination.

Okay.

I I just have two concerns.

Um questions.

One has to do with which you spoke to uh to a degree as far as if there are private moorings or not, because we did have public testimony that there were some.

We also heard when I went to the Severn River Commission that they're under the impression, I haven't sat down with this particular member yet, but under the impression that um in Weams Creek, and this goes into my second issue, that the county, they're saying the county does allow private moorings.

Uh and so uh we uh we'll need to figure out how that's gonna be handled in Weams Creek.

My understanding is that the county would probably be fine with us taking full enforcement on Wheams Creek and applying our standards to the whole creek.

Personally, what I don't really want is to have two different standards split down the middle of the creek.

Um Ms.

Leonard is here.

She can address the memorandum of understanding that the county and the city have with regard to the Leams Creek.

This the water body is split down the middle.

Yeah, with one side being the city's waterway, the other side being the counties.

And um until recently, when we had better GPS, we could not determine which mooring buoys were on each side, but we can now, and the harbor master has been out to Wheems Creek to identify if there are any um moorings that we installed, but there are none.

They're all illegally installed, they're not even they don't even belong to right parent.

There's three of them.

They don't belong belong to any riparian property owner, they're just people who put them in to moor their boat to them.

So Ms.

Leonard's here, she can speak to the MOU further, what she's doing with that now.

Uh Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney.

Um so the original MOU, which is about 10 years old, at this point gave very limited enforcement powers.

So we're not allowed to have exercise full import enforcement powers in the county side of Williams Creek.

Um I have reached out to the county's office of law, my counterparts there um to discuss because the MOU is 10 years old to just sort of you know, possibly do a new one and update it one and for them to possibly consider giving us um broader enforcement powers.

Um but I don't know at that point.

But so at this point, unfortunately, we would be applying essentially different standards depending on which side of Williams Creek you're on.

Okay.

And at this point, the can't the city does not have any enforcement authority with those mooring balls that are on the county side, and there are some definitely on the county side.

Okay, and they some of them go out into the Severn as well.

Okay.

All right.

Well, it's just my I don't know, my engineering mind just seems like it would make more sense to have a common standard on the whole creek, but um we can certainly miss Leonard's looking on that.

Like I said, we are pursuing it, and I I'll keep you updated, but uh ultimately some of it is um what the county is willing to delegate to us authority-wise.

And uh, I need to circle up with Alder Woman O'Neill, because I believe she's been in conversation with some of the Wheams Creek residents.

There's a legal there's a legal mooring balls in Weams Creek that are on the city side.

We do have enforcement authority over those.

We will require those to be moved or to be abandoned.

Um Miss Bellis will be in touch with those people who are have their boats moored there illegally.

Um we will give them some grace time to move them.

Um but we I think she she's drafted a letter right now that I just reviewed.

Okay.

Uh Alderman Huntley.

Yeah, thanks.

So um I I've been talking about this extensively with Alderman Thorpe, and he seems like he's really kind of on top of things.

Uh my question here was just now you're talking about moving them.

Do you mean move the boat or move the mooring?

They can either move their own mooring, they put it in illegally, or they can move the boat, leave the mooring, we consider it abandoned, and then we can remove it.

And are we sure we can't just like I don't want to use the wrong word here, Ms.

Leonard, but are we sure that if we are requiring them to no longer use that mooring because this is public property, that those are not suitable for city use?

They're not in a location that the city would put them in that location in the first place.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

That explains it.

Um just a statement of opinion.

I'd say like people putting in moorings in public waters.

I don't I uh I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for it.

To me, it's a little like I bought that bridge in book Brooklyn Fair and Square.

Uh so I I think it sounds like you're more or less of that mindset also.

Right, and just want to express my support for that.

One woman who testified her boat, her boat is actually on a mooring buoy that's on the county side, and she explained to me that she bought the boat that was tied to the mooring and was told that the mooring came with the boat.

But the more the property, the owner of that vessel had no right to tell her that in the first place.

Like I said, bridge in Brooklyn.

Yeah, I bought that car and it was on the bridge.

Uh the become the bridge comes with it, right?

Uh are there any other questions or points for staff?

Okay.

Um so I'm I'd be inclined to accept.

I would like to accept a motion to postpone until we get further information from staff and uh maritime advisory board.

Yeah, so further information on what I just mean, well, if there are any amendments that staff's working on no, not this time.

Uh Ms.

Reuter, do you have any additional that have come in today?

Miss Reiter, Cynthia?

Cynthia.

Do you have any additional amendments that have come in today on the mooring requirements?

No, it's waiting for sign-off on is that from uh the administration or is it from Alderman Thorpe?

I thought something else I wanted to ask you.

Sorry?

Which one is that?

You're right.

It is one.

Is he also for carrying?

Oh, riparian rights.

Well, who's the sponsor?

Thorpe.

Thorpe or is it okay?

I know what he's talking about because that's something I mentioned to him yesterday.

So in the rare case that doesn't exist right now, but possibly could especially shoreline erodes or something.

If you're a riparian property owner, you may put a private mooring ball in your developable waterway.

We're not saying we're taking that away.

Okay.

There are currently none of those.

Yeah.

But if in under some scenario, somebody possibly could do that.

I think that's what Alderman Thorpe is addressing.

Assuming it's even deep enough.

All right.

Oh, this is Littman.

Well, we don't need to dig into it today.

I just wanted to get some things out there and wait till the maritime advisory board to do something else.

Yeah, sorry, I did have one other question.

So the um again, this is sort of an opinion.

I'm hoping you can react to.

I totally understand the need for why we don't want people long-term anchoring in waterways over the winter.

We're not talking about that legislation.

We're talking about the mooring requirements legislation.

Oh, I'm just going to do that.

I thought it was in there.

Yeah, okay.

Never mind.

I thought it was in there.

Uh isn't anchoring.

No, that that isn't we don't even have legislation introduced on anchoring.

That was just a recommendation made by the harbormaster's office, and then um people have testified about it, they became concerned about it, but nothing's been introduced by anyone.

Oh, okay.

I'm so sorry.

I thought it was part of this legislation as well.

No.

So is there a motion postponed?

So uh well, we're you were saying you didn't want us to postpone it, no?

Uh this legislative this legislation was introduced just to make a technical correction.

Um, as part of the type with the 75 foot measurement correction, and we needed this correction to be made before um the city submitted its um approved as design for the re um configuration of the spot um mooring field in front of um St.

Mary's school.

Right.

Um that so therefore we made this correction to the code so half of our mooring balls would not fall out of compliance with our own code.

Um as part of that technical correction, we the city was making the correction that there is a reference to private mooring balls, which are actually annual mooring balls right throughout that section of the code.

So the city took this opportunity to make that correction as well.

Got it.

That's what a lot of testimony was about.

People were concerned we were taking away private rights, which weren't there anyway.

Right.

Can't have private rights to the public bridge or waterway.

So is there any concern with postponing action until next meeting?

It just delays us on our work we can do on the mooring field.

That's right.

I mean, so if the committee wants to do something different, but I did tell the Maritime Advisory Board rep for Ward 7 that I was gonna post.

You're about this one.

Because I wanted to wait for their information.

Um I mean, that's kind of what we have the board for.

The question to me is is it adequate to have their advice by the time this goes to the full council, or do we want to have their advice to talk about it in committee?

Um do you know when they're meeting next?

Tuesday.

Tuesday.

So we would we would get it before the next council meeting, but not before the next well, that's yes, we would get it before the next environmental meeting.

I also told her Alderman Thorpe I was gonna get postponed today.

Okay, well, I'm I'm fine to postpone it.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

All right.

Is there second?

Second.

Uh all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries, thank you.

Um then next up, C Doc uh presentation, Director Burr.

Thank you.

He's the only director we call by his first name.

Director.

Oh, yeah.

I I have a last name for a first name, so keep doing that.

It happens a lot.

Uh I'm Burr Vogel, director of public works.

Yeah, we'll do that.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh to introduce the topic that I've been asked to address, it's um about the flood barrier types for the city dock project.

Um, this is of uh flood barrier slide we've been using for a number of years.

And uh what's important here is that the areas in pink are going to be fixed walls up to our design flood protection level of elevation eight, North American vertical datum.

That's NAV for short.

And then every everywhere else where you see yellow or orange or blue, uh, there's always been an intent to have some sort of deployable flood barrier.

So sometimes you'll hear um passive deployable flood barrier or manually deployable flood barrier.

Uh another term we we've used is self-rising flood barriers.

So in the very beginning uh of the project, everything was going to be automatic.

And and uh, you know, nobody would have to go out there and and uh manually deploy uh a flood barrier to make this system work.

Uh over time, as we've received costs, uh that has changed.

So I'm I'm here to address six specific questions, which I'll give a rundown on.

And then uh I think what might make the most sense is I I just give a brief summary of the answers and then we can go back and and go into depth into any one of them.

So question number one uh is the technology finalized.

Yes, all deployable uh barriers in the current design are uh going to be manually installed.

Uh why did we make this shift?

Uh two key factors here.

One was high cost, and we'll get uh into those particular savings later.

And then also uh we are expecting a substantial amount of settlement in a certain area of the park, and that would have made the passive uh flood barriers really something that that couldn't be delivered with uh with any kind of a warranty because they they would no longer function.

The manually deployable barriers will be easier to adjust.

Where would we store these barriers?

Uh there's they are gonna have a physical footprint, probably somewhere two to four small trailers, which we would park uh currently.

We have the spa road site uh available if at some point in the future that's no longer available.

Uh the water tanks make the the water tank sites make the most location or make the most sense.

Uh Jan Wall near Tyler Heights Elementary would be a great candidate.

And uh time to deploy.

So uh kind of look up the how many feet uh a crew can do and and the and it works out to to be a crew of eight would be able to do deploy everything we would need in a day.

Um, but just being conservative, uh we would plan for two days.

And then would we need to uh related question?

Would we need to train?

Yes, absolutely.

I would train uh our kind of primary crew of eight with four backups, and that would be an annual event, which would also serve as an opportunity to inspect the barriers because they will have rubber gaskets at the interfaces with the um the side or the posts as well as rubber gaskets between each of the planks.

And then how often would we have to do this?

So right now, this would be something we would expect to have to deploy the the full system uh maybe once a decade.

There are one or two low-lying areas that that maybe that would be more frequent.

Uh but that would be a it wouldn't be anywhere near a crew of eight for a day, it would be you know two people for an hour or two to install those uh in the in the fuse low level gaps.

Um for reference, the bulkhead, uh the concrete bulkhead that runs from currently 110 compromise or the or the chop tank building all the way around to the dock street businesses at Craig Street, that's at elevation 4.5.

Uh that was built several years ago.

It has never been overtopped.

So we would, you know, how how often would has that in history the the water in this area gotten to that level?

It's only been twice.

Uh in the 1930s, there was a large hurricane, and then of course, Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

Here's a diagram that uh shows each of those uh gaps in the phase one area.

This is where we would have some of the the areas that are lower than the 4.5, uh particularly 2A over here close to the maritime welcome center.

Um but it's not much lower than 4.5.

Uh so that's just one that's just one small little gap uh right in here where where you have some stairs.

Uh but looking forward, so uh the next couple of graphics I've got here uh talk about some sea level rise.

This is sort of the history of sea level rise in Annapolis over uh about a century or so.

And you can see that you know when I'm talking about something is is some we would have to deploy maybe once a decade.

We would anticipate that changing by 2060 to being uh probably an annual deployment.

Another sea level grass graphic here.

This one uh is forward looking, courtesy of uh primarily Alex Davies, but a team of folks.

Uh Alex is a meteorologist or a professor at the uh oceanography and meteorology department over at the Naval Academy.

And uh so these are these are projections moving forward.

Rule of thumb that I use is five inches per decade.

So fast forward 30 years, you're gonna be 15, the tides are gonna be 15 inches higher than they are today.

And the last question is what is the cost difference?

Uh what would it cost to kind of revert to that original design?

Assuming we were having this discussion a year ago or when it would be possible.

Now it's not really possible because the the project is under construction.

Uh that would be that would be a 10 million dollar kind of uh maybe on the low end uh is that is that estimate.

No problem.

Let me just follow my wallet.

Right.

Are there do you have anything else?

No, that was it.

That's the six questions, but I've got lots of thank you.

You're right.

I expect a little bit of follow-on, and I've got you know various reference materials too.

Any questions, comments from the committee?

Nothing.

Um thank you, Director.

Um so yeah, it was very helpful to hear all this and to have our earlier conversation.

Um I thought it was uh interesting.

I didn't realize the settling, the settlement of some of the material potential sediment um really is driving at least somewhat the change in the the barrier.

Um let's see, I see you mentioned the installation.

As far as planning for that 2060 scenario, you said that would be a you expect based on some of the projections, that'd be an annual occurrence that we would have to install the complete barrier once a year.

Yes.

At least that's way past, I think our time probably with the city, but I suppose that's something they would need to start planning for 24, 2050 or so.

Right.

Right.

At which point in time the uh certainly the existing bulkhead would be nearing the end of its useful life.

Um so there will be there will be opportunities to do something that's less labor intensive uh then.

Yeah.

Okay.

This um this point about sediment.

Do you would you mind just talking about that a little bit more?

I mean, at the the way you described it makes sense, but could you kind of go into some more detail?

Do you mind?

Sure.

Um without getting uh I'm not a geotech person, um, but essentially what we have is a fairly substantial layer of unconsolidated sediment uh sediments, 30 or 50 feet below ground.

And what what has happened is that there's never been a heavy load set on top of them before.

And so what's gonna happen is when we bring in and we elevate our park, that's gonna create more weight.

And if you just imagine stepping on a sponge, it's gonna squeeze it.

And this is um in an area very near Craig Street.

So what we've been calling the active park.

I'll go back to my map, let you know what we're talking about.

It's really right in this area.

And so it's sort of an oval-shaped uh deposit of sediments.

And we'll what's gonna happen is that's gonna compress over uh 50 years.

Uh on a lot of that consolidation will happen in the first three to five, and things will things will sink and become uneven.

So uh there will be a maintenance requirement throughout this project to sort of adjust bricks, um, you know, maybe bricks will be removed and we'll be adding sand and things of that nature.

But things, yeah, it's gonna have a little bit of a funny look to it.

Uh just you know, being fully transparent.

The walls will move a little bit.

Um and and that all that hardscaping will will start to take on slopes that something that will start as flat will become sloped.

Gotcha.

That makes sense.

And then how does that tie into the choice to use these manually deployable barriers?

Rather than use a visual aid here.

Please.

So yours.

When we would build this thing, uh a flip-up barrier or a rise-up barrier would sit between two things.

Everything has to fit absolutely perfect.

I think I'm gonna go to the millimeter, right?

Yeah.

Now all of a sudden, this screen shifts this way, yeah, or this way, or this way.

And I fit on one side, but I no longer fit over here.

We we engineered how would we shim this up?

How would we adjust those those interfaces between the the movable barrier and the thing it's supposed to sit up against?

We were like, that's gonna be an absolute nightmare.

Much better to have um a manually deployed barrier that could be re-configured, doesn't even necessarily have to be you know a perfect square, or we could adjust um there's just a much more mechanically simple uh thing.

And so you can just the mounting things can just be on unbolted and bolt some new mounts in so everything still works.

Makes total sense.

I'm glad I asked the question because I thought we were talking about like sediment clogging the filter the the barriers.

No, it's just making things it's geometry basically.

The the puzzle pieces would no longer fit.

Yeah, it's it I mean I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it's kind of like being able to shave down a door as a house.

It's it's exactly like uh having a door in your house where where that door jam is not square.

Yeah, yeah.

Cool, thank you.

And I think one of the last comment on my part would just be I felt very quite assured after our separate conversation, um, because I was asking the director about some of you know, basically I think something for the public to understand as we build out the entire planned barrier, it's going to be in phases, right?

Um, but we do have um planned scenarios of how do we actually protect the entirety of city dock in the middle of these phases being complete, somewhat complete, partially complete, you know.

We have options given this technology and other technology we picture from the and you and you made a great point um for everybody who who obviously wasn't part of that conversation, was just a phone call last week.

If we don't have what we call south compromise, this this area completely protected, and we were gonna get backdoor flooding from off the screen um past you let's say the waterfront hotel were to flood and potentially that water would flow to the to the north up here towards Memorial Circle.

We could during an event like that completely close compromise street and put a flood barrier uh across Compromise Street.

In that, you know, if we were to get a major hurricane during that one or two year period where we had all of this great stuff is in place.

What do we do uh if there's still a vulnerability over here?

Um great suggestion, just close compromise street and and put up a barrier, leave it, leave it in place for a couple of days.

That's obviously inconvenient uh to have compromise street closed for that long, but um it would be better than letting you know downtown flood at the cost of five or ten million dollars.

Well, it's something I just thought of when you're talking about that.

I think that's even more reason to go at least have the capability to make Duke of Goster two-way when we need to to make it.

That's another it's another benefit, right?

That yeah, that that project has, you know, it's it's got some downsides, right?

But um uh cost and loss of parking, but the ability to be able to handle any sort of um uh a disruption to traffic flow, whether any it could be a fire, it could be a lot of things.

Um it it it's a nice it it'd be nice to be able to route traffic a different way right now.

The only way to get through town is to come down compromise street.

Okay, I think that's it.

I don't have anything else.

I I'm just always so impressed at how well thought out this project is in every scenario.

Yeah, I you you know y'all only see a few people here, right?

There's an army of engineers behind the scenes doing a lot of work.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it was been I have absolutely agree.

I've been impressed with how much we've thought ahead on this.

So thank you very much for taking the time today.

Um keep us posted if anything changes.

All right.

Next up, uh I think uh Active City Manager Buckland came just in time.

We can um I'm glad we can pull you away from watching movies.

So I know you don't have anything else to go.

So uh I did want to jump to some legislation.

We have our 121, which is the um performance standards for fiscal year 27.

And I I saw that a couple departments did update their standards.

Um I haven't I didn't look at all of them, but I did see um also office of law did, and I I they look good to me.

I know um Deputy City Manager Gyle did as well.

Update for the sustainability.

Is there anything else you want to highlight in the update at least pertaining to the environment?

We don't need to go too um, yeah.

There were there were updates.

Um sorry, uh uh acting city manager Vicky Bucklin.

Um there were updates from a number of different departments.

Um of them were just a few things here and there.

Um transit updated a couple of things.

Um central services updated more.

Um yeah, Jackie did a lot.

Um there are a few in planning and zoning.

Um but correct, not not everyone uh made changes, but there were a few.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

I think the changes Jackie made were probably the most extensive.

Yeah, and and so I guess we could start there with the changes that were made in uh Ms.

Guiles section most uh pertinent to the environment.

So did anybody had any any questions or comments on any of the changes that she made?

I have an overarching question if you don't mind.

Why is it that these were referred specifically to environmental matters?

I think that was uh as I remember, it was actually like a city code requirement that they come here.

Why this?

No, no, no, no, it's because I it's because I made the referral because years ago the committee did ask for updates, and I recalled specifically because I know uh uh Deputy City Manager Guild in a previous capacity had changed them, but they didn't get carried over.

And so I wanted to take an opportunity to try to get the those back in there.

And so um yeah, it was because I asked it to be referred to us.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Um are there are there specific questions for Ms.

Kyle?

Yeah, I I'm thought they were great.

I don't have any comments either.

Yeah, I just made them to better reflect the actual work that's being done now.

Things have changed quite a bit since the days of DNEP, and even the Office of Environmental Policy.

So that's why I made those.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you for taking the time to do that.

Um so the the other issue would is just I did put together some amendments to propose as far as additional um standards for particularly for planet zoning.

If you look at the attached the handout, and I apologize, these are not posted at the moment just because it didn't occur to me till um earlier uh today that we had to add this to the agenda.

It was postponed last meeting, and uh we just um I forgot to add it, so I didn't want to hold up the legislation.

Um so in any case, uh I had changes to three departments on um and uh just uh from the environmental lens.

Uh I know there are bigger, there's a larger goal from city manager's office to beef up the performance standards in the future.

Um, but personally I just wanted to see if there are things we could do in the interim um to make some improvements now.

And so the question I would offer to to the committee and the city managers, these are proposals again, and just to summarize plan and zoning.

I tried to beef up things dealing with urban tree canopy program, forest conservation program, as well as critical area, public works.

I tried to add some dealing with stormwater BMP maintenance and inspections, rosion sediment control, illicit discharge uh detection and elimination, MS4 program, and then for transportation some uh metrics as far as the cycling program.

Um and so again, I know you're just seeing these.

I in completely fine if yourself or the committee would prefer these be postponed if if you think that we should get some department feedback.

Um if you have other comments, concerns, or if the board uh the committee has other concerns.

So um is there anything immediately from the committee or the city manager?

I'll tell you where I am on these Alderman Savage.

Um I think we really need to update our process for developing these performance measures, and until we have a much better process, I think they're uh overall unfortunately not super meaningful.

Uh all that said, I also don't really want to add 11 or 12 performance measures, maybe 13 performance measures to planning and zoning when they have six right now.

So the compromise I'd offer is if you want to pick one of these that you think is most important for each department, I'd be willing to support them.

But otherwise, I think I'm going to oppose this amendment.

Are there any other thoughts from committee?

Uh city manager.

I um this is certainly an area where I uh have some interest in um making changes each year.

Uh and certainly the new administration, I think has some intentions for this next year as well to make changes.

Generally speaking, um, I'd like to have the buy-in of the department directors um who are who are subject to these, so I would want to float these by them.

Um as noted, there's uh a lot that's added here, and so uh I would definitely want their their buy-in.

Um otherwise, um my fear is then that they're not meaningfully collected, acted upon, you know, it's it's the it's the beginning to end that I I want to make sure we don't lose sight of.

So yeah.

I understand uh Alderman Huntley.

Uh I'll say I think um I've done a lot of thinking about what our performance measures should look like, but I've talked some with the city manager about that at times, and I think two of the things that are most crucial to me are one that they'd be relatively easy to collect the data on, which I think actually most of these are, maybe one or two, not so much, but uh uh especially on the the transit ones, maybe not so much, but planning and zoning in public works, the data is mostly easy to collect.

And then the other thing is uh Alderman Thorpe and I love to talk about and Alderman Arnett too.

You've probably heard him talk about the difference between an output and an outcome, and a bunch of these try to meet it's more like output, like the number of enforcement actions for illegal tree removal.

It's like, do we really want that to be high, or do we want it to be low?

Um and so I think like we we can measure that, but I think we don't really want to grade people on it because ultimately we want the answer to be zero because nobody's illegally taking down trees, right?

So um on that I think these could use some work, but but I commend you on mostly having these be really easy to measure.

Um what so for the city manager, what's your larger comment as far as I hear you on the department input, but what about I guess the question of making additional changes now?

Because it seems like only a few departments took the opportunity to really overhaul.

I'm not sure so normally I would have actually specifically worked with a few departments this year, um, which I did not do this year.

Um so the departments were left more to their to their own devices, um, and and some folks like Jackie took the advantage of the opportunity to you know to really make changes, but not everyone did that.

Um when I'm sort of more in my normal role, that's there will be fewer options.

Um the other thing I'll say about this uh and um this has certainly been part of the conversation that I've had with Alderman Huntley and and conversations definitely with Alderman Arnett in the past.

Um you know the council's been engaging in this conversation around um around strategic planning and how do we define what's really important to us, and there should be some alignment between that larger vision and these.

How do we tell the story of progress and uh the effort of the departments and how those align with what the city's trying to accomplish?

And and so um I think the the questions that you have here around um you know interest in this variety of things, I don't think that's um I I don't want to give the impression that we don't care about these things or care about measuring these things.

I think the question is do we want that to be the top line story that's part of the story of what are we trying to accomplish and how does that align with the overall strategic plan as that that expresses the the interest and intentions of of the council I think that that as that effort matures these performance measures will then also mature.

And so I think there's there's uh some ways in which those two efforts feed each other, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I think I see where you're going with that.

Um and I will get back to that.

I think um well, I guess we could just go in that direction.

So I guess what I'm kind of leaning towards, because I do well, first of all, is there any trying to think how to word this where to start with it?

Um the bigger question is timing, like in my head, do we assuming the committee even wanted to do this, but would we would it be worth taking the time say between this now and the next meeting to get staff's feedback on these to make to at least beef up somewhat some of the environmental performance standards?

Um of course that would beg the question of do we should we really do we have the time to delay that when the budget's getting introduced um was it May?

April.

April, April 13th.

So our next meeting or sometime we're in then, but again, that the timing might not be ideal because really the budget introduced should include these performance standards, right?

So as I as I'm thinking out loud here, we probably don't have the time, I'm assuming to really postpone to two to do some of the more additional work.

Um if that's the case, well, first of all, would you agree that's yeah, I I think that I think the timing is not working for you.

Yeah.

Um, but that's also why I want to draw the distinction between what we include in the budget book and what we might want to talk about.

To Alderman Huntley's point, part of the um goal uh certainly for me of performance measures is that they should be easily collected.

If it if they're onerous to collect, then we're much less likely to stay with that.

I'd rather have a smaller set of performance measures that are reliable than a larger set that we know only partially believe.

Um and so I um I think the question of whether we want to have information on these topics that we can talk about, I think that's still essentially sort of fair game, whether they're included in the budget book or not, being a somewhat different question, right?

So just even if because of the timing, let's say we didn't end up banning any of these.

That doesn't mean that we can't ever talk about these things or look at that data or anything else.

Yeah, so I I think um if we really don't really have the time.

Yeah, I don't I don't want to just get these added without department input, um, plus I think that'd be an uphill battle.

But um the question would then I guess come for me.

Well, too, if there's anything we should pull out of here to include, and I'm not I think I think the Ms.

Well, too, if there's anything we should pull out of here to include, and I'm not I think I think the Miss Gyal did a great job in including I think a lot of these anyway, at least some of the like for tree canopy, that's included in in um in the sustainability offices.

It's included, but one thing I did do is try to remove things that I'm not responsible for.

Like for instance, the tree canopy and a lot of the tree initiatives used to fall under my purview when I was the director of office of environmental policy, but now the urban forester isn't planning and zoning.

So I can't be held to that standard because that's not my job.

Like I can work on some initiatives that are tree related, education, etc.

Um, but a lot of the things I used to have under my performance standards because I had the urban tree forester with me.

I had to take out.

Yeah.

Well, I guess I'll ask Ms.

Jackson, maybe we add this to an agenda down the road to work on some of these because I do think that's kind of my question to you, Ms.

Buckland would be what what are the next steps for this process.

I know it may you know be somewhat contingent, obviously, on when we get a city manager hired, but in your mind, because I know you've been doing a lot of work on these in the past and and currently.

So what do you think?

What's the next step?

Should we schedule something for I don't know, half a year out where we um you know, get maybe say, hey, here departments, here's some ideas from the committee.

Take a look at these, get us a proposal, we can have a discussion, or is that something you're gonna or somebody else in the office work on and get us some drafts for firmware standards ahead of time?

Yeah, so um the departments that I would normally have worked with this year.

There are four departments in particular that I haven't worked with at all.

And the what's here is mostly legacy uh stuff for them.

Um is um the Office of Law, uh HR, uh transportation, and um fire.

Um so when I had a little bit more of my time back, those are the departments I'll target first because we haven't talked about those at all.

Um for departments where you know, like you have an obvious interest in in particular parts of this, I think it's fair game to have a conversation about them.

I none of none of those are uh transportations on on my list that I would have worked with anyway, because I haven't talked with them at all.

Um but the other two wouldn't normally have been on my list to specifically talk with, but knowing your interest, that then let's talk about it.

Um and so normally I would have done some of that work over the summer after the after the budget was passed, um, and then into the very early fall, um, which is still probably the timeline that I would want to work toward.

Okay.

Because I I certainly I don't want to take up too much more time, but I and I know I think I've had conversations with the Alderman Hotley about this bigger picture before.

I see the these performance standards as really being a key way to make sure that policies are getting and programs are getting implemented, right?

Because just take for example, and I know it's I see it as environmental, but it is a large transportation as well, but the cycling component as an example, right?

We we had a 2011 plan that was adopted.

Um and then the person who put it together left the city.

Uh we had a director, two director changes in the interim.

That plan fell by the wayside.

There were supposed to be annual updates, annual meetings with this uh cycling work group, and you know, it fell off everybody's radar.

Um, but if we had some of the deliverables, such as like, you know, uh just again, just for sake of example, you know, um, you know, uh linear feet of bike lane installed or whatever, maintained, or kind of metrics uh that we keep track of.

I feel like that would really help us make sure these programs are perpetuated, right?

And continue.

Um, I've just it's just one example of things that I feel like's often just uh we just don't oftentimes I feel like know what the priorities are of the departments.

It changes year from year to year, whoever's in the position.

But I think I don't want to belabor this point.

Yeah, I I I completely you're looking at me like you want my feedback.

I totally agree with you.

I think it is this is in a perfect world, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we pass every year.

I think we recognize that we're not quite in that world yet, and we should strive towards it.

But for now, I'm happy with the work that we have done that Ms.

Buckland has done really to get a bunch of these much better than they ever were before and recognize that we're not going to solve the other ones today or tomorrow or the next day.

I think it's from my perspective, it's also important to just recognize that these should be these should be sort of living, right?

That we're gonna start somewhere, and if that doesn't illuminate information that's actionable of interest, then we need to make changes, or it's not telling us what we thought it was telling us, or we find out that it's not reliable.

I don't think any of the measures that are here that there's anything sacred about them.

They should they should adapt over time.

Um and so I don't um you know the the idea that there are misses in here and there are things that aren't really framed the way that council's interested in that that doesn't fuss me at all.

Like let's make changes then, right?

Let's let's work over time to get that framed in ways that align with the strategic vision of the council, help us illuminate the work that we're that we're doing or should be doing, um, and give us some basis for making adjustments along the way.

And uh so the idea that that we'll need to make changes over time, yep, we definitely will.

And let's do that.

Okay, so if we're to circle back, if the committee were to circle back with you, or whoever uh on some of these standards, when should we for next year?

When should we do that?

You said I think the fall.

Yeah, so is given the August recess.

If you wanted to just start right away in September, that would make sense to me.

Okay.

All right, um, if we get a placeholder for that, and then um just hearing from the committee sounds and and even myself, it sounds like we don't have time to move forward with some of these.

I mean, but personally I'm still a little frustrated just because I'm not very happy with the standards that we're gonna be putting into next year's budget.

I I understand why and the time constraint we're under.

Um I guess we'll just have to deal with it.

We've dealt with it in the past.

Um okay.

Anything else from the committee?

So I guess we would make a motion.

Do we want to make a motion to recommend or no action?

I'd probably just prefer no action, but yeah, I'm fine with no action.

All right.

So I don't think that needs to be motion, right?

Okay.

Is there a motion then?

A motion for no action.

All right, so moved.

Second all right, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Thanks for coming to the book.

Thank you, Miss Bucklin.

And let's see, we have I guess so.

Is PubliWorks prepared for presentation?

Good.

Okay.

Um I guess we'll we can if you would join us up front, we'll start with ID 626 stormwater fee incentive revate program.

Is this an updated presentation different from the last time?

Oh, it's fail.

All right, if you could um introduce yourself for the record, and this is part two for the presentation on stormwater last time.

You spoke about the commercial fee, right?

Yeah, so Mike Rosberg, uh Stormwater Program Manager Public Works.

Um, yes, this is the it's an updated uh presentation that is a continuation from the last presentation.

Um part of part of the update is what we talked about last time and while we're talking about this.

Anne Roterer, stormwater engineer, Department of Public Works.

Okay.

Um also just thank you for your flexibility with my schedule today.

Welcome.

Um as you mentioned, um, we this is part two.

So part one, last time we met, we walked through um just sort of a background on water quality and stormwater regulations and um how uh the municipal separate storm sewer system and otherwise known as MS4 program operates and how the city of Annapolis stormwater group um uh works functions with that with that permit.

Um we also talked generally about the stormwater utility fee that supports that MS4 program and uh looked at some basic benchmarks for regional how that fee fits into the into the region.

So all of those slides are still here.

So I'm just going to flip through them.

Um we did talk a bit about non-residential last time, but we didn't quite finish the conversation because we wanted to talk about uh the um the credit program or what I'm now calling the fee reduction program.

Um so I'm gonna I'm going to go through this faster because you've heard it already, um, but you can always go back and watch the YouTube.

What's that?

Oh no, no, no, never mind.

Go ahead.

No, I see you.

I was gonna ask something, but I saw you addressing it in a couple slides.

Okay.

You can always go back and watch the YouTube from May 8th, 2025 at uh one hour and 48 minutes.

There's a detailed conversation about the non-residential rate structure and um the fee reduction program.

But I'm gonna talk a little bit more about the fee reduction program today because we do have some some developments.

So just as a refresher, um, the proposal on the table relative to the non-residential stormwater utility fee is to change the fee structure for non-residential ratepayers from a tiered structure to an equivalent equivalent residential unit basis, which we say, which we call an ERU using measured impervious area.

The goal of doing making the structural shift is to more accurate accurately reflect existing in-purpose conditions and stormwater practices on site to provide a more uniform building approach.

Um I'm gonna touch on touch on that a little bit more in a second, and to just generally raise awareness and incentivize stormwater management for larger properties in particular.

Um I got rid of the word equitable in this in these points, and I'm sure you've seen the slide before, because this is really intended to address the conditions on the ground.

It's not actually intended to lift up anyone who is um who has greater need.

Um it's really mostly about the larger properties and um making sure that they're paying their share into their contribution, their use of the system.

So as it stands right now, the residential fee structure is a tiered structure.

The proposal is again this ERU basis.

So uh just to clarify an equivalent residential unit, an ERU is really like a it's a billing unit.

Um, it's a typical billing unit used in stormwater, and it's kind of I like I keep this definition on the bottom of every slide because I don't know why it's unnecessarily confusing, but it is unnecessarily confusing.

Um so the idea is that it's a billing unit that reflects the median impervious area of a single family detached house or detached residential property.

Um and so in the city of Annapolis, we've established that to be 2100 square feet.

And again, that'll just show up on the bottom of the slide.

So when you get confused, you can look it back at that.

Um so if we look at this change, you can see right now for non-residential.

Um this is looking at if uh a large property, the impact of the fee for a large property.

Um so right now, Anneapolis, the the rate would be down towards the bottom of some of our local local fees in other municipalities.

Um but this change would increase that contribution from large property owners fairly significantly.

Um very quickly, not going through the details of this because we did it last time.

That means that our in if we have if we look at the existing structure, uh 21,000 square foot property or 21,000 square foot impervious area property owner would fall into the second tier and they'd pay 17086 per quarter.

If we change the structure, um they would then that would be equivalent to the 21,000 square feet would be equivalent to 10 ERUs, and the rate would actually their fee would actually triple.

Um so that's a pretty pretty significant difference.

Um, and those property owners with more impervious area would pay more to fund the system.

And it would not be limited by the cap of tier four.

Um so those large property owners would see the highest increases in overall fees and are most likely to be incentivized to implement or expand their stormwater management practices.

On the flip side, many nonprofits and realistic religious institutes, or it's not really the flip side, but keeping in mind many nonprofits and religious institutions might have limited capital to support that sort of um expansion or improvement of their stormwater management, and that's where we're gonna start to talk about making this not only more consistent but also more equitable.

Uh we took a look just quickly at keeping if we're keeping the residential structure the same for the the point of this conversation just for the moment, um, the revenue impact of making this fee structure change and it's about 26% increase in revenue.

Um largely again coming from those larger property owners.

And then if you look at the spread of that impact on the different ratepayers, um you can see that the majority of ratepayers will actually not see much of an increase.

They fall in that zero to two hundred dollars per quarter rate increase.

Um but those 11 properties over to the right wouldn't see an increase of over 2,000 or up to 2,000, sorry, over 2,000 in their quarterly fees.

So that's pretty substantial.

And do you have uh the are those do you know which are those typically the ones that I'm assuming have more ERUs, higher number of ERUs?

So essentially those with greater impervious service to begin with, or is there a particular tier where you're seeing a greater increase than the others?

No, so yeah, so within each tier, anyone that's currently at the top of the tier is in theory paying less than they they should be paying, and the people at the bottom of the tier are paying more than they should be paying.

So it does shake out in each tier, but those ones there in the 11 group, those are the largest property owners.

Yeah, or the largest properties owner with the largest amount of impervious area, potentially somebody could be a largest property owner in Saul Pervious.

Yes.

Do you mind if we take or questions as you go?

Because I know there's a lot of information.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, just um the this is very heart.

I love the way this chart looks.

Um the when we talk about zero to two hundred dollars.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but how much of an increase does that represent percentage-wise?

Is that like the people in that category?

Are they typically paying $2,000 a year or are they typically paying 200 dollars a year, in which case 200 is a big job, just very roughly?

Right.

So um it's I mean, it's so they they're falling in one of the four existing tiers right now.

Yeah, and so there's a set amount within each.

So 200 could be it could be a hundred percent of what you're paying, but it's most likely not.

It's going to be usually um more like 20 to 30 percent, but it really all depends on where you fall in that existing tier.

And so it's kind of random, and that's that's sort of the point of making the change is where you fall in that existing tier, and is kind of random, right?

So if we normalize it, um, we can be a little bit more accurate about how it's actually reflecting what's on the ground.

And I I know that didn't exactly answer your question because I can't give you a hard number right off the top of my head, but I can try.

Yeah, that's totally fine, and I don't expect it right now.

The way I'd like to be able to phrase this, and and I'm hoping maybe you can help me plug in the numbers on it.

The way I'd like to be able to phrase this is 90% of people will see either a decrease or an increase of no more than 10%, 20%, 50%, whatever that number is.

We're keeping mind these are non-residential too.

Right.

This is just yeah, so this is on reservation.

So we could do that pretty easily with the math.

I can't do it in my head right here, but 700 versus 77.

Um, so yeah, so that's 90% approximately slightly slightly less than 90%.

No, yeah, yeah, it's 90%.

I did that math.

I'm trying to figure out the the number I don't have is the right is this a 10% increase or 100% increase.

And it's the point is it varies for each one.

And that's the that's the tricky part, and that's why I took out the word equitable for just this change, because some people will see increases, and some people will see decrises, and it it doesn't mean that you're you might see an increase even if you're a very small property owner, right?

Depending on where you fall in the in the tier.

Yes, okay.

Now I'm getting what you say.

Thank you so much.

Um, and then just trying to look at the impacts um of the the rate on different property uses.

Um this is not granular, and it's only looking at the net change, but we can see that basically commercial, which is that other business uh category, the green row, will see the highest increase overall in um fees.

Again, there are some of those properties that will actually see their fees go down.

Um, and um then we see that um churches and uh see the um biggest decrease, but we have a very clear example, and we're working with the Heritage Baptist Church on this credit program that I'm gonna talk about next because their fees will go up again, just because of where they happen to fall in that tier right now, which isn't about what they're doing to manage stormwater, it's about the tiers that we've established.

Um so in order to um to provide that more equitable approach, we're also proposing that we concurrently roll out an expanded non-residential fee reduction program with with basically the same goals of incentivizing opportunity to to maintain or improve practices, um, but also to limit uh new financial hardship for non-commercial and non-residential taxpayers, i.e.

the churches and the nonprofits for that more equitable approach.

Um, and we're also hoping that this program will allow us to leverage those community partners' activities because they're out there in the community on the ground, so we have initiatives around outreach and um public education and participation that we can take advantage of these uh community partners to work together on that.

So just to back up one second, right now we do have a stormwater fee reduction program.

It is quite underutilized, but it does exist, and it um basically reflects what was required or what was permitted in the um 2007 stormwater act, um, which is it allows up to a 50 per 50 percent reduction of the stormwater fee um for stormwater management practices on your site.

Um we have an application, there's some minimal submitable requirements that are listed up here.

Um, basically, it's it's fairly technical, it's the practice needs to meet the standards that the state has published, and we need to set up a maintenance agreement to confirm that the property owner will continue to main maintain the practice so that we can continue to claim credit for it in our MS4 program, and um we do a site visit to verify that their practice is what they say say it is and that it's functioning as it as it should be a question about some of the and stop me if you're gonna get into this, but some of the allowable measures to get this fee reduction.

Um sounds like so.

Sounds like so is it a requirement on the state enabling legislate enabling the whatever the statute is that does that enable a credit program and then put these requirements on there as far as how you can get the credit to the local stormwater fee?

It enables the credit program and it sets a limit on how much reduction you can give them.

But does it say how you put metrics on how or requirements on how you give that?

No, and different municipalities do it different ways.

Because what I'm getting at is, and I think I think you do get into this too, but allowing, for example, people to convert their parking into vegetated.

Put a tree put a someone.

Yeah, the practices are documented in the Maryland stormwater design standards manual.

Those are the approved state practices.

So those need to anything that gets um could that's eligible for this program would need to be a improved state practice.

But it sounds like we're not limited to that if we there are a lot.

I mean it's it's pretty big, right?

Um includes not just your sort of standard rain gardens and and um detention pools, but impervious removal, all sorts of alternative practices.

I'm sure you're familiar with the standards, but um do you have you want to say something more?

Okay.

Um that is what we have existing.

Um currently we have eight non-residential uh ratepayers that take advantage of this program, which is is pretty small.

Um we're hoping that uh this change in rate structure, which will have an impact, a significant impact on some rate pairs, will allow for that, uh will kind of incentivize them to look more closely at this program.

Um that said, um, we also want to ramp it up a bit.

But this is an example of just um looking at the calculation, and I again I'm gonna try to go kind of fast with this, but um of how that reduction would happen.

So um step one, you calculate the percentage fee reduction.

So this is an example of adding a stormwater pond, um, and it says the maximum allowable credit is 50% for this for this practice, and 60% of the total impervious areas directed to that practice.

So you get to take 50% of 60%, which is 30%.

Um so your fee goes down from the 345 that we saw earlier, 35 45 30 to 2417.

Um, this is black, it's very black.

Uh it does not look like that on my computer.

Um when we look at this, if if we looked at all the properties that we are aware of that have approved practices in the city right now, if the if everyone came and applied and was accepted to this program, it would have this impact on the revenue.

So it would have we would increase the structure, we would change the structure and increase revenue, and then we would re increase the fee reductions and it would bring it back down a little bit, but not down further than where we are right now.

Um so we are also wondering if there are opportunities to again help those to help those other ratepayers, particularly the churches and nonprofits, um, people with limited um capital uh to increase their opportunities for fee reductions beyond that practice-based fee.

So when we look when we're looking at that, we want to consider who might be eligible to receive additional reductions, what type of properties and and use of properties, um, and whether we want to just have a hardship waiver and exemption for certain property types, um, what qualifying activities, what what activities would qualify for additional fee reductions beyond that practice-based reduction.

Um, and um in even in the practice base, if if there are any changes that need to happen there, and if there's a threshold for qualifications, and then finally, what level of reduction can they get?

Again, there's the 50% mandate, um, but can we give them additional reductions for non-practice related activities?

So we took a look at um several different uh municipalities and their programs, these are some of them, not all.

Um, and uh not just fee reduction programs but various incentive programs, and um the county is always our first go-to.

We work with the county on a watershed restoration grant program, so we are jointly funding restoration projects through through that program.

The county also has property use exemptions in their fee structure.

They give tax credits, and they also have this DNR clean marina program.

Baltimore City has so many different loopholes and craziness.

There's a decision tree that is just nauseating to look at.

So they have many, many use carves at carve outs, including carve outs for the discharge permit holders, nippies permit permit holders for harbor discharges, for religious, for K through 12, for small green and limited development spaces.

There's just a whole bunch of different different exceptions and ways to go.

Prince Georges County has an alternative alternative compliance path, which is something that we were interested in, and we'll talk about more.

So that's also kind of a red flag.

So then we looked at some other programs, and there are lots of different options.

They have conservation landscaping practices as acceptable ways to go and some other ways that we'll look at a little bit more.

So looking at all that, what we are proposing for this program is that all types of properties, so both residential and non-residential will continue to have this option for a practice-based fee reduction.

Again, limited to 50%.

You'd have to be treating 100% of your impervious area, which is hard.

And so we're proposing that this would this alternative compliance path would be for tax exempt religious or other 501c nonprofits for that alternative compliance and potentially also just a hardship waiver.

So qualifying activities would be those state-approved on-site practices.

The threshold for that would be new or redevelopment or retrofit would meet the existing guidelines, and they'd have to pass our inspections that we have to do every three years.

And then for activities-based qualifying activities, we include options for outreach and education, green care and good housekeeping, and we'll look at those a little bit more.

Credit programs typically evolve over time, and this proposal is trying to keep it pretty simple.

It doesn't seem like it by looking at the slide, but it really is.

So this goes into the kind of details of the application for that alternative compliance path.

Um so it gives you an gives you kind of a a look of what we're proposing.

So the alternative compliance path has a outreach and an education component and a green care and good housekeeping component.

Um again, trying to leverage um these institutions position in the community to expand outreach and uh public knowledge about stormwater management by hosting campaigns or cleanup events or stormwater management uh practice renewal events, um different things like that.

And then the second piece, the green care and good housekeeping, um, really is touching on lawn management, pesticides, housekeeping practices, conservation landscaping, and um mature tree preservation, as well as um tree planting.

Um these are the details of that, and I'm not gonna go through them right now, but but they're there.

Um so just to give an example of that.

If if we had our previous large property owner with the 21,000 square feet of impervious area, we previously established that they could get the 50% of the 60%, which is 30% for their practices.

If they were able to apply and participate in this alternative compliance path, they could get additional 25% for outreach education and another 25% reduction for the green um housekeeping and and landscape practices, and so that would be 30 plus 25 plus 25 is 80%.

And so their fee could come all the way down to 69 dollars per quarter.

So that's that.

Well, are there any thoughts or comments on the commercial before we move on to I mean the non-residential before we move on to residential Alderman?

I mean, just one thing.

The uh I'm a little concerned about the hardship waiver.

Um that uh I I won't pretend to know every specific here, but certainly I have seen other environmental programs where there's a significant cost of compliance, and everybody spends a bunch of money to show that they don't have the money to spend even more money to do the environmental compliance.

Um I'm thinking back to some work I did with municipalities in Iowa a while ago.

And I'm just concerned at how we make sure we don't have tons of people applying for that hardship waiver and losing out on significant revenue, and also more importantly, not have our creeks get cleaned.

So have you guys thought about that much?

Yeah, I I agree with you.

I have some hesitancy around the hardship waiver, and I think it maybe is something we could just try to pilot for the first year and not implement full force.

We've worked mostly on the on the fee reduction program, um, and we are piloting that right now with the Heritage Baptist Church, um, trying to work through the details for the hardship waiver.

Um we have been working on a hardship waiver sort of thing for our stormwater um what do we call the maintenance stormwater practice maintenance grant program, and um so we we do have some background information that we can use, but I I don't think it would be something that we would be pushing hard.

Um that said I mean not everyone has some people don't have a lot of capital, but they have cultural capital or community capital capital.

Some people just don't have any of that.

Um but I don't I don't think it would, I don't think it would come up too much to be honest with you.

Um and when we looked at that spread of who's impacted and how they're impacted, it's really those large property owners that already are used to paying money for as the cost of doing business.

Yeah, so I don't think they'll be attempting to claim hardship waivers.

I also do maybe give people too much benefit of the doubt.

But uh no, I mean not to say there aren't like again using that example that I'm thinking of is Iowa wastewater treatment plants not uh upgrading because they they really are short on count, and we're talking about towns of 300 people sometimes.

And yet what ends up happening is they spend $50,000 on a study to prove they can't make the 100,000 dollars worth of repairs, and then the water keeps getting dirty.

Although anyway, I I could go on about Iowa water quality.

Uh not really the point.

Um I I think what you're saying is very reasonable, and we just iterate on it, and we keep an eye on what percentage is uh of people are seeking these hardship waivers.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, but certainly if it's if it's a big obstacle, we just take it out.

Yeah, and I'm I'm also not a huge proponent of property exemptions, just blanket because I think the county does exempt religious institutions.

I personally don't like that idea because well, one, they're they're already tax exempt, but two, um they have a lot of impervious surface.

Uh and I think some of the I think the point is a lot of the measures that are allowed are pretty cheap to do if the you know, for example, removing some parking spots and putting in either putting in some permeable, you could put grass paved, because a lot of these church lots are only used very for very brief periods.

So you could they could certainly get away with grass paved or converting them to tree wells of some kind.

Um, and we're also trying to give them these other options, outreach and engagement and landscaping options, because any anything that involves construction is surprisingly expensive.

Um, and and that's what we should we need to change too, I think, because they really shouldn't have to get permits if they want to do some of the easy things on here.

Like, I mean, yes, we want them to do obviously misutility, make sure there's nothing, but if they want to take out some parking spaces and put in some trees, let's make that as easy as we can.

Let's get an exempted.

Yeah, so we have the tree plants part in the in the alternative compliance so that you can cover that without without the maintenance agreement and the standard and the practice, state approved practice.

Um so agreed.

Um yeah, definitely not proposing exemptions.

Um if it was if there was a hardship waiver, it would be for the church and nonprofit, and they would not be able to accomplish the alternative compliance path.

I mean, they it would be true hardship, right?

And it only lasts for I think I saw one or two years.

One year for the hardship, yeah.

Okay, so on to renewable.

So onto residential.

So the other thing that we were asked to look at was to evaluate changing the storm water fee structure for the residential ratepayers, which is a currently a flat fee.

There's one fee for single family residences, and then there's a half fee for multifamily units.

Um changing that from either from the fl from the fat flat fee, sorry, fat fee, um, to um an equivalent residential unit basis, which is what we just looked at for the non-residential, or switching it to a tiered basis, which is what we currently have for the non-residential.

Um again, same goals to more accurately reflect the existing impervious conditions for a more equitable building approach or billing approach and to raise awareness and incentivize management.

Um there's that definition of an ERU at the bottom of the screen for you, just in case.

Um so here's uh our current structures, that flat fee showing up there, the one billing unit is the 3453 for quarterly fee.

Um, and if you have a unit in a multifamily situation, then you're paying that half of that.

Um yeah, if you think about hard is is hard to understand, but it it is not uncommon.

Um just want to point out I think it's worth emphasizing that on the flat fee, which is the current that somebody who has a uh uh you know 1,500 foot, whatever it is, uh town home is paying the same fee as somebody who has a 5,000 square foot house.

Yes, as somebody who has a thousand fifty square foot town home, I am very aware of that.

Um so it's it that's where you get into the uh but we we'll look at that a little more and that the spread of that.

Um so so the options that we talked about are either the the ERU basis, which we just reviewed that structure, um, or going to tiered, which is um maybe a kind of a interim step.

Um if we take a look at the existing uh residential residential properties that we have in this in the city, um you can see that they do all they do largely fall around that purple line.

And so if we were to change this to the ERU structure, anything, any of the properties above that line would be paying more.

And any of the properties below that line would be paying less.

If we change it to tiered, which I put I put some proposed potential tiers in there, you know, you definitely still have a greater density towards the bottom, those giant properties that you were mentioning.

There are some, but there aren't that many.

So you said everybody to the left of that purple line basically is paying too much right now.

Well relatively right.

Based on their actual perv surface, they're paying a lot more than I mean that's a kind of a gross overstatement, but yes.

I didn't mean that in any sort of negative way, I'm sorry.

Um so we have some examples from other municipalities.

Arlington does the number of ERUs, the ERU-based uh structure for residential, and Baltimore City has tiers, they have three tiers.

Um just to see where we fall within that range of other municipalities in the region.

Um our current structure, our current rate is actually up there.

Um so if we're changing that rate and we're we're ink we're reducing it for a lot of people, that's great.

If we're increasing it for some people, it will be even more up there.

Um so here's an example of a small property if we made the change looking at both options.

So a small property is currently paying that flat fee, 3453.

If we change their 1,010 square feet to an ERU-based fee, that would they would fall that would be one ERU.

So they would then pay whatever that ERU number is, which is 3453, ironically, so they would not change.

Um if we change it to a tiered structure, they would fall into that first tier, and so they would pay less.

Um if we look at a large property, uh, if we change that is currently paying that flat fee, if we change it to the ERU basis, suddenly they'd be paying for two ERUs.

Um, so their fee would triple.

Um and if they that's not right, their fee would double.

Anyway, their fee would double.

Um it would double.

It would double.

Okay, cool.

It says triple, but it meant to say double.

Um if they but it would triple if we move to the tiered where they would fall into tier four, and um that that number would go up.

Uh so if we were to make this change, there is a significant amount of administrative lift that would need to occur.

Um the non-residential properties, we have 880 some odd non-residential properties, residential properties, we have 11 11,000 plus residential properties.

Um, so um we would need to do the work that we've done for the non-residential program to get us to the point we're at in terms of looking at whether we need to do code updates, getting a website set up, uh, doing outreach.

Um we would also need to significantly revamp the billing process because right now they're not being um charged based on any any kind of impervious area, they're just getting a flat fee, so that's adding an extra layer of data that we don't have collected or validated or understood in terms of billing process, and that data uh would require ongoing management and maintenance and transfer to billing every year.

Um the biggest bit I think with this potential change is the appeals process, which is something that already exists, it's required to exist and it's in the city code.

Um I believe, again, if we go back to my townhouse and my my bill, if I got a bill that was radically different or even slightly different, I would take a hard look at it, and if I didn't agree with what they said, I would appeal it instantaneously.

So when we're talking about 11,000 properties, that's a lot of potential appeals.

So we want to be sure that we are presenting the information to them through some sort of uh tool that uh like an online viewer or something through GIS, and we have examples of those, um, which would take um some effort to get in place, and at this point, we're still a bit concerned about the the integrity of the data and whether we could back it up.

That said, the all of these structures have wiggle room.

So what if you're in a tier, you're getting charged based on you know a range of impervious area.

So that's your margin of error, right?

And if you're getting charge based on an ERU, you're getting charged based on that base unit, that billing unit, so that 2100 square feet again is your margin of error.

So that's a pretty those are those can be pretty good margins of error, but when you start to get to the bigger property owners, is where it could get be get fussy, or if they're falling on the edge of a tier, they could be battling that they should be in the other tier.

Um so that's one major concern we have.

Those are two major concerns we have the data validation for a much larger data set, and um the administrative lift of handling appeals.

Sorry if you mentioned this, I had to step out, but the um so for the ERU.

That you have that listed as 2100 feet.

Um the tier structure is I'd have to do the math on this, but it's I'll go back to it.

1400 or so in between each tier.

Um, but what would and are you gonna maybe you'll get into this?

Like what is there a benefit to doing it based on your U or be based on tier?

Yeah, so how do you actually charge the ERU?

Is it as it a one-on-one when somebody gets their bill?

One or do you get a desk go into a decimal?

No, it gets rounded.

It gets rounded.

That's why it's that's why it's your margin of error.

So really that's kind of the big the big difference between them is whether you want whether you want your margin of error to be 2100 square feet or half of 2100 square feet.

Um whether well, I'll go to that slide.

Okay.

We can we can read my answer to your question.

Okay.

You're saying either way, the we need there needs to be more work done to get to right.

So potential barriers, we're kind of talking through the administrative requirement for the data validation, the appeals, the tracking, and the maintenance.

Um, I anticipate that would be a 1.5 FTE to manage at the it overall and more at the startup.

Um so the challenge there is supporting those additional costs is potentially going to offset any savings that a smaller property would see because we would have to increase the overall rate by 10%.

Um then multi-unit properties are a sticky wicket.

How to figure out how to charge them is a big task because none of them are the same, right?

So potential benefits, um, so the measured structure uh could result in some savings for the smaller properties, which we saw in the example when you were gone, but you can go back and look at it.

Um we saw in the smaller property for the um if we switched to the tiered, if we switched to the ERU, they actually stayed the same.

But if we switched to the tiered, they they saw a benefit or a reduction in their fee.

Um given the spread that we looked at of where the how where the house sizes are, we think that that has a limited equity impact and may not really incentivize those property owners because um really the cost of installing the practices um is far exceeds the the savings they they might realize.

And I didn't back up the number return on investment calculation there.

Um so you had asked if we switched to a tiered system, would that be easier?

I think it so the recording, the tracking, the administrative bit would be similar.

Incentivize those property owners because really the cost of installing the practices far exceeds the the savings they they might realize and I didn't back of the number return on investment calculation there so you had asked if we switched to a tiered system would that be easier I think it so the recording the tracking the administrative bit would be similar um but I it could potentially reduce the number of appeals because it's a little less precise so that would potentially reduce I mean that's speculation but that is that is my speculation well I do oh yeah uh so this is just a kind of spitballing thing but if we wanted to sort of face this in because I I one of the things I'm hearing from you is that the real limiting factor is appeals and I think that's totally right is there a way that we could say all right we're keeping the structure for 90% of people and we're keeping the current structure but if you are in the top 10 highest percent we're creating a just a second tier that is those properties with the highest amount of uh impervious surface and then we'll expect them to pay some additional amount is that possible or would it be too burdensome because we'd still have to figure out everybody's impervious surface to do that uh let me ask you yeah does that address some of your concerns yeah so that's if you kept the flat fee for everybody but that upper tier I don't know is that a thing I I'm not sure that's a possibility I think if you do switch to tier then you do have to try yeah again the the recording and tracking of the impervious area for everyone has to happen well it is it would essentially still be tiered except there'd be only two tiers two tiers right so yeah and you'd still want to be able to go and see where you fall in that but I think the people who the only people under the proposed tier structure the only people who would be appealing would sound like would be the medium to large properties.

Because they're the ones who would see the they could it could be that or they could be the people on the edges of the tiers right yeah because if I'm on the bottom of tier two and I really think I should be in tier one yeah um yeah um so um here's my recommendation maintain the current fee structure for the residential properties at the moment um because it I don't think that the benefit really is equivalent to the is enough for the lift um that is one one step um draft the draft an amendment to revise the non-residential fee structure from tier to ERU because we I think we have seen that there is a real benefit there particularly when it's done in concurrently with the um upgraded fee reduction program oh we're gonna skip those for a second are you going to are you gonna propose moving forward with that is the administration going to move forward that in the budget you know as far as moving towards the non-residential so we'll we'll talk about that in a second okay um and well on the residential before we get to the other point is um do you have a chart like you do earlier did earlier for non-residential that show revenue no we haven't done that analysis okay um I think that'd be important so that's that's that falls into four and five okay so um so four is to develop that out that lookup tool whether it's just a thing that spits out a number at you or whether it's GIS based and you can see your property for the non-residential so that can support this new fee structure for the non-residential but we can also do you do it as a test pilot um to see if we want to do this for the residential which again is it has a much larger scale right 800 properties versus 11,000 plus so if we if we give it a shot with the non-residential we can see how that goes and work towards the residential if we think it if it makes sense and then in the meantime we can also continue to evaluate other incentive programs including enhancements my right most my biggest recommendation would be looking at enhancements to the existing residential stormwater fee reduction program focusing more on the the carrot than the stick basically because I think that's where the bigger impact would be so on on that oh you're going back to the schedule say that for a second yeah on that I just wonder if you could work in something to Almer Huntley's point um because I see your I like the idea of just uh you know moving forward with the non-residential um then you're talking about concurrently implementing let's see fee reduction program but I'm just wondering if there is another step we could take which would be to increase because I just it's those large properties I'd really like to give them an incentive to take action because they are the they're really underpaying their based on their actual impacts.

Um I like the idea of just uh you know moving forward with the non-residential, um, and then you're talking about concurrently implementing let's see, fee reduction program.

But I'm just wondering if there is another step we could take, which would be to increase because I just it's those large properties.

I'd really like to give them an incentive to take action because they are the they're really underpaying their based on their actual impacts.

Right.

So and that's where I'm my proposal is to look closer at their fee reduction program, less where I think we can really incentivize them.

I don't know that the that this is the right tool because the numbers that they will be paying more are not significant percentage-wise.

I mean, if you are a large property owner, alert home property owner, the scale is still uh much smaller, so your increase in fee is not really gonna be that much.

So let's look at the incentive programs rather than the fee program.

That would be my recommendation for now.

And again, this is evolving.

Yeah, and we can work on this fee lookup tool, the viewer, and see how that works for non-residential, if we feel like it works well, we can you know we'll talk about what how that needs to happen for residential.

Um for right now, we can definitely move forward with the non-residential.

Um when we talked about it last year, we had this calendar, and in that red box it said that we needed to get a rate amendment um to council by or to the finance committee by by June.

That never happened.

Um I think I don't really know why.

Um I was excited for it to happen, but it didn't happen.

I think that we got kind of caught up in the actual rate change numbers and got distracted, and it it didn't happen.

So this year I've made that red box bigger.

Uh and I would like to recommend that you do it sooner, um basically right away, which is why I didn't want to postpone this session today, um, so that we can get that amendment to the finance committee and get it through review.

Um it would still I'm still proposing that we have a hundred-day waiver period um once it starts so that we can kind of provide technical assistance and get people on board um before we just triple some people's fees.

Yeah.

Um, but uh it needs to start now if we're gonna if we're gonna do that.

Yeah, no, this is I just it just compliment you on it's so incredibly helpful to see this charted out as far as when you're planning on doing these things, it just helps us really understand where you're what to expect.

Yeah, and for the residential, I mean we can also make a calendar for that, but it's not there's no way we could potentially get that done in the next three weeks, yeah.

Um, all the things that would need to happen.

So we have at least a year to work on it, and we can talk further about you know whether you do want to do that financial analysis and the impact analysis.

We we can we can do that.

Um those are my recommendations for the moment.

I I mean I see the benefit of having it by April 1, but also it could just get incorporated into the general fee schedule that gets introduced when the mayor introduces budget.

So we could have a little bit more leeway on that, right?

The oh, I thought you were gonna say something.

No, no.

Um meaning, yeah, we could potentially have a little bit more time on it, I would think.

Yes, I'm I'm being I'm being more aggressive because it slipped last time and we did get caught up in the discussion of the fee.

Um, but we were told by finance that it would need to be an a specific amendment about the rate structure, not just the fee change, right?

Got it.

So we I and I kind of just want to keep those in their own lanes because they're not the same.

All right.

So that's so what what is going to be introduced in the budget then?

So happened.

That blue bar that's the um the second from the top is the on the continuing every every year those discussions about the rate changes, and so we'll have Stantec in, I think at the next finance committee meeting to talk through the rate change.

Um, and that those discussions will happen um, you know, over the next two months, and then that will go to the finance committee for final approval with the budget.

Okay.

Anything else?

Questions.

I gotta tell you, this is one of the most detailed and impressive presentations I've ever seen in my time on the city council from any employee.

Like way to go.

This is so much detail.

This is it, it was so well done.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you.

And again, if you want to watch it again, May 2025, YouTube.

Um yeah, excellent job.

And I'm just thinking, like, I guess I know this is nothing to we need to rush because I I I agree as far as let's focus on the non-residential, but maybe Stantech could help with this, but at some point next year I would like to see some scenarios as far as if you did want to move if we did want to move all of us, you know, in the direction of uh a tiered or ERU-based model for residential, what would the impact be on revenue?

Right, right.

Um and then staff associated staff costs that would have to be absorbed by the watershed fund just so we can get an idea if it's something we would want to move forward with or not.

I I'm inclined to just because I do want to make it more equitable and actually capture the the actual impacts from these larger properties who are way underpaying what they actually contribute to degrading our water quality.

Um I feel like that feeds into the rate reduction program and getting them to giving them a reason to do what we're trying to get them to do as far as reducing impervious.

Um I I mean I did include the what the cost for administrative an estimate, but and I did speak with San Stantec.

I don't didn't just come in in here, you know, off the cuff.

Um and their recommendation was not to make this change at this time, but we we can certainly continue to analyze that.

And again, my recommendation would be also to take a hard look at the fee reduction program for residential and see what how we can amp that up because I think that it's a place for a possible impact.

Okay, all right.

That's uh yes, Alderman.

Just a minor thing.

Um when we're thinking about uh not rate structures, but like when we're calculating our impact, the impact of stormwater, do we consider delivery factors?

Like put it another way, is a house I mean, maybe this is really a question for you, Ms.

Gyeld, but is a house with let's just make it up 10,000 square feet of impervious surface right next to a creek better or worse for that creek than the same amount of impervious surface farther away from the waterway.

So you want to answer that?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh so our so our stormwater management requirements um have we have different requirements for waterfront properties than non-waterfront properties.

Um and there's critical area requirements as well.

So those are the critical area requirements are pretty extensive.

The stormwater management requirements, um, it's just a grading tra a grading permit trigger changes from two thousand from 5,000 square feet for a non-waterfront property to 2,000 square feet for a waterfront property.

That's maybe a little less significant than the critical area uh requirements.

Uh Mike, do you want to add on to that?

As far as, but we don't have you don't pay a higher fee if you're closer to the water or anything.

Right.

It's we it's there are stricter requirements if you want to develop closer to the water or in the critical area, but the fee is not based on your location, your proximity to any resource or anything like that.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And I don't know.

I don't even think that would be legal.

We'd have to check the no, the way I'm the reason I asked the question is I was thinking about the fact that probably many of our particularly large properties, at least in my ward, are or large in terms of having a lot of impervious surface, are right on the water, right?

Like if you have the money to buy water for a property, you've probably also got money to build a big house there.

And so I was thinking about if we implemented some rate structure that had a bigger impact on larger properties, how it would have a bigger impact also on properties that are closer to the water, and thus if we had something like we have for the non-residential, or you could offset it by having some kind of um compliance type thing, then maybe we would drive more of that near water race.

But it the anyway, that was just trying to get that crucial piece whether it made sense or not.

We mentioned that the county does that marina program, so like right, they know that things close to the water and the activities that are going on, they're trying to target specific things for those areas, yeah.

Yeah.

Makes total sense.

Yep.

All right.

We're running, we're uh out of time very much.

So thank you so much again.

Um and Ms.

Scott, I always do this to you.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jackage report.

Yeah, I apologize.

Um, I'll put you up front of the next meeting, but I I actually do have an meeting I need to get to soon.

So I'll give you five, ten minutes for I know you have a lot to go through.

Any any key highlights?

And is that well, first, is there anything from the committee that you really want to hear an update on?

Go ahead.

Okay.

I mean, as far as on this list.

Okay, all right.

So well, I guess street lights, but you'll cover that probably.

Street lights.

Oh, street lights.

Okay.

Um, so yes, I will.

Overall, um, my team is focused on building efficiency, reducing our energy usage and energy rates, and um transportation initiatives that we work closely with Department of Transportation on is all as well as um putting more electrical vehicles in our fleet from light duty to medium duty vehicles, and then working towards police and fire.

Um, so we do have a number of initiatives and grant applications in around solar on city facilities, and we're waiting on some of those grants, and we have some.

And then the other thing would be um transitioning lights to LED, which BGE is working on all of the ones that they own and maintain, and the ones that the city owns, but BGE maintains, and they've done probably two-thirds of those at this point to LED.

Then the remainder um are city owned and maintained.

Um, but we are working we do have grant money, and we are working to um move all of those over to LED at this time as well.

The other thing that we're doing with light posts that are owned and maintained by the city is we have money to do um five volt posts, volt post is a charging company, electric vehicle charging company that you use the power off of the light pole.

BG ⁇ E did not want us to use any of their light poles.

Um Dylan Lakonich made a presentation to historic preservation commission a couple weeks ago that went rather well.

They just didn't want any on Main Street.

Um, but we are looking at Hanover Street and West Street and one other area for um the vault posts.

Um, so we can have charging on the street by people coming to do business or who live in the area overnight charging, etc.

Um then we know we're looking at other areas to continue to put in electric vehicle charging.

We do have grant money that we're putting in two L2s, so four ports and one DC fast charger at the police station.

So we're looking at doing facility by facility, and we thought we'd start with police, you know, putting the infrastructure there so then we can buy the cruisers as well.

But meantime, there are other vehicles like their parking enforcement and inspectors and um day-to-day people in and out who are not using cruisers, could use those and get them used to the idea to feel comfortable with electric vehicles.

Um part of the ear mark request that I put into the federal federal earmark funding was for a solar on the roof of OEM police station headquarters, backed up by a microgrid and generator.

So that would also go nicely with the EV charging, and we could use that for the EV charges.

That could be a completely um clean energy fueled um building over there and the infrastructure as well.

So we're kind of excited about that.

Um I did receive um a letter from MDEM that said that was an eligible project as um, but only eligible as far as that it uh affects the EOC if we were to also include police headquarters with the microgrid and the solar power, that we would the city would have to put money into that as well.

But we do have grant money for that sort of thing, so we are looking at that.

Um I have another question.

I do want to have a question on the uh the city ferry electric ferry.

Well, now it's I know it's now a hybrid ferry, but um because that is something that actually um you know that we've uh we've talked about in the past in relation to like cars beach, and I because it could potentially be a connection for people to get from my ward downtown.

And so uh I yeah, so I just curious what the status of is yep.

So that's which is now the ferry is now hybrid per the requirements of the federal government, and the RFP is ready to be advertised.

However, the administration has asked us to put a pause on that and seek um input from the Maritime Advisory Board on their get a recommendation from the Maritime Advisory Board.

So I've requested to have it put on this Tuesday's agenda, a short presentation on the ferry where it stands benefits, challenges, opportunities, and get their recommendations.

The mayor wanted that before um he would sign off on the new grant.

Um it's a grant agreement that we would have to sign off on.

Um and whether we would pursue that or not.

Um we've had a lot of blowback from Eastport.

Much of that was is around parking and the fact that there's some misconception that we would open the city's trying to get people to park in Eastport and then take the ferry over to City Dock when it's quite the reverse.

The idea is that people park in Hillman or somewhere else, come in by bike, bus, whatever, and then take the ferry over to Eastport into the heart of Eastport.

Um there's a little blowback on the fifth strip um street landing, mostly around parking again, which the city did not plan to encourage on Fifth Street.

Can you share with the committee the materials that are getting shared with the uh Maritime Advisory Board?

Which materials?

I guess whatever the is going to be in the presentation.

Oh, we will have very the Harbor Masters putting together a few slides right now, really just showing possible routes for the ferry and like what a ferry boat would look like so they don't have a misconception that it's a very large boat.

It would have to be fairly small, about 385, 38 feet at most, in order to um fit at the fifth street landing.

And um it you know, we have ideas about even going across the river to um Holly Beach, which is now owned by DNR, it's purchased from Chesapeake Bay Foundation, so as a recreational stop.

So it could be Holly Beach, Hockett's Cove, Cars Beach, and across the Fifth Street, and then any other place you'd like to take it.

All right, I'm gonna have to call it there.

I I will follow up with you on that because I just want to have more of a conversation about the the ferry.

Yeah, I just want to add real quickly.

The greenhouse gas inventory is done in the climate action plan is going into draft form.

It I'm going to work on a um workshop work session for city council on the climate action plan and also um a public meeting date for the climate action plan.

For the council?

For the public meeting and for council a work session with council.

Okay, good.

And that would most likely happen in April or early May.

Okay.

But I'll have a draft available to you before the meeting.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And I promise we'll put you first on the agenda next time.

Um go to the order?

All right.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Or second.

Can't do both.

She moved it.

I second.

Oh, she did.

Okay.

All is in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye, immediately adjourned.

Thank you all.