Get started.

The special meeting of the Annapolis City Council on Monday, June 1st, 2026, will be called to order at 10 a.m.

At this time, we will have a moment of silence to prepare ourselves for the business ahead.

At this time, would everyone willing and able please stand for the pledge of allegiance?

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation.

Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mayor Littman.

Present.

Alderman Huntley.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Present.

Alderman Smith Brown.

Alderman Alsa Johnson.

Alderman Shaff Meyer.

Alderman McConty.

Alderman Savage.

Present.

Alderman Thor.

Present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

City Attorney, please present the next item on the agenda.

Next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda.

Thank you.

At this time, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Thank you, Alderman Thorpe.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

I guess any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Mr.

City Attorney, please call the next item on the agenda.

Next item on the agenda is legislative actions on second readers, beginning with resolution R ten twenty-six FY2027 annual fees schedule.

Okay.

Thank you.

What I should have just laid out just for some expectations of how this meeting is going to go, and then I'll ask for a motion to adopt R 1026.

We have four or five pieces of legislation all related to the budget today.

We're going to take them in order of how fast we think they're going to go.

The fastest to the slowest.

So we're going to end with the uh operating and capital budgets, taking the resolutions first.

We're starting at ten a.m.

and we're going until this ends.

So not knowing how long that goes.

Five or ten minutes on the hours, so like at uh ten minutes of the hour or five minutes before the hour, taking a quick five, ten minutes break, just so we have all have a chance to be healthy, move our legs, and uh uh tend to uh bio needs if necessary.

Then we'll take a uh one o'clock lunch for half an hour, and then we'll resume with that pattern, and hopefully we won't need to think about taking a dinner break just yet.

Um the we're taking everything up on second reader today, which means we're going to be considering amendments.

We're going to introduce the legislation, adopt it for second reader, and then go through a list of amendments that have been proposed for each piece of legislation.

When we get to the end of the amendments, we're going to postpone to June 8th, which is next Monday's meeting for final adoption.

That week gives our finance team and legal team, clerk's office just a chance to button up everything so that when we pass it, there's clarity for ourselves and the public.

And uh, if we messed anything up, frankly, um, since we're all human, it's prone to happen.

We can address it before the eighth.

So that's how we expect today to go.

Any questions about that?

Okay.

With all that said, we have the next item on the agenda, which is R 1026, annual fees.

Is there a motion to adopt R 1026 on second reader?

Thank you, Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

And now we'll review proposed amendments to R 1026.

Okay, we have one, two, three, four, five, six.

The first is L22.

That's my uh my amendment.

This is an increase in parking and garage fees.

And um ask the city manager's office to address them and call up transportation if necessary.

Alderman, you didn't miss anything of substance.

We're just getting started with uh R 1026.

I believe Alderman Smith Brown's on its way, and also Alderman, we were just getting uh started, you didn't miss anything of substance.

We're just getting started with R 1026.

Mr.

Moore, are you here to present?

This is the increase in parking and garage fees for Hillman, Gots, Knighton, Park Place, Larkin, and South Street lots.

Yes, good morning.

Uh Marcus Moore, director of transportation and parking.

Uh we're looking at uh the increase in all the uh parking assets, the garage and street this fiscal year to help um offset the deficit of needed um funds for operation of transportation.

There should be a schedule that shows that actual increase, what percentage that is to give a little history background on it, there was no increase outside the concession area inside there was just the street parking, but not on in the garage.

So this is a timely timely event to um increase them at this time based on other economic forecasts.

Okay, as I'm looking at the fee schedule, it's a little hard to tell what was in the is everything in red.

What is part of the amendment?

That is correct.

Okay, very good.

All right, that is the uh motion um and that's the discussion.

Anything else from the city administration in presenting?

Because it's not just uh there's also police department changes.

Okay, nothing else to present.

Okay, open to discussion.

Uh Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh I just have a point of clarification though, because I think the the amended legislation as posted in legislator includes everything, if I'm not mistaken, as proposed, right?

So for this particular amendment, I'm good with the changes to the garage, but does it also include the changes to downtown as far as the concession area the differences in the the new those are some new changes creating that concession area?

Is that part of it?

Like which code section transcribes to corresponds with this amendment.

Is it just the garage pardon garage items?

Alderman Savage, it does um include the within the concession area outside of the garage.

I'm trying to reference that quickly myself, but it would show in red um those changes of what they were with the strat the strike through in black um to what it is being proposed for this going coming fiscal year.

Covered in a in a subsequent amendment, because I just don't see it in the amendment list.

What thought was the first.

Sorry, Alderman uh Savage, can we please repeat your question?

So if you're looking at the um the amended fee schedule, you'll see.

So I do see the Hillman garage chain.

Where are they?

If I may there, if in legis in um for R 10, there are two documents that are that are linked.

There's the original proposed fee schedule, and then there is proposed amendments.

That second document, the proposed amendments, is where you'll see these listed.

Yeah, I see them listed, but it has everybody's all in the same document.

So I'm trying to figure out which one exactly are we just talking about the proposals for all the garages?

If that's the case, that's fine, but I'm just want to also point out the other parking changes.

When are we supposed to have that conversation?

Is that all a part of the same um increase for the uh the rates for parking would be as you see at the top there where it has um mills hillman mills in red, so that you get that change of the name, but underneath it'll say the hourly and what the monthly restricted unrestricted are.

So as you go down, you'll see the other garages as well.

Am I answering your specific question there?

Well, I'll just go back.

So I guess if I could just get an answer to if this amendment only deals with the park and garage changes, if he changes it.

I believe there's the other documents that go along with the changes within parking, the subsets within.

Uh so it should actually show within the concession area and outside the concession area, uh strike through of what it was and what it is proposed to be in FY27.

Um, if it does include the concessionary, can we get a briefing from somebody on that come out of the negotiations presumably with Medco?

No, no negotiations um with Medco.

And as you're aware, um they'll look at a uh financial um table that will project where they need to be um with inflation and all, and make a recommendation.

If we've met our obligations in that fiscal year or past fiscal year, like we did in FY25, going to FY26, we were successful in having the fair the the fee the fine the fares uh remain the same inside of the mills Hillman garage.

This year we're agreeable to have a an increase in the garage.

Each year they have a table that will dictate what the percentage will be going forward, but last year or the current year that we're in right now, just the street parking um in the concession area, um the hybrid um residential and uh commercial parking as well as the full commercial parking was increased.

So we will be meeting with them, but they will be agreeable, I'm sure, for whatever increases we are projecting or proposing.

All right, just one final question is uh because I noticed that I I agree with the direction the garage changes are going where you know the the f generally the further out the garage is the lower the cost is but I did notice that park place had a higher cost than say God's is that was that intended when we looked at it we were doing an average or round out um it was basically um straight across the board of uh you know the inflation being about three 3.5 percent we're looking at the 38%, but rounding it to the nearest quarter 50 cent piece.

So some of them might have been um a little bit off.

Um the further you get away from the downtown, the cheaper it should be.

So even though night and park place are so close, park place has been historically a little bit cheaper or online with uh the night and um garage.

Thank you, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Any other uh Alder Woman O'Neill?

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mayor.

I do have a question about that because park place is not cheaper, it's four dollars.

No, six dollars more than the average daily rate.

So I thought when we initially discussed the garages that we were doing as Alderman Savage had suggested, and downtown was higher, and as you went out, it was less.

But right now they're Hillman and Gots are the same.

Nine's a little bit less, and park place is a little bit less per hour, but the maximum daily rate jumps above Gots.

Gots maximum daily rate is 18.

Hillman's, I mean uh night and fifteen, and then you go to park place and it's 22.

Yeah, these garages in the last two years haven't had any increase at all.

Uh, trying to keep them on parity of where we think that the uh market will bear, and one of the things with the um parkplace garage, 1140 spaces is very close proximity to the Weston Hotel, and there that one, even though it never, it does not fill up often within the year, um, the opportunity um to have a little bit more income coming through that garage is actually there.

But looking at what we've done in the past, this is where we're trying to make those adjustments on um the best fit or the need for the city, so you might find some of those nominees, those one-offs.

Well, I would suggest that park place stays at least in line with GOTS, not more.

If our formula is that the farther you go out, the parking is less, the maximum daily rate.

That's an amendment.

And I I'm looking at two hours at each of the garages, park place is still the least expensive.

It's uh, but to your point, when you get to maximum daily rate, got's at 18 and uh park place at 22 doesn't make sense.

That's right.

So at least be eighteen.

I mean, it should be less, but uh uh Director Moore, do you have a do you have any uh uh fine thought of how that could be adjusted rather than us just saying the maximum for park place should be 18?

But that can definitely, excuse me, be factored in, and I truly see and understand um the concern of the question that's come up, um, bringing that back down to purity no more than what uh the Gots quote is being that park place is further out, but that maximum daily rate um can go back well, increase it from the 17, but decrease it from the twenty-two does make sense.

I think eighteen was to make it at least in parity with Gots is what the Alder Woman is suggesting, is that right?

Yes.

So I think the um the amendment if I'm hearing it right is specific to park place, the two lines that say uh more than 10 hours, and then the next line that says maximum daily rate, both should be 18 instead of 22.

Is that the amendment?

Is that the amendment?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Alderman Huntley, Alderman Thorpe.

Yeah, it what I was hearing from the director is yes, in general, we want to have them be cheaper as you go farther out, but due to the specific circumstance of there being a hotel at park place, it makes sense to distinguish between the up to 10 hour rate, right?

Somebody coming downtown shopping for the day, they're taking the shuttle to city dock from someone who is actually parking for a full day because they're staying at a hotel, they're staying two, three, four days, and that that is it's essentially a slightly different market, and that's why there's the difference in rates.

So uh I from what I heard, it makes sense to me to leave it as it is because we're talking about two slightly different markets.

I think my my question is the the philosophy of why the third hour is so much more expensive than the second hour.

Is that intentional and what is the reasoning for that?

When you look at the um Alderman Thorpe, when you look at the uh the average time someone parks and what you know the benefit uh the cost as you increase there that's what was looked at after the three hours we would start you know making that um increase um not sure really the whole science behind it um I can have to do a little bit of a deeper dive uh on that but I understand your question just can't quite answer it in the way that may make the most amount of sense.

Thank you.

Alderman Thorpe I'm trying to just follow your point and I see it for Gott's garage I see where it's good goes from six fifty to ten is that the garage that you're looking at to see that it goes up from starting with Mills Hillman okay the first hour is three twenty five the second hour is three twenty five the third hour is five dollars and twenty five cents the and then the fourth hour is again five dollars and twenty five cents so by economics we're encouraging people to be out of there in two hours which would prevent them from taking the water taxi or spending time downtown it's and I guess that's kind of the I'm guessing that's the philosophy of we want churn we want people coming in and going out I do think that's worthy not probably today of us looking at taking on as a project of what what the the flow rate here what uh actions we're trying to motivate.

So I think the specific motion we have the amendment is uh to for park place to reduce the daily rate then I think we should come back to your point to reduce the third and fourth hour after that.

Right okay so any further discussion on all the woman o'Neill's amendment to reduce park place to eighteen dollars for those two lines for the more than 10 hours and maximum daily rate.

Any further discussion all right all those in favor of Alderwoman O'Neill's amendment to reduce those two lines to 18 please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed okay two no's the motion carries Alderman Thorpe do you want to make a motion?

I don't have the data to make a motion and and so I think you know just to go back to park place where you are now um I don't feel that we have the data to make an amendment but I I would like to to have an action going forward that may and maybe it's a work session maybe it's just a report from the uh director of transportation what is our philosophy of of parking so that we can address it in the future because I I don't know enough we don't have enough information now to start mucking with the the hourly rates.

I would like Director Moore to address the point because if we could fix it now then I'd like I think that's a good um point to highlight can you share enough with what the philosophy is and what your position would be on the council adjusting hour three and four at Hillman and Gotz those are the two I noticed being out of order.

To be so for Hillman's particular 325 for the first each of the first four hours.

But one of the things that we would like to do is push people into the garage of course because your parking is limited not just with the amount that you're paying but the time that you can stay so great you know if you're gonna be there more than two you know two hours obviously but two and a half hours or three hours we want them in the garage so the parity would be um having the garage cheaper at the be the beginning slope of it and increasing um but I truly understand you know the the math behind it um why those decisions were made to escalate at that rate.

If you think it's better if we do um for the first uh going into the first four hours um to push more into the garage off of the streets, especially in the hybrid residential commercial areas um that makes sense.

Keeping it where it is for the uh extension, you know, the five hours up to the maximum daily rate um for that asset being um prime real estate downtown.

I think that's in parody with other sit alike cities and what we're trying to accomplish.

If I made the umman is really the one that shows that pattern, the others are are more even hour to hour.

The proposed change actually decreases the difference, right?

Like we we actually the proposal is to not change the three or four hours.

Um so that that's certainly an existing feature, and I and I think to um or or existing bug, I suppose, depending on how you look at it.

Um, uh but I think to Alderman Thorpe's point, if that's something that we want as sort of an agenda moving forward, this is clearly an existing condition, and making that kind of change where you have a decl a decrease to a rate, that would trigger a discussion with Medco and a review of how that would work.

Doing just the increase is that's a much easier thing to do in the concession area.

So I my recommendation would be that that be a discussion for another day because we will need to go through.

If we want to decrease it, we will need to go through a process with Medco to include them.

Alvin uh Hudley.

Um my question is really about, and apologies if I missed this at the very beginning.

The time sensitiveness of making these changes to the parking schedule now, because the the crucial thing that the city manager uh the former the former acting city manager, the deputy city manager, just reminded me of is that we have broad leeway to increase fees in our agreement our concession agreement, but decreasing them takes a lot more work.

And so if we go and increase these right now and then come back in two months and after having done a bunch of review and think, hey, maybe it actually makes sense for us to even not have raised them by quite as much, then it's gonna be really hard.

So fundamentally my question is uh it feels to me like we've had these for about three days, these parking changes.

Um, and that that might be partially a me problem.

So if I'm I don't mean to speak for everyone, but it is okay.

But do we need to make these changes right now, or could we have a resolution changing all the parking fees be brought forward at the next city council meeting?

You could get referred to the transportation committee.

Everybody could think about it more than just today.

Is there a reason why we can't do that?

Yeah, I don't think there's a reason that we can't, but um um Deputy City Manager Buckland did bring up a very good point.

Um, as we start to decrease, we need to get the concessions agreement with what they did for projections of revenue generated going forward.

Um like I said, uh, we met the goals um in FY24 to um FY25 to go into FY26 with no increase, but will we be as successful and it may take them several weeks to make a determination to come back to the city say we agree?

So we these are FY27 um requests.

Um time I think is of the essence, but we do need to be careful of what we decide to flatline.

If I'm uh give me one second, Altamir Savage.

If I'm hearing uh Alderman Huntley's suggestion, it's a motion to remove the increase of fees for Hillman specific, because that's the only garage in the concession agreement for the the two increases of up to one hour and up to two hours and the five hours plus those three lines.

Is that what you're getting at?

Uh I was kind of getting at all of them, um, all of the parking changes, but I I think that might be better to only do the ones in the concession area, but I think it should be both Hillman and the on-street ones, right?

Because that would be subject to the same concerns.

Which are the lines?

I just want to make sure we're saying the same thing.

It's in a different section than the parking garages.

Uh I think it's near the top.

It's above the parking garage ones.

That's in a different section.

Sorry, give me one sec.

It's uh it's on page two.

So would you like to make that as a motion?

We could get it on the table.

Sure.

Uh motion is to remove the changes to Hillman parking, Hillman parking garage, right?

Because it's still called MM garage under this.

And then also to remove the changes to code section 12.24.020 regarding the concession area, right?

So there are three sections related to 12.24020.

I'm only talking about the first two of those sections, which are the ones in the concession area.

One labeled all other parking meters is not included in my motion.

Okay.

For before I ask for a second, for the city manager and city clerk, do you have the motion on the table adequately?

Is it clear to what's on the table?

Okay.

Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

Second.

Alright.

Any further discussion?

Alderman.

I'm sorry, I I think I had Alderman Savage and then um Alderman Smith Brown.

Thank you, Miss Mayor.

Just uh I did just want to point out um I'll save these for later, but there are other changes in this that we were just sent on Friday.

Um that we don't have any kind of background on as far as justification.

Um I'll get to some of the environmental ones later, but just wanted to bring that up now.

Okay, Alderman Smith Brown.

Yes, thank you.

The question that I had uh was why were we not looking to do all of the changes for every garage instead of just the concessionary agreement ones?

So the reason that I heard was that if we have if we re take the time later to rethink these and we say, oh no, we shouldn't have increased one and go back down.

If it's the any of the city garages that we can control, we can do that at our decision.

Whereas it's if it's the Hillman garage specifically, we need to get um Medco's agreement to it.

So it would not be as easy to go backwards later.

So okay, thank you.

Um Director Moore, now that we have the motion on tables, anything else you'd like to speak to on this the motion?

No, I think that's all less uh anyone has any other questions.

All right.

Uh all those in favor of the uh motion that Alderman Huntley made, please say aye.

Aye, aye, any opposed, motion carries.

Any other amendments to this fee resolution?

Are you are you asking to be acknowledged, Alderman Savage?

Uh uh yes, Mr.

Merritt.

Yeah, just the well the next one is L24 if I understand you correctly.

Uh no, I'm still on um still on uh L22.

Uh okay, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I didn't properly introduce L22, just getting into the rhythm.

So uh obviously we have L22 on the table.

I'm going to take it as a motion and uh second.

Do you want me to do that formally?

Or okay.

Um let me go backwards and put L22.

Can I have a motion to introduce L22 as an amendment?

So moved.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh Huntley, second.

Second.

Thank you.

And then we've just had discussion.

Sorry, I'll getting now than to the rhythm of things.

Um on L22 as amended.

Are we ready for a vote?

Okay.

All those in favor of L22 as amended, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

I'd like to abstain.

Okay.

And the motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

I'd like to ask for a motion for someone to introduce L24.

So moved.

Thank you, Alderman Thorpe.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh discussion.

Um before we get to discussion by council members, could we have an introduction by the administration on what L 24 does, please?

The this is the increase to the Truxton um boat launch fee.

Jackie is that one that you could speak to?

Jackie Gyle, deputy city manager.

Um the Truxton boat launch fee is from the Harbor Master's office.

Um, there were questions earlier about whether we could have different fees for county and um resident um outside the the city, people using it, and residential um city residents, and the answer is no, because it is a DNR funded grant.

Um so the boat launch fee that is being proposed is one fee for everybody.

Did you require other information on it?

I don't know the amount that we settled on.

The uh the amendment is an increase of 75 to 100 dollars.

Yeah, okay.

It hasn't changed then from what we proposed.

Thank you.

You don't mind just uh hanging uh staying there for to see what questions we have.

Yes, uh Alderman Thorpe.

Uh to clarify, that's the annual fee.

Is that correct?

Yes, for a pass for it.

Thank you.

Alderwoman O'Neill.

Um I have a question about it.

Um I was in a meeting yesterday uh with members of Wardor, and they said that if they pay the annual fee at Truxton, that also um works at Tucker Street.

I believe that's true, but I'll have to confirm that with the Harbormaster.

I don't I don't think they've separated it out.

Okay, yep.

Thank you.

Okay, looks like we're ready for a vote.

All those in favor of L 24, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Can I have uh someone move L25, please?

So move.

Thank you, Alderman O'Neill.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh discussion.

Uh this is the amendment to decrease the monthly winter fee for each 20 amp outlet.

And it's a budget correction to remove an unrequested increase.

So it's a decrease from 100 to 75.

Anything further from the administration?

Alderman uh Thorpe?

Can we clarify what that means?

A budget correction to remove an unrequested increase.

Uh senior budget analyst, that was a mistake on our part.

We're updating the correct um fee to be updated.

So originally we were supposed to update the annual pass, but we had updated another uh fee that was 75 dollars.

So right now we're just correcting it to be the correct fee.

So as you can see, we have one for the annual pass for $100, but on this sheet there was another one that I updated incorrectly, so I'm just correcting it to be the correct one.

Can you show us the other page where the correction is so we could just see visualize what you're saying?

Thank you.

There we go.

So I updated this one incorrectly.

So now I'm just correcting it to be back to the $75.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Any other discussion?

Anything else from the administration on this?

Okay, thank you.

Uh all those in favor of L25, please say aye.

Aye.

Any no's motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh can I have a motion to introduce L26, please?

So moved.

Thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh I have uh the description of this is adding two hundred and forty dollars per week fee for transient moorings numbered one through forty and forty dollars per day and two hundred and forty dollars per week for transient mooring numbered sixty-one to seventy-six.

Anything else from the administration to help us understand this?

But this is the um front field and on the harbor and um of moorings.

This is I don't see here the mooring ball actual increase yes I do it's it's in the first it's in the amount on the first far side it's actually an increase from the current it um fee is thirty five dollars a day for every use anyone who comes there has to pay 35 dollars even if they're only there for an hour on a mooring ball if you are to stay for an entire week then you get one day free so that was the old fee if it's increased to 40 dollars as the harbormaster has proposed then the weekly fee will be 240 dollars so we're asking for both the increase to four from 35 to 40 dollars a day on a mooring ball and for a week stay to 240 dollars.

Thank you and that's what we're looking at on the screen.

Great.

Any anything else from the administration okay any council members questions okay all those in favor of uh L26 please say aye aye aye any opposed motion carries thank you can I have a motion to introduce L27 thank you Alderman Huntley is there a second second thank you uh for discussion can we have uh administration present this is a uh regarding legal fees Turner or Mr Johnson do you have that screen pulled up maybe we can just see where this is in the fee schedule please so um capries on our budget analysts sorry the law review of um the fee schedule is updating anything that had passed in the legislation um just to make sure that it was updated so it it's the mall it's various multiple ones that was clean the um she actually just stepped out of the room um I can't remember we calling up Ashley for this mayor I might be able to help yes ultimate seven uh I can summarize some of the because I what I did is look at the proposed the original proposed fee schedule compared it to the one that was sent to us on Friday and took out the changes that were already covered in other amendments so I think this covers there are nine total changes that were otherwise um we hadn't talked about one is concessionary parking which we did mention in the first um which I think was already taken out with first amendment uh and then two is residential special parking permit which changes to section 12.20.230 uh third is the change to tour company license uh fourth is change to critical area fee in lieu cross references fifth is the maritime district uh fund fees six is towing schedule seventh is a sort of liquor license request fees eight is larkin lot daily max plus sunday free number nine is south street lot rate decrease uh I do have a question on a few of those if we could bring staff up at some point whatever so why don't we table this um uh our L27 until we have someone else from the administration who can speak to this?

I don't want to um move too fast on this.

So why don't we table L27?

And I'll ask to take up uh FC 10 next.

I have a motion to introduce FC 10, please.

Oh moved.

Thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Uh FC 10 is from finance committee and regards uh NPIA requests increases.

Who from okay?

Mr.

City Attorney.

Sure, thank you very much.

So the uh Maryland Public Information Act uh does allow um jurisdictions to charge for the review time that is spent in connection with uh reviewing and preparing a response to a PIA request, and currently the city has a fixed rate for that, but we are this amendment proposes to change that uh to reflect the individual salary times and rates uh for individuals who are involved in preparing a response to a PIA request, which is consistent with how other jurisdictions handle this.

And the hourly rate uh employee adjustment, is that going to be something that is from a practical uh standpoint you'll be able to manage?

Yes, we'll be able to calculate the hourly rates for instance of an attorney in our office that might be involved in a review based upon their annual salary.

You'll be able to publish those rates.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else from the administration?

Didn't think so.

Any council members?

Alderman Smith Brown.

So, what is the um how do we ensure that this isn't out of reach for the average person who's looking for uh this request?

Sure.

So one benefit uh of under the PIA is that the first two hours of review and preparation are free.

So if what you're seeking is a fairly straightforward set of documents, you'll have the benefit of the first two hours regardless of whether an attorney is involved or not.

If there's a much if it's a much bigger kind of um response, then you could end up incurring costs associated with it, but there's also the ability under the state law to request a fee waiver uh if that's in the public interest.

So there are options there.

Were the totals laid out on here for all of them?

I didn't how much, or anyway, you're able to flip to the page that these are on.

Please.

It's not because um it's not called out in the fee schedule, it's just listed, um, there's no amount in there because the wording of it is to charge the actual hourly hourly rate of the employee fulfilling the request.

Great.

It's it's it's at the bottom, just scroll down.

Finance director, you do want to be on the record?

I believe that the change is that 2.62150G where it says that the first two hours are free for inspection out on the copies, but uh the preparation fee increases from $30 an hour to $35 an hour.

Is that aligned with you, Mr.

City Attorney?

I believe that there's another uh section here that is affected that is specific to the 911 records and this would apply uh in general.

I'm not I'm not sure if you didn't get the answer that you're looking for, did you?

I didn't see it at all when I looked at this.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor, would it would it make sense in that black spot, a blank spot to literally state what the city attorney just said?

It might be a little long, but for those people reading this that to clearly state the first two hours are free.

Um the next hours are to the rate of the individual doing the uh request, and then I would even encourage us to say after that and waive uh fees are waivable, whatever the right terminology is.

Because I think this is where people will look.

And I think you gave a the city attorney gave a great explanation.

Um, and I would encourage us to fill that blank with with that information.

Because would it also be based off the if it's gonna be based off the employee?

Uh what if one day the employee that's making more money is the one doing it, and then the other day an employee that's making less is doing it.

That's why I'm sorry to cut you off.

Oh no, that's fine that's how I was gonna say.

I think the point that we should be codifying here is that the first two hours are free.

I don't see that, but maybe I'm not saying maybe it's there as saying it's free.

What's that?

It does say in the parentheses first two hours free for inspection only, not copies.

Uh that's the for records other than the 911 radio.

That's what Joel was uh getting at uh the the acting director finance.

Okay, and it's only a five dollar difference.

So I'm just saying what's Mr.

Sir D.

Attorney, is it the intention that the first two hours are free for either inspection or copies?

I believe that the there are potentially copy costs, but in many situations when people are making requests, the information is just provided electronically, and you don't necessarily uh end up having to incur a uh a copy cost in the traditional sense, but I believe that the two hours is really the time, the time spent on the request itself, and if somebody wanted, you know, if you fulfilled somebody's request, but then they wanted the city to make uh you know numerous copies of whatever it was on through through our printer system, we would probably charge for that.

Mr.

Attorney, do you mind if we uh ask please?

Mr.

Ms.

Ms.

City uh assistant city attorney.

Uh we're on uh R 1026 and talking about copying costs for MPIA uh requests and the language that's in the amendment is that the actual cost is going to be based on the hourly charge for based on who the person is that's recording it.

What I was going to say to Alderman Um Smith Brown who raised the question is I don't think we want to list those hourlies because it'll change.

So it should just say the hourly, but I think the point you're making is um Mr.

City Attorney said the first two hours are free, and you're trying to get clarification of what that means that the first two hours are free.

Is that where we're at?

Sure.

Uh and though the rate hourly rate may change, there's still it's still not consistent, um, because a person may think today I can pay a certain amount, then next week they'll pay something different if I if a different person is.

Which attorney we're talking about.

That's that's why I was asking if the hourly rates again I don't think should be in a code because it's gonna change.

People come and go in the office, different rates, but it should be something that can be posted depending on which individual is is handling response.

Absolutely.

And that was something that we thought maybe.

Maybe before they even get it, hey, these are the current rates.

Certainly when when people make requests, they can specify that you know you can say, please notify me before any costs are incurred, and it could be done as a part of that.

But I think Ms.

Berger has an additional point to raise.

Hi, Citizen City Attorney Carrie Burger.

Um, if you scroll down a little bit, some of your questions may be answered.

Um I can't remember, uh stop right there.

So if you look at 262 150 G, that one includes that first two free hours fee.

Or I'm sorry, two first two hours free.

And then it it says $35 per hour, but that should be the part that says the hourly rate of the employees, and it is not limited to the attorneys.

It's also gonna be police department employees, planning and zoning employees, other employees that are involved in the retrieval and preparation of MPIA requests.

So it's not limited to just the hourly rate of the attorney.

Let's say if we have a um over at the police department, we've got someone that is re reviewing a report for redaction purposes, it's gonna be that individual's hourly rate.

If it's body cam footage, it's gonna be sent out to a vendor, which is separate, so but my hourly rate for reviewing it for you know additional redaction purposes may be applied.

Um so that $35 per hour is what actually should be stating the hourly rate of the employee, but it does include that language in there that the first two hours are free.

So that we're that 35 hours.

Should we be amending that to rem strike $35 per hour and insert hourly rate of an employee?

Yes.

Okay.

Can I have a motion that does that, please?

Thank you, Alderman Thorpe.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on that point?

First with funding administration, make sure we got it right.

And then I would ask uh assistant attorney.

Alderman Smith Brown?

Thank you.

Um, so how do we then ensure that a person doesn't feel that they are unfairly being charged more for asking a certain week, but a following week another employee uh that may be available at that time and they their salary is less, they would be charged less that week.

How do we find a consistent?

I was talking about the consistency of it all.

So usually it's the same employees that are doing the same reviewing and working on it's not going to be spread out amongst various different employees.

For example, for the most part in our office, it's gonna be myself or Ashley Leonard.

The police department's gonna be records personnel.

So it's it's gonna be it's gonna be usually the same person, maybe persons, but they're gonna be sort of somewhat consistent in terms of um hourly rate when they're reviewing it.

It's not going to be a wide range of employees that are involved.

Okay, I think long term it may be helpful then uh to start coming up with numbers that could be per department uh so that we can you know average out the salary of the persons in the uh attorneys of the um uh maybe the finance departments or the police department, whatever that may be, uh if we can find like a nice range or rate so that we don't have to uh be confused as the person's requesting this information.

Maybe that later on down the line we look at that, but I do believe um with it not being stated that a constituent or a resident may uh wonder if they're being treated fairly.

Sure.

I think I mean one point to make is is that one of the benefits of instead of having a fixed amount is is that depending on who's involved with a request, it could actually end up being less on an hourly basis than the 30 or 35 dollars.

Another point to be made based on your comment, I think, is just that uh we will be calculating the hourly rates based on people's salary, so that that can be captured.

How we go about publishing that or making that available, I think that's something that we can work on as a part of an implementation of this.

Um, but certainly that's the intent and the intent would be to make sure that anybody making a request who's going to be facing um any kind of payment understands what it you know what it is that goes into that and has the opportunity to look at that as a part of their request process.

Oh, wonderful.

Okay, we could just try if we could just strive to find the least cost burden on a person requesting information.

That's what I'm uh looking for.

Yeah, I think we're always striving for that, and it just a lot of it depends on the scope of the request and how many people need to be involved in it.

But yeah.

Okay.

Uh any further discussion on the amendment?

Okay.

Again, the amendment is to strike the $35 per hour and insert hourly rate of employee.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Motion carries.

And I think that satisfies FC.

Um that's just the amendment.

Let me just now ask for a vote of FC 10 as amended, just in case it's not crystal clear.

Do you have a point or what's that?

I was going to move the amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Um, thank you, Alderman uh Smith Brown.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Uh all those all those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

FC 10 uh passes as amended.

Okay.

Um, as I said from the beginning, I want to try to keep us from uh being unhealthy.

So I'm gonna take a 10 a five minute break.

We're gonna resume at 11 o'clock sharp.

We're going to resume our council meeting on the house.

You said we're good, right?

We're going to resume our council meeting.

First, we're gonna back up to the uh L 27 that we tabled for more information.

And I thought we still had Kerry.

We lost Kerry again.

All right, we're gonna continue tabling L27 until we have somebody else.

Alright, so we're gonna now take up uh FC 13.

If I could have someone move to um bring FC thirteen to the table.

So moved.

Thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Is there a second?

So thank you.

Uh open to discussion.

Let's start with the administration.

Director Johnson.

Good morning.

For the record, Rosalind Johnson, Director of Recreation and Parks.

Um we were requested to uh increase our non-resident fees, and so what you see in front of you is the increase to non-resident fees.

Thank you.

Anything else from the administration?

Okay, council members?

Alderman Huntley.

Super briefly, just this was uh a wonderful situation where the finance committee was saying, boy, we wish we could do this.

We asked the director, how do we do this?

And she said, Oh, I've been wanting to do this for a long time.

So uh I think this is a real no-brainer.

Thank you.

Anyone else, any other council members?

Okay, all those in favor of FC 13, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

This is let me first get on the table.

Would anyone like to make a motion to introduce FC 14?

So move.

Thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Open to discussion.

First administration, please let us know what this is doing.

Alright, so um, Jackie Gyle, Deputy City Manager.

This is a recommendation by the Finance Committee to raise the mooring ball fee, daily fee from $30 to $45.

We previously discussed going to $40, but the finance committee uh recognizing that the fees had not been changed in 10 years, recommended they be changed to $45.

So in that case, the weekly fee would be $270 with this scenario.

So it would go from $30 to $45.

Um, I also want to uh clarify, I did speak with the Harbor Master, and she did trigger my memory that we had some discussion about Tucker and Truxton Street ramps being interchangeable.

They are not.

So that is the difference between the two, and the stickers that are given to the annual pass holders are not interchangeable.

We it's very um tough to park, especially with trailers on Tucker Street, and the community complains about it all the time.

So we prefer to send people to Truxton, especially that because we're going to start construction in July on Tucker Street.

It'll be very nice once completed.

Thank you for clarifying.

Alderman O'Neill.

Just a clarifying question.

So if I buy the hundred dollar truckston pass, it is not good for Tucker Street.

It is not.

But if I buy a non resident hundred dollar Tucker Street Pass, I can't use it at Truxton.

Correct.

The passes are particular to the boat ramp that you're purchasing them for.

Yeah.

Some people and some people like the truck, the Tucker Street ramp because if you're crabbing, you can get out to like exactly where you want to be really fast without going down spa creaking around.

So people some people like it, and others prefer the truckston ramp, especially with larger boats.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Hold on, Smith Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Is this reflected or is it not reflected in the fee schedule listing that we have correctly?

It should be correctly listed there.

Um, say fee schedule.

Page eight and nine.

Which where is it?

Page eight and nine.

Eight and nine, thanks.

Or yeah, page eight is where it starts.

That's uh title 15.

It's uh the Tucker Street parts on page nine itself.

Uh I think I think it might actually be page seven.

We're talking about the mooring field part.

Uh yep, you're right.

I'm looking at boat launches.

Sorry.

And trailer permits.

Not mooring, sorry.

Based on our budget analyst, I want to clarify that the R 1026 page that you're looking at is the proposed version that has uh the strikes and the red lining.

The amendments are not in the R 1026.

They are added after they have passed and they show up in the adopted version.

So you will not see the amended edits here.

You'll see them on the final FY2026 budget amendment on that R 1026 tab.

Yes, so the answer to the question is yes, these are reflected to the change that we already had to 40.

Um, that's was proposed earlier in 240 a week, but it does not reflect any amendments, which is the 45.

The new amendment which um proposes 45 and 270 is not reflected here.

This is from a previous suggestion of 40 and 240.

Okay, so what wouldn't you the I think it of going from the 40 to the 45?

Correct, and from 240 to 270 for the week.

What was the reasoning for that?

Um basically that um this came from the finance committee.

We talked about how long it had been since we um the city had increased fees.

It's been 10 years, and Annapolis, after looking at other um harpers up and down the east coast, was very cheap.

And uh for the uh what we're they're getting here for the mooring.

And uh so it was found that it would not be uh deterrent to boaters to moor on our moorings if we raised the fee to forty-five dollars.

The Harbor Master evaluated that and had no objections, uh Thor.

I'd like to revisit the hundred dollar fee per boat ramp and ask the question if it would be appropriate in this forum to change that.

I I don't understand why we're why if somebody wants to use both ramps, they have to pay another hundred dollars.

Um I get the parking part, um, but the the annual fee and I would defer to you whether this is a the appropriate time to talk about it, but I am struck with the two ramps, and if somebody wants to use both of them, why can't we one fee cover both of our ramps?

Do you want to speak to that?

This uh decision uh predates me, but we had um 75.

So if you're a resident, it's not a hundred dollars um for each.

It's 25 at Tucker, and it's 75 at Truxton.

So just keep that in mind.

It's a hundred dollars if you're a non-resident at both ramps.

And I understand, you know, it looks like you've pay already paid a hundred dollars, but it paid pretty much.

Um the idea was they are both pretty well, at least I have it written down how much you actually use them.

Truckston gets more activity.

Um every year, they have usually sell about a hundred and ten permits passes, and for Tucker Street, there's only about thirty.

But people know who have trailers that it's very hard to park on Tucker Street, that there's designated places at Truxton, so it's much more popular.

Um I guess that they you know, the Harbor Master always talks about the amenities at one versus the other.

Tucker Street is two concrete ramps, so two boats could go in at once.

It's very nicely set up with the pier and it's very wide.

At Tucker Street, this is the one that is going to be improved this summer.

Currently, it is not a concrete ramp, it's pretty torn up.

The pier is not in good shape, so it was felt that the amenities were not as good at one or the other, and um it was also trying to keep people from coming to one and the other, so they don't have an overload of boaters with trailers trying to get in at either Truxton or Tucker, where we get already a lot of residential complaints.

It was I had a confusion about this when I first started first started looking at it because it seems like if you've already paid for one, the higher one, the $75 one, you should be able to use Tucker, but that is not the way it has ever been before.

Could we amend that today to make it that way?

Do you have a recommendation on whether that should be changed?

Um, I would think that we might want to wait till next year on that, because right now Tucker Street is still not in good repair.

It will be closing down July 7th or 8th.

That's what we have scheduled, and then everyone's gonna have to go over to Truxton.

So they're encouraging right now, the Harbor Master is encouraging all voters to get a pass for Truxton because they won't be able to use Tucker for about a month or two at least.

There's going to be new ramps put in, concrete ramps.

Well, one actually there, and there will be a nice L-shaped floating dock there that's going to be a nice amenity as well.

Is it something that can be revisited mid-year?

If we leave the amendment alone now, can I ask you to come back with a recommendation and a um a revenue analysis and perhaps a um input from the MAB?

Yes, and it also would help if we could get some parking control at both locations, but especially at Tucker Street.

Some of the problem there why the Harbor Master likes to keep these two sets of boaters separate is because they're about at both places, but especially at Tucker, we have no visual camera surveillance there.

So there's a lot of people not even paying for um use of those ramps, especially on Tucker Street.

Harbor Master doesn't always have time to get in a car and drive down there and see if you have stickers on your car.

Um we would like to see, I think it's SP that is managing that area.

Um, then work with the city to have surveillance there.

They had said they would put in a reader for um for the boat ramps, and that hasn't happened yet.

Our department of public works has been trying to work with um, you know, SP Plus and has been very frustrated, can't get an answer from them.

Um Mr.

Moore may have director Moore may have some more answers to that, but that's something that would help quite a bit if we could have that surveillance there.

We'll see whether a council member makes a motion to do what Alderman Thorpe says.

But if we don't hear a motion to do that, my request will be for the administration to take the next two months to uh analyze that question and come back to us with a recommendation and uh the impacts of either making a change or not making that change.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Alder Woman O'Neill.

Thank you.

I can actually add to that that yes, there's been discussion about an LPR.

Um the LPR would not was not put in because we knew we were going under construction and it didn't make sense for the expense um and the labor involved in putting in the LPR only to tear it back out again while it was under construction.

And it would make more sense to do both ramps at the same time.

Yeah.

Alderman Thor, do you want to make that motion or ask for?

No, I'm I'm comfortable with your way forward.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on FC 14, the uh increase to the main mooring uh field DLE fee.

Any further discussion?

Okay, all those in favor of FC 14, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Um we're gonna go backwards and first just a question to uh Ms.

Turner on the just the record keeping that we're all on looking at.

You have for FC 10 as fail, I think that passed as amended, so we might need a different color, but that's if you want to speak to it, make sure we're all understanding the designation properly.

Sure.

Um, if the original amendment is amended, the original one will be marked as failed, and the amendment the amended one has an A next to it marked as pass right underneath of it.

Got it, got it.

Thank you.

I say that now.

Yep, thank you.

I didn't notice that at first.

Okay, appreciate the clarification.

All right, uh, let's take back L27, please.

This was the amendment uh for law review of fees.

It already had been moved and seconded.

We began discussion, so now we're ready to resume discussion.

And what's that?

And Ashley is here.

If you would please uh approach the podium and help us understand um what the updated fees are.

Miss Leonard, sorry, not Ashley, Miss Leonard.

It works.

Um Ashley Leonard, Assistant City Attorney.

Um, so a lot of these were just um as we were going through the fee schedule, is that legislation that passed and it should have had fees attached to it, but the fees were never implemented.

So that was a bunch of them.

Um we just found ones where like the legislation went through, it called for city council to set a fee, and then no fee ever made into the fee schedule.

Um the liquor board, that called beverage alcoholic beverage control board fees, um, are some new fees to bring us to alignment with I don't know if those are up there yet.

Um so those yes, and then some of these are just um updates from the department.

So like the ones you're looking at for right now for the annual pass and the Tucker Street annual pass were just if updates um from the Harbor's Ambassador's office to bring us into alignment with what they thought would be prudent um operationally.

Um I don't know if there's any others we want to scan down.

Um the alcoholic beverage board, um, they brought in um we adapted we're adopting some new fees that are similar to what Anna Wondo County charges for for various services to just um reflect staff time and cost to process different microboard licenses.

Um so a lot of it is just was just a cleanup to be to be honest on things that just hadn't been reflected over the past year or two.

Thank you.

Um Alderman Smith Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Uh how do we know which ones there were needing cleaning up?

I because they're all here laid out, and you just have to do that.

I believe there were red lines.

So there was red line.

They re showed red lines.

Um, so for instance, the trash ones were um updates from public works.

Um, but yes, all of the all of the changes would have a red line through them, and the Office of Law has either initiated them or been involved in reviewing them for when the department's updated.

Okay, so all of the ones that are crossed out are the only ones that the law office updated from the past year or two.

Yeah, well, those are the ones we've been working on, yes, for this year.

Alderman Smith Brown, I think for clarification, it's all everything that's in red that isn't addressed by another amendment is how I heard how I processed.

We yeah, we were trying to because there was sorry, Mayor.

Um, we were trying to sort of consolidate them all into one document versus doing individual resolutions for each one just because we noticed that quite a few of them needed updates.

So there would have been a lot of extra resolutions for you guys.

Alderman Smith Brown, did you are you finished?

Um it's it's just not as clear as it could be.

Uh, but that's all right.

Uh if that's what we're working with right now, we appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, Ultimate Savage.

Ms.

Burgundy, were you looking to add something?

Yeah, I was just gonna provide examples for for Alderman Smith Brown.

Um, if you look at 7.50, I think the tour operator license, that's an example of one that was found um having a statute that authorizes the schedule or the a fee, but there wasn't anything in the fee schedule.

Uh similar examples are to at the very bottom of this document.

There's uh towing storage fees and also the liquor license fees that Ms.

Leonard referred to, those are examples of it as well.

So I also maritime industry that the fund was that one of them as well.

So this was that was created and it was supposed to have three fees, and only one of the three fees made it into the fee schedule.

Okay, is it the dark red then?

It's the dark.

That's what I think.

Darker red seem to be the ones that correspond to.

I believe that's it's not entirely, but I think for the most part it is.

Thank you.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

A few things.

Uh first of all, just on the process, I wanna um point out from a colleagues that uh the position we funded last budget, uh, for those of you who were returning, may remember, was the implementation policy legislative position I forget the exact title now, but it's basically look at an implementation, track legislation, make sure things like this don't fall through the gaps.

Um, make sure the associated rules and regs are created from our legislation.

So I'm hopeful that that position will help prevent us having to do this next year as far as the legal review.

Um I mean, I do I do thank the law office for for doing this.

I'm glad we're caught up.

Um I wish we had more time, but I I think we're managing to get through it fairly smoothly here.

The one item I do wanna I do wanna make a motion to remove in a second would be uh the changes to the critical area.

It basically is creates four four new uh fee and lose, and I know they're in the code currently, but I'd like to add those similar to the other one um in a few weeks, uh a few months.

Um because I want to just bring it to committee and dig into this a little more because I want to make sure we actually have the cited funds set up in the financial system and in the code uh and to see if we have flexibility as far as where that money goes as far as can we put it into one critical area fund, or does it have to be set up into the separate ones?

Uh my understanding is there's no rush on getting this because it's been in the code like this for a while.

So I would just ask so I would like to make that motion to pull the changes to 21.54.106, 150, 160, and 170 from this proposed fee schedule.

Sorry, are you making a motion?

Yes.

Okay, can you say that the motion again, please?

I'd like to move to remove the changes to 21.54, uh.

one si 106, 150, 160, and 170.

That are shown in the proposed amendment.

Okay, is there a second to the motion?

Second.

Okay, okay.

Any uh before we get to council discussion, do we have any one from the administration that can speak to this the impact?

Um planning and zoning.

Um I really have no comments on this particular change.

No.

So the discussion would take place in the context of uh regulation change.

It's perfectly acceptable to us.

I mean, uh all the fees that relate to trees in the critical area are going to be subject to this draft legislation that the Alderman has sponsored.

So considering them as part of that ordinance change makes sense to us.

Thank you.

Uh any further discussion from the council on this is specific to the motion.

Okay.

All those in favor of Alderman Savage's motion to strike the changes to 21.54106 through 107.

Say aye.

170.

What's that through 170?

Through 170.

Thank you for the correction to 170.

I.

Aye.

Anyone?

Any all those in favor of Alderman Savage's motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any objections?

Okay.

Any further discussion of the underlying amendment?

This is L27 now A.

Alderman Thor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I'd like to go back to 2164.

And ask the Office of Law just to confirm that this documents what is already been approved, or does this represent a this fee represent a change?

Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney.

So this is just brand new.

There was there was no fee in here at all for this section.

So this is a brand new, I don't believe it's ever been collected.

I don't believe it's been implemented as of yet.

But the legislation passed, I think a couple years ago.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, I would propose we strike the amount and address it separately in the future with some research as to is one dollar the right amount so we don't find ourselves trying to change it based on something that's been approved without council discussion.

So is that your motion?

Yes.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you for discussion.

Um first half of the administration address.

Do we have anyone from the administration that is prepared to speak to the motion?

Point of order while we wait.

Could we just could you reiterate I didn't hear the whole motion?

So my motion is to remove the fee, because the fee has not been discussed by the city council with the pros and cons.

Is one dollar the right?

Is fifty cents a right?

Is five dollars right?

And so for now I think we should strike it and address it separately.

It hasn't been uh approved before.

So this would be setting a basis.

So my motion is to remove the fee for for a later discussion and setting the fee.

Is that to be recognized for discussion?

We have the motion.

The motion's been made and seconded.

We're open to discussion now.

I was waiting for the administration to speak to it, but in the meantime, if you'd like to be recognized.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's kind of another point of order.

I think this probably was passed with the big maritime changes we made like uh three, four years ago, I forget how long ago.

I'm assuming, but we should try to get that clarified.

Anyone, so Miss Reuter was just writing me that she believes planning and zoning has in the past used this one dollar per square foot, which is where we it wasn't pulled out of completely thin air, but I don't have um full background on where the one dollar came from.

Other than we do believe planning and zoning um provided some input and possibly was using this number as part of its operation.

Would tabling this for later in the day be helpful, or is this something that you would support removing altogether and revisiting in new legislation?

Ms.

I'm not sure I have any a legal opinion one way or the other, other than we do need to act on it because otherwise it is a gap in the city code.

Um, but I'm not sure I can get a definitive answer on where the one dollar came from by this afternoon.

I'm welcome.

I can try.

If if you would like me to pursue that, I can attempt that.

Why don't we table it and see where we are later later this afternoon then?

Uh sorry.

Um City Manager Lewis.

Um City Manager Lewis, I I Mr.

Mayor, if it's okay, if we have to have an answer today, we can work on that, but I would ask that we table it to make sure that we're able to sufficiently give you the right level of information before you all vote.

So taking from that, I'm hearing the guidance of um uh vote in favor of Alderman Thorpe's uh amendment to remove this, and we could pick it up at a later date when we could be more thoughtful about it.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Chandelmeyer.

I apologize, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh Deja called me during much of the debate on this, but are we still discussing the maritime fees?

We are um or discussing tabling this.

The motion on the table is to remove the what you see in red 21.64.52.

For my clarification, this is to do funding for the current economic development programs that we have, like the maritime apprenticeship fund, right?

Yes, I'm that is my understanding.

So um this helps fund the most innovative economic development and job training program in the state.

Removing this would be a mistake.

This is again.

Yeah.

Alderman Thorpe, then and then Miss Buckland.

So for clarification, I fully support the fee.

Totally support the fee.

It's determining what the amount is.

And to Alderman Chandelmeyer's point, I think if we defer this, which I support, we should expeditiously have the discussion and set the fee in the very near future.

So I did some some quick looking because that one dollar per square foot um rang a bell.

So if you look at R 5422, this was the original um non-maritime use, and I think that's what that dollar um I think that's where that came from, is to keep that consistent.

I think that in terms of tabling it and having it associated with this particular item, we can come back to, but that's where it comes from is from that resolution.

Alderman Thorpe.

Thank you.

And I I think we should we should uh delay and have that discussion.

Oh, you want the you the council to vote in favor of your motion to uh remove those lines?

Any further discussion?

Alderman Smith Brown, then Alderman Huntley.

Do you mind again naming that resolution?

It's R 5422 and in the whereas clauses talks about for the purposes of supporting the Annapolis maritime industry fund and associated programs, and it does call out the one dollar per square foot per year.

Alderman Huntley.

It just seems to me that it's better to set a fee for this.

If we all agree the fee shouldn't be zero, having something on the books, like everybody here says it shouldn't be zero, right?

So the next thing is all right, let's have it be one.

And if we want to change it later, we can always go back and change it later.

But let's not make it zero by taking it out.

So let's leave it at one.

I say vote against this amendment.

Uh Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm gonna piggyback off of what Alderman Huntley said.

I think keeping a set amount in for right now, one gets funding for this program, and then two sets up a very stable amount that the current businesses and retail uh non-maritime retail spaces in these establishments can use for stability, and if we need to update that later, we can do a very public process and update that to get more funding for this program.

But removing this fee now I think sets a sets up an amount of instability for both funding for this program and for these businesses going.

You don't have a fee for now, but a fee's come and we don't know what it's gonna be that we do not want to set up.

Else Alderman Smith Brown.

Thank you.

There may be a little confusion here uh because uh from what I heard Alderman Thorpe say, if I may, uh, is he believes, and as we all seem to be in agreement with that there should be some fee associated, though, to make sure we're getting the most out of this fee.

Let's wait until later today, which was also um, you know, supported by our uh council over here, and so it's not removing to not have at the end of today, it's to remove, get more information, update accordingly, and then pass a fee that makes the most sense.

So I think if is that correct, if I may.

Uh Alderman Thorpe and Alderman Huntley.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I think the difference between zero and one is minimal.

I don't know that it should be ten.

So this is not something I'm gonna lie in front of a railroad uh to make it zero rather than one.

I think if we could get a commitment uh from the city to address this quickly because this does have significant implications for the maritime zones.

So will I I totally agree with Alderman Chandelmeyer's point about stability for the fund?

Um we need to get there, absolutely.

I agree with uh Alderman Huntley that uh there's not a difference between zero and one.

So if it for the for the expeditious one, we go with one, as long as we get a commitment from the mayor to to address this correct quickly, and that the city council doesn't end up in a debate.

Well, no, it's one and we're stuck at one, um, that we all remember that this was based on a let's just move this forward uh for expeditious point.

Before I go uh to the council members to my right, just want to confirm what I think I heard.

I just want to make sure I heard it accurately.

One dollar has been used, we just haven't had it codified in this way.

Is that right?

So keeping it at one dollars is consistent with what practice has been.

It's it's currently codified in forty in twenty-one dot forty six uh ten.

Yeah.

Um, if it's currently codified there, why does it need to be codified here?

I the um so there's three different parts of the code.

It's the 2146 and then the 2164s.

There's two and 2164 that were all part of the same original ordinance that set this up, and then they only set the fee for 2146, and they never set the fees for 2164.

And it's 46 listed here if we scroll up or 21.46, or is it not?

It is.

Got it.

Yes, it it was right there.

Yeah, right there.

Okay, and that the rest of it's on the next page.

If you want to scroll down just a little bit the the link, no, so you can see both the bottom of the previous page and the top of that one.

Oh, never mind.

Sorry.

Uh Alderman Thorpe, then let me come to you too.

Mr.

Mayor, I I think part of this issue, and I'm I'm going on a ledge here a little bit, is a bigger problem than the dollar.

It's the reporting from the the landlords on how much non-maritime they have, it's the process of collecting it, which is why I was seeking a larger discussion.

Having said that, in order to move this forward and with your head nod that you will look into this, I withdraw my amendment.

Very good.

Okay.

Um, so let's add this to the list of follow-up from the administration.

Uh let's uh go with the presumption that two months is enough time to come back, so the week of July first.

Uh, if we could have some feedback to the council on the background for this and determining whether one dollar should be the go forward number if we should adjust it.

Um, with that motion withdrawn, did you still have comments?

What's that?

There is not just withdrawing.

We need to vote it down or make a second amendment.

To withdraw it.

So do you want to make a motion to withdraw?

I'll say no.

So as it stands now, the change is to make the is to make it a dollar.

My amendment was to delete it.

Right.

And so I make a motion to withdraw the motion that I propose.

Yes, is there a second?

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of that motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Smith Brown.

Yes, um, thank you all for the work on this.

I think it'd be extremely helpful for everyone as we move forward.

When there is legislation that has been passed in years prior to the current administration uh and it's being updated on any type of fee schedule, this may not happen in next year's budget.

Uh, it would be great to get some rationale or some background information included in that.

Agreed.

Thank you.

Okay.

I uh let's check in with where we are.

We are on uh FC 14.

No, sorry, FC, yes, FC 14.

Um Alderman Thorpe.

If I could just pile on, let me just get cleared on where we're at.

Thank you for the reminder.

Ls we're on LC27 or L.

L27, no C L27, um, with amendments to that.

And Alderman Thorpe, I think you were starting to make a motion.

If I could pile on to Alderman Smith Brown's point, I think this goes to the importance of the staff reports.

That's where it starts, is recognizing in the staff report what the legislation changes and if there's a fee change that it should be clearly documented there so that I presume the office of law makes sure that everything stays updated, and I think it it literally goes all the way back to your initiative to make sure the staff reports are comprehensive so we we can the follow-on actions are completed.

Very good.

Okay, any further amendments to L27?

See none, I'll uh ask for a vote now on L27 as amended.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Now scrolling down, I believe we're on FC 16.

Would someone like to make a motion to introduce FC 16?

Thank you, Alderman.

Huntley, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Start with discussion from the administration.

This is re increasing short-term registration fees.

Anyone either from finance or from uh Director Dukubiak?

This uh fee would um uh assess non-owner-operated short-term rentals a fee of 100 more than the fee associated with owner occupied, and uh it reflects the added cost associated with determining and finding factually that uh the property owner is in fact not a property owner or non non uh uh non-owner-occupied unit.

So are you supportive of the amendment?

Yeah, it makes sense to us.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Huntley.

Yeah, thank you.

So this is kind of encompassing of two things that the finance committee wanted to do.

Uh and we didn't in our report put specific dollar figures behind them.

But similar to Rack and Parks, we wanted to bifurcate the fees based on whether they were sort of a resident or a non-resident.

But since for short-term rentals, we already use this distinction of non-owner-occupied versus owner-occupied.

We felt that was close enough to resident non-resident, and and also was more legally justifiable as the director explained.

So that's thing one was just sort of splitting them uh by that.

The other thing was that we wanted to make sure that the fees were truly encompassing of all of the cost, and what we found was that if you really looked at all the costs, it it actually looked more like 700 than six hundred and fifty dollars, and so uh if you can almost think of this as two steps.

Step one is raising it to seven hundred dollars on average, and then step two is splitting it in half for six fifty for owner occupied and seven fifty for non-owner occupied.

But the actual effect is that it is only raising it for non-owner occupied and making that distinction.

So thank you for the explanation.

Uh Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Uh, I'm supportive of this amendment.

I just have a technical question.

Uh so presumably the first, so that's six hundred fifty dollars is the change to.

I mean, I guess I just I don't see the distinction between owner occupied and non-on-occupied.

I thought the intention was to have a different fee.

Is the 650 for non-owner-occupied, but the 125 going to be for the owner occupied?

Because that's not listed in there.

I'm a little confused.

Or of a finance question, I think.

It doesn't, Darren Johnson, it doesn't currently break it out.

So part of what we're doing is we're gonna add the $750 for known on a known non-owner occupied.

So the $650 right now was just a short-term rental fee in general.

So they wanted to add another fee finance committee, wanted to add another fee to break it out separately.

It has it to Alderman Savage's point.

Shouldn't we have it just listed there in that box where the 650 is?

That goes back to what Capri was stating earlier.

Was originally the 650 was proposed by uh director to Chris Chris Director?

Director to be the director of planning and zoning, um, proposed to change it from 400 to 650 dollars.

And then after we propose this, there was an amendment put in to add the 750.

So that won't show until after this amendment gets passed, then we'll update it to reflect the 650 in the 750.

Well, so well, a couple things on that.

But first of all, to the director, I want to be clear was your was your intention to propose to increase the owner occupied or non-owner occupied up to 650.

Um my intention was not to make a distinction between the two.

Okay, okay, so you just wanted to increase for all short-term rentals up to 650.

Right.

Okay.

So in finance, your recommendation was to bump uh non-owner-occupied up to 750, but to keep 650 as the base for that.

Yeah, okay.

So if that's the case and what I'm hearing from finance, we still need a motion to reflect that in here, like that.

Because otherwise it's gonna show as it is in red.

No.

Well, nobody's okay.

So the amendment is this amendment does that.

The amendment says that okay.

Okay.

All right, so I guess we're all good then.

I mean, certainly verbally, we all are on the same page that we all um heard what uh Mr.

Johnson and Ms.

Turner said.

Okay, any other discussion?

Uh Alderman Shandemeyer.

Thanks, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh, this is a question for Director Kubiak.

Um, you said the justification for the increase in fees, it goes into some of the work that we use to verify residency and owner occupancy.

Um, can you briefly go into some of the work that we go and st that is used to verify that?

Like some of the staff times that's used to verify that.

It's typically uh our um administrative assistants who have to request proof that the um applicant is not owner occupied, uh, and coordination with the um chief of code enforcement to verify that uh sometimes it requires uh reviewing paperwork, the reviewing this uh state department of taxation records uh and um uh generally steps like that.

So it's and it's it's staff time essentially.

So it's staff going through actual documentation and process, tax records, property records, right?

So okay, thank you.

Alderman Huntley, then Alderman Savage.

Just super briefly, I want to remind everybody that this does not apply to commissioning week or vote shows, right?

So if you're worried, oh my god, my you know, constituent does this and it's it's gonna be a big hardship.

No, it's not for those three weeks.

Thank you.

Alderman uh Savage, then Alderman Smith Brown.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, just the more I think about this.

Um I'm a little concerned.

I I agree with this 750 for non-owner-occupied, but I'm a little concerned about having six fifty as owner occupied because again, the intention with owner occupied is somebody could be renting out a spare room for not a lot of money.

This $650 is kind of a lot of money.

Um, especially when you compare how much somebody's bringing in for a whole home rental, which is non-owner occupied compared to how much how little comparatively somebody's bringing in.

So I think the fees should be proportional based on how much they're bringing in.

So in this case, I guess I would make a motion to to keep for not for owner occupied keep that at 400.

I just think that's a bit more appropriate, but increase it for non-owner occupied still.

Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion on that amendment amendment, Alderman Shandemeyer?

Uh you had your hand.

Did you want to speak to that motion?

Yes, Alder Woman O'Neil.

Um I would counter with when we set fees, it is supposed to cover staff time, and it's not necessarily what somebody is charging for their rental unit, but it's the staff time involved in creating the license, researching the license, and all of that.

And um Director Jacobiak came back with uh calculations that it was closer to $700 than $400, which is why we wanted to increase it in the first place.

So I would counter that the fee is really to cover our staff time, not necessarily somebody that's renting out our room.

Alderman Shenmeyer.

Um I was going to say something similar to what Alderman Alder Woman O'Neil just brought up, along with getting staff into the fine details of what are you charging, how often is your room rented.

I think the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this case.

Um I'm sympathetic to some of the smaller owner occupants, owner-occupied renting ones, but we do have to draw the line somewhere, and I think this is but taking Holland Smith Brown than Alderman Huntley.

Um so was this uh analyzation part of the time saved from the moratorium uh legislation, or has this been in the works for some time?

Where did this uh come from?

Uh and do you feel like this will be one step in the direction of us coming out of this moratorium?

Well, we generally like to set fees at the at the to reflect the actual costs involved in the staff time, and that's what we did, and that's what we were why we arrived at uh 650.

Um, as the Alderwood mentioned, we actually came up a little bit higher than 650, but set it at 650 as a recommendation.

Um the second part of your question was it was just is this a step?

I I think the answer is quite clear, but just to be on the record, this is a step in the in the positive direction as we come off of this moratorium within the next year.

Well, um uh we'll see.

We still have some work to do on the moratorium and uh see what changes are necessary to um address the short-term rental issues that have been brought to the fore.

Uh it may be that the fee ultimately has to be higher because we're delivering a higher level of service for short-term rentals, or maybe it's lower because we're uh taking a different approach.

We don't know now, but this is uh reflective of our cost today on short-term rentals.

Of course, of course, the cost is not just licensing, it's um inspections.

Uh it's tracking down the the enforcement, it's really quite extensive and involves about seven different staff members in our office.

How often is this fee paid?

Once a year.

Annually, thank you.

Huntley.

Alderman Savage, I really do agree with your intention, and I'd like to get us to having a bigger split between these for all the reasons you mentioned, but I feel like right now uh just separating them out is is a good first step.

Alderman, so I have received uh several correspondence from short-term rental owners.

Uh very significant uh very strongly recommending we not raise the the rates for short-term rentals, and I I would associate myself with Alderwoman O'Neill very clearly that this is to cover the cost.

And another way to look at it is if you don't have a short-term rental, you should not be paying for the cost of this program.

So the numbers have been presented.

Um, and I think uh I'm not sure how we could not support the numbers that have been presented by the director of planning and zoning further discussion i too agree with the sentiments expressed by alderwoman o'Neal and so I think we're ready for a vote this is on alderman savage's amendment um motion uh all those in favor of Alderman Savage's motion to reduce the increase say aye all those opposed say no no the motion fails okay back to the underlying FC 16 now uh back FC 16 from finance committee on increasing short term rentals any further discussion okay I think we're ready to take a vote again um a motion in favor uh approves the increase to 650 for owner occupied and to 750 for non owner non-owner occupied all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed say no okay that motion carries I believe we are done with R 1026 looking around the room just to see if anyone catches anything I missed.

All right I'm not seeing any motion so what's going to happen next and then we'll be repeated for each legislation I'm going to ask for a motion to amend R 1026 on second reader assuming I get a set um someone to move then I'll ask for a second and I'll ask for everyone to say aye and then at that point I will move to postpone for further action on R 1016 to uh Monday June 8th all good Ms.

Clerk okay everyone aligned okay uh may I have a motion to amend R 1026 on second reader oops okay is there something I much heard over there.

Uh Alderman Thorpe thank you is there a second second okay all those in favor say aye aye any opposed the motion carries we will now postpone for further action on R 1025 until the regular meeting scheduled for Monday June 28th R 1026 June June 8th R 1026 what's that you're talking about R 1026 R 1026 that's the uh resolution we've been discussing up till now I just think it should because it's okay yeah but I'm not gonna okay R 1025 26 no 26 it's in my notes wrong that's why sorry it's in my uh it's R 1026 getting postponed to June 8th 2026.

Ignore all my previous speaking all right um again the uh Alderman Savage I just had a a procedural concern to raise at some point go ahead not on this particular but just so I want to bring this up early while we still have full day ahead of us and I want to be careful here um I I do so I think our directors have certainly done their job they've presented to finance committee answered all of our questions uh attended the work sessions that is the venue and the process designed for their input and deliberately so uh but I do want to say like asking directors on the floor whether they object or support a council amendment uh is not a neutral act and risks politicizing their positions under our rules the floor belongs to members of the body non-members speak only by leave of the council and the chair and debate is confined to the question before us which is whether the council this council objects or adopts the amendment not whether the administration or particular the staff prefers a different outcome uh so if a director has genuine new information factual information we haven't heard uh I always want to hear that and I think we always should but short of that I just want to ask that we keep the question keep to the question before us and not put the question before staff because this is ultimately our vote.

Okay the next order on the agenda is R1126 before we do that like I said at the beginning of the meeting we're gonna take another uh quick break and resume at 12 o'clock on exactly.

Hey Frank.

Okay, we're back on the record, resuming our council meeting, now getting ready to introduce R eleven.

All right, Mr.

City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is resolution R eleven twenty-six FY twenty twenty-seven fine schedule.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to adopt R eleven twenty-six on second reader?

Thank you, Alderman Shademeyer.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Uh we now have the before us proposed amendments to R eleven twenty six, and now that we're experts at the process, we will go through.

I'm going to skip uh I think we have a total of nineteen if I'm counting right.

Uh we're gonna skip L twenty eight for a moment while we're waiting for different personnel in the room.

And so we'll start with uh FC fifteen.

I'll ask for a motion to introduce FC fifteen, please.

Moved.

Thank you, Alderman Chandelmeyer.

Uh is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um here we have an uh a uh amendment from the finance committee, so I'll turn it over to the chair to introduce the basis for it.

We're on FC 15.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, so one of the recommendations of the finance committee was to increase the unlicensed short-term rental fine.

Uh this really does two things.

It sets it at five hundred dollars per night, which I believe is an increase from the current.

But maybe more importantly, what we've what we know is that plenty of people are renting these out for more than five hundred dollars a night.

So we tried to set a minimum fine.

We went back and forth a little while on exactly how to do that.

Um but what we ended up coming up with was this idea of twice the highest advertised nightly rate.

And um so the bottom line here is what we're trying to do is make it so that it is not profitable to run a short-term rental unlicensed.

So there's no scenario which it can be better off for you to not get a license and take the fine.

That's what we're trying to do here.

Um and in conversations with planning and zoning staff, they felt like this language was something that they could implement.

So that's what we've got.

Thank you.

Um Director Jacobia, can you um come to the podium please and ask answer the question?

My question of how would this work on a practical basis?

Do you have the um uh staffing necessary and the time resources to implement what has been suggested?

I honestly don't know.

Um and I don't know what staff person the the council talk with, but um I I could quickly bring that person over to to brief the the council if it's necessary.

Seems complicated to me.

Okay.

Um do you have a um suggestion on how we could adjust the fines to address Alderman Huntley's point that we want to make sure it's not profitable for someone to choose the path of being on license?

I uh when it comes to fines.

I um I really don't want to sub substitute my judgment for yours, and to I I can't offer any clear guidance on that particular question.

Okay, I just can't.

No way.

Thank you.

Discussion by council, Alder Woman O'Neil.

Um just because I don't have it in front of me.

What is the current fine for unlicense?

200.

Is that correct?

Is that 2000?

It is 200, yes.

Per day.

Um per day per violation, yeah.

Per violation.

So if somebody is in violation, um, like I sent you one this weekend.

Um they got a fine for 200.

Um, is that a fine for 200 for every day that somebody is in the house, or is that until they pay that fine?

Okay.

It's uh 200 per violation.

Um, our staff would have to go out and to um validate the violation each time to be able to assess the 200.

So that's a practical matter, it's something that we typically don't do, but that's what we'd have to do in order to uh establish the violation.

Um, so uh every day that a unit is licensed or is uh occupied this in a way that's violating the short-term rental code would be a fine for 200.

So, thank you.

Um, I would venture to say that um in agreement with the director, it would be really hard for us to determine, for instance, if they gave a violation to the uh property that was in violation this past weekend.

Um this past weekend, they offered it at a discount.

Um it would be very hard for us to find out what the highest advertised nightly rate is because we never know what the person renting the space has actually paid versus what was on listed for that particular date.

I mean they have dynamic pricing, they have they might have given somebody a discount.

Um I would actually suggest that we amend this amendment to just give a base fee if we're more than doubling the current base fee fine.

Sorry, um is the direction that I would move.

Um Alderman Smith Brown.

Sure, thank you, Mayor.

Uh is there a couple questions.

The first one was uh we heard per day per violation.

Is there a difference in laying that out in this uh here for the fine schedule?

Having it per day versus per violation, like would is there a difference in the two that you're trying to identify, or what is they I can't see that clearly, but that looks like the fine schedule up there on the screen.

Um can we go to that section and see how it's worded?

Mr.

Kuba Gek, I think the city attorney could speak to that that language is more of a legal nature.

Sure.

So oftentimes with any kind of planning and zoning code violation, you could have an individual instance of a violation occurring, and so for instance, you have a base violation or fine for the STR was rented one night without a license, but then there is also a theory of continuing violations where if you continue to do that each night that you do it or each day that you continue to do it without the license, that would be that fine each and every day, and that's what we would presumably pursue a continuing type violation.

Um it is per date, and we don't need to update it to the violation or anything like that.

Okay, and to the point that was the other part that I had there uh was so usually the current cost of the STR, what the the um the rental is listed with a discounted rate next to it of some sorts.

So if we did need to identify what the original amount was, um according to this twice the high highest advertised nightly rate, uh we may be able to find that, but to the uh support of the the department, we do want to make sure that they're not having to spend extra staff time trying to determine or figure out what that amount is.

Um Alderman Huntley, let me take a few other questions before I come back to you, Alderman Chandelmeyer.

So in about two minutes, I went to Airbnb, searched for what's open from June 1st to June 6th, and went to the most expensive option and I found it in about two minutes.

Like I understand wanting to find.

But is it not that simple or am I just dramatically oversimplifying this process, which I fully admit I could be?

Alderman Chandelmeyer, I I want to take a stab at answering from my perspective and certainly invite um Director Jacobiac.

But I could imagine what you said if you're trying to research renting a a room, but if you're trying to administer and defend a citation, Airbnb isn't the only authority.

So now do you how many sites do you need to go to?

How many different sources?

How do you document that?

How do you capture that?

And then do it in a way that a court would uh accept if ultimately this is leading to a citation that you need to defend.

And so that that's my concern that it does get a lot more complicated.

Um, so we'd have to juggle multiple different platforms, multiple different potential for hosting opportunities.

That's that's my fear.

And then again, the documentation is very important because it's not just for your decision on where to rent that weekend, it's you've got to document it in a way that you can capture it for eventual um to demonstrate evidence to a judge.

Thank you.

I was unaware of the scrutiny of that process, so thank you for clarifying that for me.

Thank you, Director Jacobiak.

And thank you.

I read this um amendment to be applicable to the highest advertised rate for that particular short-term rental, which struck me as maybe difficult, requiring us to go back and find out what their rent was or compute an average or uh and then look at various platforms as the mayor said to come up with, you know, they might be competing rents.

I I don't know if they're advertised differently, but but it requires some type of research for us.

Um City Attorney.

Uh one other comment for consideration here is that um these numbers um being somewhat open-ended uh could end up being quite a large number depending on how this is calculated.

I appreciate that that is maybe the intent, but the uh Maryland code local government article 6102 does limit the assessment of a fine uh for a municipal infraction to five thousand dollars.

So I think this would need to be capped out capped out accordingly.

Um before I go to you, I just want to see if there's anyone else.

Uh and share my thoughts.

Uh I appreciate the sentiment, and if there was a way to neatly uh do what you're suggesting, I would be in favor of it.

I'm open to something higher than $500 if you think it's be necessary, but I just don't like I fear the burden that we're putting on planning on zoning to having something open-ended, if you'd like to address that in your comments.

Um Alderman Chandelmeyer, do you want to say anything before we go back to Alderman Huntley?

Uh yeah, for clarification question on the city attorney.

So we're allowed to do up to five thousand dollars on any municipal infraction by state law.

That's correct.

Why don't you do five grand?

Alderman Huntley.

Maybe.

So, first of all, I think I owe the director an apology.

It was not my intent to put words in your mouth.

Uh, if I misremembered that conversation or had it with somebody else.

Very sorry about that.

Uh I would hate to say you support something when you don't.

So, and I think I did that, so apologies.

Uh here's how I understood this to work.

What I understood is when we go to issue a uh a fine for this, just as the department already does say it would use the host compliance software that we have to check on these and see how many days it's been advertised for.

You get a you get a readout of the of all the different listings, and whichever one of those is highest, you could you could use as the five.

It's not necessarily you have to look at every single one.

At one point we discussed the idea of it being an average.

We said no, that wouldn't make sense because then you'd have to look at every single one.

We discussed writing it as the most that somebody pays, and we said no, that wouldn't work because then you'd have to go back and look into what did someone actually pay.

But my sense is uh you really can see on the software that we already have, a set of listings that display the price, and we would simply pick whichever one of those is highest within the given month, and that would uh twice that would be the fine.

So uh I hear the concerns, but it seems to me like it would be relatively straightforward to administer that uh based on how we envisioned it.

I wonder if part of my concern is highest indicates that they've exhausted all possible listings, and they think they find something that's a thousand dollars and they see some the defense is no way.

We actually listed it for twelve hundred and it fails.

So I wonder if it could be a higher rate as opposed to highest as a way of allowing, hey, they found it was listed for $1,500 a night, just print that screenshot, and they don't have to worry about exhausting all possible other listings.

Yeah, that would be certainly in line with my intent.

Aren't you city attorney?

Would that something language along those lines be possible, or is that problematic from your standpoint?

I think so long as ultimately it's subject to this cap that I mentioned.

So you can have the base language, but then it would be not to exceed.

Um Alderman Thor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I I think this goes to what I may end up saying a whole lot today, the KISS principle, keep it simple, sailor, in that we I think the sentiment is that the fine should be significant enough to convince people not to do a short-term rental without a license.

So I would look at Director Chakubiac and ask what is the cleanest, most efficient way for planning and zoning to be able to enforce that without having to do a research project for every one.

And if it's a flat fee of flat fine, or flat fine, thank you.

A flat fine of X number of dollars, then make it that.

I mean, so again, we don't want to make this so laborious.

Know the why.

The why is to that the fee be so high.

There is some concern about somebody who has a smaller short-term rental not being overly punished.

Having said that, the rule is the rule is the rule, no matter how much you charge.

So if it's for efficiency purpose, would make sense to come up with a number like three thousand dollars or whatever the council agreed on.

We could also go to a flat fee.

I would defer to Director Jacobiak on the what's the cleanest for him to do with the enforcement.

Well, uh, if the council would like to relate the fees to the general sense of income that's being generated, we can do the quick research this afternoon and come back with a fee and double it.

Uh or fine, excuse me.

Uh, we so we can set a fine based on quick research rather than having to make a determination each time we can set a standard that reflects your interests, but uh also is easier for us to administer.

Almost like was that something that you would uh go along with?

I mean, my concern is exactly what Alderman Thorpe said that there's a huge disparity between somebody renting something for a hundred dollars a night and somebody renting something for twenty five hundred dollars a night, and yes, there is the we want to make sure even that person for a hundred dollars a night is breaking the law, but I've also gotten quite a few folks who get these notices it incorrectly or at least initially incorrectly, and I'd hate for somebody who is doing this for a hundred dollars a night to get a bam, $5,000 fine notice in the mail.

Even if they don't end up paying it, it's a heart attack waiting to happen.

Mr.

City Attorney.

One other thing just to keep in mind in the context of short-term rental licenses and similar licenses, in terms of enforcement, the fine is one part of this, and the other part of it is if you violate you may be subject to suspension or revocation of the license, and ultimately from an enforcement standpoint, that is probably the most likely thing that will prevent you know bad activity from continuing.

The fine is an important tool in the tool belt, but it's not the only tool.

So ultimately, so could we add to the punishment if you rent a short-term rental without a license, it's X number of dollars of fine, and the inability to get a license for a period of one year.

Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Well, I mean to that particular point, I I think it may need to get authorized in the code first.

Some code provisions do allow for that kind of thing is to remove um provisions, and I'm actually looking to do that with some future legislation related to environmental.

But I did want to back up a little bit as far as I think so, first of all, I do agree with keeping the fines reasonable as far as for some of these properties that um rentals that may just be have a lower amount, and I think we need to be mindful of of having appropriate appropriately you know scaled fines.

Um but I also agree on the other point that was raised as far as I think you called the KISS um idea, but I I believe so push back on that a bit because you know, this is somebody I did I did um environmental enforcement for uh probably nearly a decade, including with the city.

So I'm very familiar with how it happens, and I just want to say that inspectors having the ability to have an escalation of enforcement is a very important enforcement philosophy and provision in order to achieve, and I think the city attorney kind of mentioned that to a certain degree as far as your ultimate our ultimate stick is for some of these items is a revocation of the permit if it's authorized in the code.

But as as uh inspector, it was always important to be able to escalate because you're going out one day for a fine and uh it give them a field correction notice, and you want to be able to go out the next time if they're still not listening to you to escalate it and say, Look, I'm gonna keep fine you and the the other escalation is to do it on for some of them on a daily basis.

Uh and so, but I think that is often left to the the uh inspector's discretion.

But I I would say even if that causes some amount of inefficiency, ultimately the in my mind anyway, the more important goal is being able to achieve the enforcement of the code.

That's all, Mr.

Mayor.

My thought on on this ultimate Huntley, uh, I mean, director so do you, but it's your emotion, so forget that.

Anyway, is to give it a state a stated amount, a thousand dollars or fifteen hundred dollars, knowing that in the instance that you described, if someone challenged the court uh challenged the citation and appears before an administrative judge where this is gonna be adjudicated, the judge of has the authority and often does not knock down the amount.

So if we set it at a thousand or fifteen hundred and it's a situation where they were only making a hundred dollars, the judge is likely to knock it down to fifty bucks or a hundred dollars or something reasonable.

It's the the amount that we set is the maximum, and the judge has discretion and uses it to knock it down.

Ultimately, yeah, I think maybe what we could agree on here is just set it as a thousand dollars, get rid of this variable thing, and we can see if as part of our moratorium task force thing we got going on, if there's a way to scale it better to the cost.

So would you like to make a motion to that, please?

Yes.

So my motion is to for FC 15 to uh delete everything after everything beginning with the word or uh so all that extra stuff, and then just change the five hundred dollars to a thousand dollars.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Ultimate thorough.

I'm gonna agree with that for purposes of getting through this process, but for the person who rents their house out for $5,000 a week, it's not a deterrent.

For the person who rents the house out for a room for $500 a week, it is.

So my counsel would be that not we not take this as the city council's end all be all of fine.

It I think the sentiment I think we're hearing is it ought to be twice whatever they're paying or they're whatever they're getting paid, is the sentiment is what I would pass to Director Jacobiac as he works on a moratorium.

Thank you.

I agree and express that uh request to Director Jacobiak.

We'll list it as the uh I think we're up to three items that we'll ask for uh feedback using two months as a ballpark, but let's get um feedback from the director more thoughtful ways to enforce uh for the in that situation.

Alderman Savage, uh, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh just on that point, I have to keep in mind.

Uh my colleague from Ward 8 over there that um these can be issued on a daily basis.

So even if it is a thousand, you department can issue that on every day it's gonna add up, even if it's not at the max amount right now.

So, so then I would say that our our words should be Alderman Huntley, a thousand dollars per day, not a thousand dollars, so that it's very clear, that's a great point.

A thousand dollars a day does add up pretty quick.

Thank you for clarifying.

Yes, that was what I intended my the amendment to be.

It's currently two hundred dollars per day.

Really, what we would do with this amended version of this amendment is simply change that two hundred dollars per day to a thousand dollars per day.

Mr.

City Attorney, do we need to add the words per day, or is that assumed in every violation?

In the schedule of fines, there's there are two columns.

I believe one is the base fine, and then the other I believe is a daily amount.

So if it's going to be the same, that's fine, and I think it would be reflected in separately in each column.

Okay, so what we the with the the way the motion was made, we can interpret that as per day.

Yes, okay, very good.

So I don't think we need to amend the motion that amends the underlying thank you.

I think Mr.

Johnson knows what I'm trying to do.

I think so.

All right.

Uh no further discussion.

Uh the we have Alderman Huntley's motion on the table.

All those in favor, and again, a vote in favor of this is changing the language for the violation to be a simple one thousand dollars per day.

All those in favor of that change say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, motion carries.

Now we're on we have the underlying FC 15 now-a on the table.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor of FC 15 as amended, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Uh, we're now gonna go back up to uh L28.

Can I have a uh motion to introduce L28, please?

So moved.

Thank you.

Alderman Thorpe, is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Miss Leonard.

Can you describe what this amendment does, please?

Um which is so it looks like this was just another update that we found that was missing.

Um it's the tourist.

Ms.

Leonard, while you're taking it.

Thank you.

Um so yes, I believe um we again this was yeah, so this was just a missing fine.

So we adopted um an ordinance, I believe, last year on um tour companies and having to have them licensed, but we forgot to include the fine as part of that legislative process.

Okay, any other changes like that?

I see speed monitoring systems.

That is an amendment.

Sorry, thank you, Alderman.

That was it from law changes, just that.

Okay.

Alderman Thorpe, did you have anything to add?

Are we talking on FC 17?

No, now on uh L28.

Out of the list.

Oh, we went back.

I went backwards.

I missed that.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay, if not any further discussion on L28?

Okay, uh, thank you.

Uh all those in favor of L28, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you, Ms.

Leonard.

And Miss Leonard, I think that was it from uh administration stuff on on fines.

Um I think we're now we have fine two finance committee, then some savage amendments.

Um FC 17.

Would someone like to make a motion to introduce FC 17?

So move.

Uh thank you, Alderman Huntley.

Um is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Alderman uh Huntley.

Sorry, Thorp.

That's okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, so currently uh buses are not allowed to wait on city streets, and the fine is $100.

What we have found is that it is not uh large enough deterrent uh to prevent them.

And so there are small roads throughout the city that when one or two buses park, it creates gridlock.

There was discussion about making this fee $500, the intent being for the bus driver to have to go back either to pay it himself or to go back to the boss and go and hey, I got uh nailed.

Um so we did settle at $300 as a uh not overly onerous fine, but a deterrent.

Um, and I might add that the visitors bureau, the the visitor center, they all do a great job in letting bus drivers know that it is forbidden, and so this would help uh that deterrent effort.

Any further discussion, Alderman Smith Brown, then Alderman Shannemeyer?

Sure.

Uh thank you.

Do we have any identification as to the size of the buses?

I know that even in my war there was uh a smaller bus that was parked for months on end, and people uh did uh send requests for that to uh be removed, and I actually went right over and I saw that a ticket was placed on uh the bus.

I think it was a high amount, it was definitely more than $100.

Um so when we say buses, what if it's a larger school size bus?

Um, was it a tour bus?

I mean, those I think cause uh a great hindrance, um, if not more than the smaller buses.

So how do we distinguish between those sizes?

Good question.

Anyone from the administration or law office able to help with that?

Mr.

Moore.

Director Moore.

Good afternoon again, uh Marcus Moore, Director of Transportation.

Yeah, this um change here is definitely for tour bus school buses parking on city streets that is um against the rules.

Um one of the things to keep in mind, um, Aldermore Smith Smith Brown, sometimes they probably got a citation for something other than being a bus, because sometimes you'll see that no commercial vehicles parked on city streets, but just because you and I have a small business electronics and we have a panel van, that's not a uh commercial vehicle.

So when you're looking at a smaller cutaway buses that you see around the city or a van that looks like it is a um a transport for let's say disabled and all, another school bus.

This particular um introduction of this this fine is definitely for larger school bus, tour buses uh coming into the city, and uh we we definitely want to make it as Alderman um Thorpe said, a deterrent because it could turn into a cost of doing business.

There are places that he they can park, and we do make that offering the uh information that the cities provide it, and it will be the Naval Academy, which they would have to pay as a ten dollar fee, I'm sure.

But if you go all the way out to um the parking ride on Here Truman, that's a free parking.

Yes, it's outside the city, but if they're gonna wait for several hours, and what we're trying to do, not to uh add to the gridlock that we have in some of our areas.

Are those definitions defined somewhere in the code to answer Alderman Smith Brown's point?

We may need to make sure that it clearly says, I think it does say tour bus, um, but I'm not sure if it does.

If it does not, okay.

We'll definitely need to say, you know, tour bus, and we can define that um what that is, you know, greater than 40 feet, 50 feet, um tour bus, school bus, uh type of advice.

Uh I just pulled up the code uh while looking at it.

Uh in response to Alderman Smith Brown.

It is unlawful and a misdemeanor for the driver of any bus to park such bus on any street.

Exactly.

Any bus.

Any bus.

And so I looked at the ticket.

That I have.

May I Alder uh excuse me?

Uh may I may or Alderman Smith Brown?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so I have here the ticket was $150 dollars for parked over 48 hours.

I took a picture of that ticket just for reference, and that was a citation from Annapolis parking.

Um that's more than the $100 here.

Uh so is that also in flux as well?

Um, but I do believe we should highlight the different sizes of those buses because 500 for a regular size school bus, I think makes a lot of sense.

Uh, but if we're talking about a smaller bus, maybe that 300-100 range, uh, should should remain.

If I may.

Um so the 150 dollars, 48 hour tag is non-resident.

So you can have a very small smart car if you're not a resident part of the city streets.

You have uh you'll get 48-hour tagged uh to move it within that time or be towed and be told.

Oh, sure.

Okay, it's fine.

Alderman Thorpe, did you have something else?

Yeah, two things I just want to clarify.

Clearly, that was cited under a different code, and then second of all, I may have confused you when I said many people wanted it to be 500.

The amendment is actually 300, right?

Okay.

So I just asked the city attorney to just make a note if this is um if we need to define add to the definitions in the code itself.

I don't think it the fine schedule is the right place to add definitions.

But my suggestion is to pass this as is and then ask the city attorney to just look at if we need to add definitions to the code.

Okay.

All right.

Any further discussion of FC 17?

Seeing none, um, all those in favor of FC 17, which raises a fine from 100 to 300, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Yes, Alderman Thorpe.

So we have a amendment that is missing.

It did not get into the finance committee report and therefore did not get into the finance department's list, and it will cause uh the next FC 18 um to uh start it it'll it'll start to cause some confusion um because the amendment and I can I can read it, but it it well then let me read it.

That's probably the best thing to do.

Alderman Thorpe would be easier if we just passed on FC 18 right now and gave finance some a moment to correct what's in here or would you rather continue?

That would be great if we it would be a process exception because we have said we're we don't introduce any new amendments.

Um Alderman Huntley and I discussed it that it didn't make it into here, and so if we it was clearly discussed at the finance committee discussed through the process, but it didn't make it into our report.

So if we could put it in there, that would be the cleanest if the count if you and the council would agree to do that.

It doesn't sound like a new amendment to me.

It was just a uh technical uh error in not picking up something that was from the finance committee, if that's how I'm understanding it accurately, Alderman Huntley.

It's a technical error.

I think what happened is that it I actually think it was submitted, but then it got rolled up into the FC 18 without getting without actually getting broken out.

So bottom line is I think Alderman Thorpe did what he was supposed to do on this one, and we should consider it before we consider FC 18.

Okay.

Do we are we prepared to introduce that amendment now or do you want to um table it to come back to it?

Sure.

You can just add the verbiage to the description.

I'm doing it now.

Okay.

So uh Mr.

Mayor, if you uh uh desire I can go ahead and talk through the the amendment as she puts it up.

So the the amendment is currently the the fine for parking on a red line in the city of Annapolis is three hundred dollars.

And n several of us have received uh comments about how onerous a three hundred dollar fine is um on somebody getting a ticket when they're visiting Annapolis or living in Annapolis.

Um the other side of that coin is that we want it to be so onerous that people don't do it.

Um so the amendment changes it, uh it splits it into two categories, and one category is parking on a red line where there's a bus stop or a fire hydrant, and we would maintain that at three hundred dollars, and all other red lines would go to $200.

Still a significant fine, but uh not so onerous as somebody said to me, I'm never coming back to Annapolis.

Um, so that's that's the wording of the amendment.

Uh Capri, if we're ready to I think it's been updated.

Is this the way it was intended to be coming out of finance committee?

Well, it it wasn't a finance committee recommendation.

It was, remember, we discussed it and we split it into two.

But uh so however Alderman Thorp wants it to be, it truly is amendment.

Okay, Mr.

Mayor, what what Capri has done most appropriately is there's also separately a discrepancy in the code when you park uh in a place that's marked with a sign, no parking, the fine is one hundred dollars, and when you park on a red line, it's three hundred dollars.

So uh this amendment would now do two things it would make the the fine consistent um no matter uh sign or red curb, and it would make it as I discussed earlier two hundred dollars unless it fit one of those two categories.

Okay, I think I follow so first from a process.

I just want to make sure the council is comfortable that this is um fixing a technical mistake into a previously loaded amendment as a non-a not a new amendment and not seeing objection to that proceeding, and then now I'd just like to confirm what we have in front of us.

1220 130 B, this is a um a non-no no parking sign.

The fee had been one hundred dollars.

I think I heard you say this would this amendment would make it two hundred dollars, but I don't see that in column G.

So I just working on it.

Okay, so that that we will we will see that momentarily and then for 2.20.020 point B, this is the uh red curb uh reducing uh if you park in front of a red curb or fire hydrant reducing from 300 to 200 while leaving in place the parking in front of a bus stop zone adjacent to a fire station at 300.

Did I get all that?

Yep.

All right.

Any discussion on that while we're waiting to see Alderman Chandemeyer?

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, I still do think we need to take the no parking at red curbs uh equally as seriously as the fire hydrants in the bus zones, parking in the red curb does put the safety around intersections uh at risk when a car is parked too close to it in the red curb, it blocks vision, it makes people trying to get in and out of an intersection a lot more difficult, and when we lower the fine, we are signaling that this is a violation that we do not hold in the same regard.

Uh in my ward, people parking too close to the intersection around red curves is an issue, and we end up getting a lot of close calls with T boning.

That gets people hurt and injured, and uh I think by lowering that amount we are saying, hey, don't do this wink.

Yeah, and just if I just want to make sure I heard you right.

Uh you're not opposed to changing the 100 no parking in front of a uh violation, which is uh in front of a sign, changing that to 200, or even sounds like you'd go to 300 on that.

Okay.

I think it's all I think 300's good.

We want to send a message that we do not want these violations done, like parking in a red curve is a safety violation.

Thank you, Alderman Savage.

Mr.

Mayor, could you could you clarify?

Uh so we're talking about 1220 B, right?

We're talking about both sections.

So there's uh multiple issues in this amendment.

The first is in 1220.130, it's raising that $100 fine to $200.

And then in 1220 point B, it's leaving in place the parking front of a bus stop at 300, no change there, but then the next part parking adjacent to a red line curved with that exception, would be lowering it from 300 to two 200.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Um, I think it's all then all in O'Neil.

Just I completely agree with what Alderman Shadow Meyer said.

I think it uh I mean I've gotten a $300 ticket for parking on a right curve before, and I'm never gonna do it again.

And that's exactly how it should be.

And uh we this is something that can people can die from, especially our pedestrians, especially our cyclists, especially anybody who can't see around the curb.

I I think this is uh not something we should be taking light any more lightly than parking in front of a hydrant.

I mean it's it's truly a health safety issue.

So absolutely for making sure that the two are the same, but lowering from 300 to 200 is a really unsafe idea, in my opinion.

Woman O'Neill.

Um I was just going to add that there's a lot of discussion among the public that if you have a certain if your front bumper or back bumper is a certain amount over that red line, you're actually okay.

And I do think that that should be clarified if we're going to continue to use that, and especially in a place like Eastports, um, and some of the places I will say on Clay Street, West Washington Street, this comes into play where it's street parking, and depending on how cars were parked.

I can fit my car in there, but my front bumper is gonna be four inches over that red line, either or my back bumper.

Um, and I know that that's uh a call by parking enforcement most often, but um that does come into play.

Like I'll get as close as I can, but in order for me to utilize that space and not have to walk, you know, four blocks away to get to my house, um just throwing that little gray area out there, the gray area of the red.

Right.

Um Mr.

City Attorney, is that something that um is appropriately not in the code and is left to uh enforcement or that should be addressed.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's something that is probably most often addressed in the field in enforcement.

I think if the council had specific views as to that, it would need to be included in the code so that everyone was clear with exactly what we were talking about.

Did I have someone else waiting?

Um Alder Woman, also Johnson, and then Alderman Thorpe.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to mention this just happened at my church.

Um someone parked on red and um she got a 300 ticket, and I went to the office, try to get it lowered for her, but they say she would have to attend court in order to have it lowered.

So she got very upset.

She hadn't been back church, and she said she wasn't coming back behind his ticket.

I thought that's the reason you're not in church.

I mean, you just whatever.

But anyhow, it she just paid it, and now we're gonna change it.

I mean, like you said, um Alderman Sean Mai said that's the serious thing.

She was that was wrong, and I thought she was wrong, you know.

But anyhow, um, I'll let her know that we have discussed it.

Did the right thing went on and baited it.

But it just happened, so and I'll tell them look out of what it read, don't don't park in this area, you know.

Um I think Alderman Thorpe and Alderman Smith Brown.

So uh two two issues.

One to Alderwoman O'Neil, I want to applaud the director of transportation's policy on enforcing red curbs.

Um he briefed uh the word A Town Hall that the enforcement policy of uh of Metropolis is that if any part of a tire is on the red line, they get ticketed.

And if uh any part of the tire, so to the point the bumper is not on, they don't get ticketed.

Um now there's other elements about blocking driveways or whatever, but from a red line perspective, and uh I like two things about that policy.

One is that policy seems fair, and two, he's very public about it, so there is no uh trick.

So our challenge is to get that word out, um, because we're not trying to to trick anybody.

Um the second point I want to bring up is three hundred dollars versus two hundred dollars.

Um there is no doubt that parking on a red line, uh the red line is there for a reason, and I would totally agree with Alderman Chandelmeyer's point about uh the significance and the danger of it, but while we talk about how it is not affordable to live in Annapolis and and all the fees that the government puts on us, I would argue that if I got a 200 ticket, I would never do it again as well.

And when we hear people going to church or people saying they don't live in Naples, I think two hundred dollars is a is still a huge deterrent.

We're not talking about fifty dollars.

Well, I'll take a chance.

It's two hundred dollars.

And for a lot of people, that is a significant part of a monthly food bill.

So I don't want to say that I look lightly uh at parking on a red line, uh, it's just three hundred dollars is very onerous um for visitors or residents, um, and two hundred dollars is still onerous, it just doesn't break their back.

That that's the point.

So uh that's why we're looking at two hundred dollars.

We want it to be painful, we want it to be a deterrent, um, and we think that two hundred dollars would would support that.

Alderman Smith Brown.

Yes, um, does that clarity on the wheel instance need to be in the code?

That's what um the city attorney was saying that we could introduce that right now.

It's left to enforcement, but if the council wanted to um and that clarity, you can okay.

Yes, we will.

And so would you like to make that motion right now?

No, it shouldn't be.

It's gonna, yeah, I know it's separate apart.

I mean, we heard it today.

But let me just get clarification of whether he meant clarification in the fine schedule or clarification in the code.

I believe it's best left to the code to clarify that.

So we'll add that to the list of things to follow up on based on the outcome.

Well, I guess regardless of the outcome, either way, we want clarity in the code, whether it's two hundred dollars or three hundred dollars.

Okay, um, and I was also gonna say uh so you know red markings, some are fading away, they're not quite clear.

We've heard from residents how you know I didn't know that that was a red marking, you know, snowstorms or uh, you know, communities that haven't been invested into enough with the repainting of some of these lines.

So I think uh that's one of the concerns some residents may uh have shared with us.

I know I've heard many.

Uh and this whole idea of someone not going to church based off of this is that's quite questionable concerning faith.

You know, where's the faith, my people?

Uh but um, but I do believe in making it reasonable enough, but I I there's probably should not be much um difference.

You know, you talk about 300 if it's a fire agent, and then 200 if it's no fragile, maybe they could be the same.

I think that's what the Alderman uh cinema was maybe getting at uh with that, uh, but let's see how it plays out.

Any other discussion?

Okay, so we have the motion just because of the um the multiple changes, I think it's worth repeating what we're about to vote on.

Split it into two.

That is what an option.

Um that's a I don't know if that's becomes a problem.

Regina's look at me of uh that's not what's on the table.

So FC 18 would do two things right now.

The 1220 one thirty B posted no parking signs, so that means you have a sign telling you not to park there, which is the equivalent of a red curb that's currently at 100.

This would increase that to uh $200, right?

$200.

And in 1220 020 B, uh, if you are parked next to a red curve, that's not a bus stop zone, it reduces the fine from 300 to 200.

If there's no other further motions to amend, that's what we're about to vote on.

Alderman Smith Brown, are you asked looking at the acknowledged?

Yeah.

Alderman Smith Brown?

I mean, thank you.

Um, I think huh a hard a huge part of this conversation too is the educational aspect, and I think that's what we're all uh needing to make sure that we uh emphasize, and that means um maybe looking more into this whole idea of warnings.

I was talking with uh Alderwoman also Johnson about this, and uh at first there used to be a warning system uh for people too, and I've spoken with the uh parking enforcement and they said that they took it away for many reasons.

One of those reasons uh was the bias that some who are enforcement forcing the parking may have when they're going out and enforcing it.

That really wasn't a good response, I thought, but uh maybe this is a conversation we do need to take a little further and saying okay, how can we protect our residents who maybe the elderly later who didn't know or the woman didn't know was going on?

Um maybe she should have, but uh can we protect that person still with a warning first um as well.

But that's just a longer conversation.

Um, but we can move forward.

I'm just so much more concerned about protecting the people who might actually die from getting hit by a car that didn't see them than about the difference between 200 or 300.

Like that I think there's something here that is much more important to protect.

So uh no, I'm I'm not terribly worried.

I also want to say to the Alderman's other point that we're putting hundreds of thousands of dollars behind painting these red curbs.

So I think uh I didn't see it becomes less and less of an excuse every day after we pass this budget.

I mean, mayor, I think uh to to that um I do agree though, I will never uh delineate between where our care and compassion and concerns should go when we're talking about residents.

I'm not going to pit one person who's in danger against the person that may just be ignorant.

Uh I think that we should care about every resident and consider uh the concerns across the board.

Personally, I think that that to start with, I think we were all agreement that the two violations should be the same, whether it's a no parking from this point over or in front of a red curve, but we all want them to be aligned.

And so part of how I'm thinking about this is how no matter the outcome of this vote, how do we make sure that that gets aligned?

I think reasonable people reasonable people can think 300 is the right number or 200 is the right number, or some other number, whether it's 250.

Um, so anyway, I I think that's all we're all it's a small amount in terms of what we're discussing, a difference between 200, 300, and I think reasonable people can be behind the 200 or 300.

But I do want to make sure we get those two points aligned.

Um, because this amendment gets those two aligned, and I think 200 is reasonable, I think 300 is reasonable, but this gets them aligned.

I'm gonna vote in favor of it.

But if they were if someone had made the motion to make them both 300, I would have voted for that as well.

So all right, I'll may I make an amendment, please.

You may uh I'd like to amend FC 18 for both of them to be 300.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Okay, any further discussion?

Yes.

Alderman Smith Brown.

Alderman Thorpe.

Sure.

Um, so for the sponsor, this is something I may was gonna mention earlier for the sponsors of FC 18.

Since it does say finance committee and Alderman Huntley did clarify that this wasn't from the finance committee, does that have to change to Alderman Thorpe instead of finance committee, or does it remain finance committee for the original uh amendment or motion?

Privation 18 for that resolution.

The city clerk is saying that we actually didn't properly move FC 18 into discussion, so may I have a motion to move FC 18 into discussion?

I'll move to move that into a discussion.

Thank you, Alderman Smith Brown.

May I have a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Now we've had the discussion in the amendment um that is on the table now.

Um any further discussion?

I think we're up to Alderman Thorpe.

Yes, I would just like it to be known that I reserve the right in any affordability discussion in the future to point out that people want to find people three hundred dollars for parking on a red curve versus two hundred dollars.

Okay, is that gonna be updated though, Mayor?

Alderman Huntley?

I reserve the right to cite what rents are in Annapolis, which is, you know, about thirty times the difference we're talking about every month.

All right, let's let's try to let's try to get back on the topic.

Alternative Smith Brown, do you have something on the point?

Uh yeah, I believe uh, Miss Turner.

Yeah.

Um I want to clarify that this discussion was done um during the finance committee meeting.

Um, and it was not um it was the it was a finance committee discussion.

So if it if you want me to add you as a co-sponsor or change it, I can, but it was put in the finance, it was supposed to be put into the finance committee report.

That's why it's listed as finance committee.

Thank you.

Appreciate the clarification.

Did you finish Alderman Smith Brown?

Oh yeah, as long as the other members uh felt comfortable with that at the finance committee, sure.

Thank you, Alderman Thorpe.

Did you have something?

I thought you were.

I'm fine if you want to put Thorpe as a sponsor, whatever's fine.

I mean it doesn't, I don't care either.

I think it's finance finance committee.

Since this came out of finance committee.

All right.

Uh not seeing not seeing any further discussion, we have Alderman Huntley's amendment to make the first section 300 and the second section through again.

So that all three points will be 300.

Uh accuracy, at least restate your motion.

All those in favor of Alderman Huntley's motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Any further discussion on the underlying FC 18?

Okay.

Uh all those in favor.

I'm sorry, um, finance director.

I just uh point of clarification.

There was a discussion to segregate or separate the two and uh one's now if they're all on the same fee.

Does that separation need to continue to occur, or do you still want to have the separate?

I think personally it is helpful to have it uh to have the identification that no parking violations are 300 if this passes, and parking in front of a hydrant is 300, and parking in front of a red curb even without a hydrant is 300.

Um I guess that's the point.

That's the last one as you're saying is the same.

So you're also I guess in that that second paragraph could all be merged as one sentence if that's what you're asking.

Yep.

Okay.

Alderman Smith Brown.

Yes, Matt asks the qu uh uh an ultimate personal question.

So wasn't the intent to also uh cut costs in a way for our residents?

And now we're talking about just I'm not saying it's we don't go forward with it.

I'm just intentional is important here, and I believe the Alderman's intent was to help cut costs for our residents, and we're kind of going against that intent, not to say that it's the problem, but I'm just making that clear on the record that that's the case.

No further discussion.

Uh all those in favor of FC 18 as amended, please say aye.

All those opposed.

Okay, motion carries.

FC 18 as amended passes.

All right, it is now one o'clock, and I believe we have uh food available.

Um and it's already been another hour since we got up and stretched anyway.

So I we will take a uh another 30-minute break.

Uh again, please be on time.

I expect to start exactly at one 1.30.

Uh we're up to S49.

Savage amendment to increase repeat speed camera violations by 25%.

Would someone like to make that motion to move?

So, no, no, no, before we do, please, point of uh information, I suppose.

Uh I was informed by law office that the state law sets a ceiling, which is where our fees are currently set, so we can't do this, so um, I'd ask for no second on that motion.

Okay.

So excited.

No, the uh S 49 uh fails to get a second, so we'll move on.

Um down fast.

Uh we're up to s 50, and why don't we just look to the sponsor for making these motions to that way we can determine whether we're actually moving forward or not?

Um, if that's 50.

Alderman Savage, you want to move that forward?

Yes, I would, Mr.

Mayor, thank you.

Uh yeah.

So I would like to move S 50 still.

Okay.

Yes.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

Um open to discussion.

Alderman Savage, do you want to start?

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Yeah, so this is just we've we've uh gotten a number of complaints about um people from people who have parked in front of their own driveways and received fines.

And um I don't, you know, I think we need to update our code, but it it has come to our attention.

I believe that the fine may be set a bit too high for this, at least in my opinion.

And so I am proposing to decrease the first violation to $50 and then the repeat to 100.

If I have that correctly, yes.

Mayor, um I agree we can take a deep dive into blocking your own driveway.

Um, but I think the issue that we're gonna bump into with this is we're just gonna end up lowering.

I think we're what is more common is people blocking others' driveways rather than blocking their own.

Um, and I think this will take the penalty away from that infraction.

Uh I would like to know though, from our director of transportation, how effective is our monitoring repeat violations on these types of parking violations, or for Chief Miguez, whoever has better information.

Yes, acting chief uh of police, Amy Miguez and Marcus Moore, director of transportation.

And the reason we're both up here is because citations could be issued either through our parking enforcement uh or through an officer.

And for repeat violations, we can't tell if one or the other has it has cited the person prior.

We gotta get you guys talking more.

We can figure that out another time, though.

Uh so I think the main point, I love the idea of trying to get uh better finding for repeats can let's definitely get them talking more on that type of citation work, but I think uh lowering it down to 50 is just gonna end up with lowering the violation of blocking other people's driveways.

Thank you, Alderman Shannonmeyer, Alderman Smith Brown.

Thank you, Mayor Littman.

So, yes, I fully support um the clarification on obstructing driveways for the property owner legal occupant as it will be written.

Uh, and I do want to make it clear that the legislation is still uh being worked on, but is almost at its final end to be brought forth uh to us very shortly.

Uh so maybe we don't touch on this until that is done so that uh we can have some background as well as some updates on the guiding principle that we're gonna help save some money for our residents uh who are legal occupants, but for those who are um inappropriately parking in front of those driveways should be a fine.

Um Alderman Thor.

Thank you.

Um I actually don't think this change in the fine affects the legislation because this would be when somebody's parked in front of a driveway that's not supposed to be today.

That's everybody.

Tomorrow that might be somebody who the resident says, but so I would like to move forward.

But having said that, and with with all due respect to my esteemed colleague from Ward 7 who may not have problems parking with people parking in front of driveways, a $50 fee would be a calculus.

I can park here for $50, and in many streets in Eastport, that might be worth it.

Um it is a significant problem, and I'll speak for Eastport, um, with people parking in front of driveways.

Um it is arguably one of the offenses that is most complained about.

And so I I don't think we should reduce the fine.

I think it's a it's about right where it is, because again, it would be a calculus of $50 is worth it.

Uh the third thing I would say is this is the first one we've addressed where the fine is different for a second offense, and I am concerned about that, in that I fully understand the benefit of escalating fines for repeat offenses.

What I'm concerned about is the burden that that puts on our staff in that the data collection that would be required as somebody writes a ticket in real time for them to be able to access a record that is accurately maintained and gives a fine for a larger number for a second, third, or fourth offense.

I fully support the deterrent view.

What I don't want to do is put an overly burdensome task on the city staff.

Again, going back to my keep it simple sailor, they're already in a tough spot to uh do the enforcement, whether it's a police officer or one of the the contract folks, and uh and I want to make sure we just have if we have that data readily available, I'm all in.

If we don't, then I'm not.

And I would like the city staff to comment on the on that third part.

Thank you, Alderman Thorpe.

You bring up a few very interesting points.

Um public safety APD is 24-7.

Our parking contractors are not, they're about 18 to 20 hours a day.

So something happens during that period of time and they're addressing it, they're not gonna get if it was the contractor until later on that day.

And then you have to fix, you know, administratively what's already been done.

Um it is one, even if it is uh they're still around blocking a driveway, if we go to a point where it says their driveway, the parking contractors have to call APD to verify that that vehicle belongs to a certain resident.

Some folks that live here, this is the second home, and their vehicle might be registered somewhere else.

So some we do get a lot of uh emails through iWorks or just you know, Annapolisparking.com of a foreign tag, and they're not really knowing, and then coming back from the police that yes, this person does live within the city of Annapolis, not gonna say who it is or where they live, but it does create administratively a lot of other issues to be considered.

And I would just say that for the repeat offense, you know, the the point of that is that they were found guilty or paid the fine on the first offense.

So that it's not just that they were issued a citation for that first offense, we'd have to also know the outcome accurately of what that first offense was.

Thank you.

Um Alderman Smith Brown and Alman and Savage.

Yes, I just wanted to make sure I gave the clarification and the tie to the legislation.

I think really what was being said, or actually what was being said, is there's no need to change the amount.

I think that the there is definitely a need, no need to do it in this very moment of uh without us doing some more of that additional work, which is uh discussion, conversation, legislation, updates to the code, and then we can go and say, you know what, let's change it this uh to this amount instead.

So I I think we are in agreement.

I just wanted to make sure that that was clarified.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, yeah, I mean, if if the body decides to to defer this to later, uh fine with that, but I did do want to make a point that and get some clarification in the sense that um my understanding is that fines are only part of the enforcement, and so if it is an instance where you know a private driveway and somebody does not want the car there, when does it escalate to actually getting towed out of the way?

Is that something the city would handle or police department?

Uh I believe Alderman Savage, any toes would go through the police department, both of the parking contractors would uh consult and then they'll wait around for that tow to happen.

Presumably, but when do you escalate to that towing the driveway?

If the owner wants the car removed because they need access to the driveway, we would we would tow it.

So I want to thank you.

That's a very important distinction because that is the that's the ultimate goal.

Really, it doesn't matter what the fine is.

If in that instance, the enforcement, if somebody's blocking it, they don't want it there, they get towed.

That's what we want to need to happen ultimately, not just the fine.

But my point is with somebody parking in front of their driveway who owns the driveway, nobody's calling to have that car towed.

Like the owner's not calling to have that towed because that's their car.

But they're still gonna get fined this large amount.

So my point is it doesn't matter if we lower the fine now because we're still gonna have that ultimate authorities to tow it.

But if we wait on the interim, if we wait half a year, people are still gonna get fined that 250 or yeah, 250.

So that was important.

Um so speaking from experience, and I think we've got it set up exactly right, where if a car is parked in front of a driveway, uh, metropolis calls the police department, because the police department's the only organization authorized to tow.

So what happens in Esport is people park in front of a driveway.

The uh report is made by somebody who wants the car moved.

Metropolis very efficiently, tremendous compliments, uh, comes out, looks at it, notifies the police, the police come, and before the tow truck gets there, the person walks up, gets in her car, and drives away.

So speaking from experience, most of the time, the only punishment is the ticket, not the toe.

Um so, matter of fact, I would say greatly over 50%, 70% of times, it's only the ticket, and it's somebody, whatever, being there, if you're there for half hour, 45 minutes, maybe an hour, you're safe before getting towed.

And so to only take that's that's the calculus is that I could park in front of somebody's driveway, $50 ticket, who cares?

But now they've missed their doctor's appointment.

They've they've been inconvenienced.

Now, again, even if the legislation's changed, we still want the same process is gonna happen when the resident calls and says, I can't get out of my driveway.

That exact same process is gonna happen that works very well, but it still takes 30 45 minutes, depending on what other caseload is going on at a minimum, and so they walk away under with this amendment with a $50 ticket rather than a significant pain.

I mean, you should not park in front of somebody else's driveway if you don't have permission.

And so a $50 fee, like I said earlier, is basically the cost of parking.

We've become the cost of parking in.

Ultimate question.

Anyone else?

Call it a question if we can, maybe.

Okay.

All those in favor of S-50, uh, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no, no.

No, no.

Okay.

I only heard one I and I heard four no's, so I'm gonna say the motion fails.

I didn't hear eight people vote though.

So I'm gonna go with that.

Is anyone feel their voice wasn't heard?

No.

Okay.

All right, roll call.

I need to get I want to get clarity on this.

No, all the woman on the.

Um, hi.

Alderman Thorpe.

No.

Thank you.

That's okay.

I was also gonna vote now.

So thank you.

The motion uh fails.

All right, we now have food available to us.

And um, in the spirit of not letting anyone get cranky, uh, we will take it.

God forbid.

Like downtown Annapolis, ignoring people, ignoring these crossing guards puts families in danger of being crushed by two tongues of steel.

Uh we really need to send a message that this is not acceptable.

Thank you.

Uh uh Chief McGuez, can you just speak briefly to us on whether uh what's your ability to enforce this?

Yes, acting chief Amy Megeth with the police department.

Um I will say that um while the city code addresses this, it is also addressed by the Maryland Vehicle Code and the American Maryland Vehicle Code would also impose um points on someone's license.

Uh I believe it's more likely that officers would be citing someone with the Maryland Vehicle Code violation and not necessarily the city code violation.

Um and there are some there are other motor vehicle violations that may apply in a situation like this, like reckless endangerment uh and any other violation that was committed in addition to disobeying the crossing guard.

So just to keep that in mind.

Officers are more frequently using a motor vehicle code to cite people and would probably rely on that in these situations.

Can you clarify what the penalty is under the vehicle motor vehicle called?

Motor vehicle code is one point on a license and a $290 fine.

Okay.

So from a practical matter, if I hear, just want to make sure I heard you right.

If we pass this, it's likely not to be used, and they're going to cite the motor vehicle code, not the city code.

That's the case right now.

If the fine is increased and we educate the officers, you know, they could use this in addition to the motor vehicle code violations, not the similar vehicle code violation, but they could attach this and the other um any other violations.

Okay, thank you.

Any what else, Alderman Smith Brown?

Yeah, thank you, Acting Chief.

Um, I guess I had two pieces.

The first was uh just for people to know what is disobeying a crossing guard look like.

So when the the crossing guard has traffic stopped and someone proceeds through against their their motion to stop, exactly.

And that's in it's I think that's a little more difficult saying that for buses when you're parked, um, buses parking or stopping, we should say, and the stop sign comes out, the camera turns on, and people pass by that's also some type of of cost associated with that.

I fully support uh increasing this to any amount that makes the most sense.

What I do not uh think we should um allow to be the case or maybe figure out a way to uh remedy this is how we can encourage more of our officers to take a take this into account as well as the state code, because if we're gonna increase the the fine here, then we want this to matter.

You know, we want to see the outcome in our favor as the city.

Um I don't want it to be one over the other.

If if it's gonna be something, it should be both or the most harshest penalty.

Um Alderman Huntley, and then come back.

Police said they're able to do this, and it uh gives them an additional option.

I'm for it.

I think we shouldn't spend a ton of time on it because they mostly aren't going to use it, but I also think we should pass it because they might.

Alderman Thorpe, then Savage.

We don't have the ability to give points, right?

Correct.

So if we were to pass this, then what we're opening up is, and I support uh Alderman Savage sentiment about uh making it a penalty, but but uh don't we want the point to be given?

So if we pass this, then there's a chance that somebody gets a $500 citation rather than a 290 plus a point.

Um and I I would favor the point rather than another two hundred and ten dollars.

It could kind of goes to your second, third, and fourth violation.

You know, do you get fined twice for $500, or do you get two points and then three points?

And then so I not because I don't agree with the $500, but if if two ninety and a point is the current one, I'd rather that than $500.

Savage than Alderman's withdrawn.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

And you have to pardon my ignorance on this.

Excuse me, I don't quite know how.

I'm not as familiar with how enforcement works for the police department as opposed to my background, which was code enforcement.

Um, but so and I don't, sorry, I don't need an answer now, but question would be for office of law at some point.

Can how's it work?

Like, can officers issue a fine based on state code as opposed to city code.

That seemed a little odd to me, but I don't again I don't know how the police operate.

And APD officers do that?

Is that the question?

Yeah, they said they're citing a state code, so do the police automatically just have the authority to issue fines based on state code?

Because typically I we would have to have our own city code referenced.

Right.

I mean, so I think this is something that Chief Miguez and I should discuss, but I I think that I mean I would be curious to hear what their typical practice is, and I think we could trace the authority accordingly.

It's a Maryland traffic law, so all law enforcement officers in the state of Maryland have the ability to enforce Maryland traffic law within their jurisdiction.

It's no different than if there was um someone committed murder and they run a murder scene, they're there it's a violation of state law.

There's no city code against murder, yes.

Right.

That's right.

So yeah, the the city police enforce state law all the time.

So, then would both make sense?

Is that what that sounds like?

You could do could you do both like what the what's the point of this then if we're if they're not gonna enforce it?

And that's what the chief was saying is that they wouldn't, as a matter of practice, do both.

They would have the ability to, but if you're a police officer and you're in issuing a citation, you're gonna issue you have two forms, it's not the same form.

You're gonna use the state form most likely.

That's what I heard.

And and I think it might I would defer to the office of law, but to me, if we cited for both violations, I think it would kind of violate like a double jeopardy type of.

Okay, so that's uh so it would be one or the other, and I mean, you know, if we decide to push the city code violation uh over the state um motor vehicle code, you know, that's a decision to make I'm gonna vote for this because it's harmless not to to Alderman Huntley's point, but I don't think we should be spending any more time discussing it.

Anyone else?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Next is S52.

Alderman Savage, do you wish to move this?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would like to move S52.

Second.

Discussion.

Uh yeah, this is just again, thank you.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh yeah, this is just one that again I thought should be increased based on the underlying violation related to traffic safety.

Okay.

Um, do we have someone from public works that can speak to whether they have the ability to enforce an increase violation if they have those records?

Director Vogel, I was just asking if you uh you can speak to the legislation.

The amendment is S52, it's um Alderman Savage's amendment to increase a first first violation from 100 to 250.

It's the repeat part that I have a question about.

Um this is a for violations of median strips and it's listed public works is listed as the uh impacted department.

So I just want to know if public works or whatever the enforcement entity has the ability to keep the records to do a increased fee for a repeat violation.

We would be able to support that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman Thorpe.

With all due respect to the director of public works, how would we know that somebody has a previous ticket uh previous conviction based on what Chief McGuez said earlier to this question?

Is there a is there a database that somebody that you have ready access to as you enforce this that somebody has previously been convicted of this case?

It would be so infrequent that we it wouldn't be a long search, but yes, I think all of our citations do go into a database.

Correct.

Citations, but not convictions, correct?

We don't currently track convictions, is my understanding.

That's that's quite possible.

Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr.

Ray.

Yeah.

Just to clarification on that.

Again, given my background with code enforcement.

Repeat violation.

It's not repeat conviction.

Conviction, and again, I speak from first-hand experience.

Uh sometimes it can take half a year or more to actually have these get to the courts to work out the civil citations if somebody challenges it.

Uh and so that that's so my again.

My point is just that's just not the we can't wait for as an enforcement officer off as enforcement capacity, you can't wait for that conviction.

You're it's violation base.

If somebody wants to challenge the repeat violation, they could do that in the courts too.

That's it, Mr.

Mayor.

Can I add something here?

Um, looking at this section of the code, this does not say it's a municipal infraction.

This looks like it's a parking ticket.

So it may not involve public works.

I'm gonna go alderman Smith Brown asking, what does this violation look like?

I'm not aware of us ever issuing one.

Okay.

But that doesn't that doesn't mean parking enforcement does it.

Okay.

Has anyone in the room ever issued a citation or their departments ever issued a citation for this?

Or wherever problem that it's uh out of control and needs raining in with higher fines, okay.

I intend to vote no accordingly.

Any further discussion?

Yeah, I just because I think we're gonna deal with this over and over and over today.

Um I agree wholeheartedly with Alderman Savage's point about people being punished, the the escalating fares, but I think we need to address that every time that what requirement are we adding on to the staff as we as we do that?

So for instance, if we don't do it now and it takes a whole nother person to track that, we should take that into account and make sure that that enforcement is worth that expense.

Um if we already do it, then and we think that escalating fees are worth it, that makes sense.

So just not to be repetitive, but I think I think we should ask that question every time to ensure we are aware, and and I I I would not agree with the idea of it's the second ticket, so we escalate it up because if they get found guilty of the first one, because this is an environment, and I that might be a different set of guidelines, but if I if I get found not guilty on the first one, I shouldn't have to pay uh escalated fee for the second one.

So it it is it should be, whatever the wording is, it's the right thing to do is to make sure it's the second conviction should be cited, not the second citing.

For the discussion, all those in favor of S 52 to increase the violation from 100 to 250 and repeat to 500, say aye.

Aye.

All those against no for me.

Motion carries.

Would anyone like to make a motion for introducing S 53?

So is there a second?

Second.

Okay, any discussion?

Alderman Savage?

Uh yeah, just this is another kind of judgment call based on the seriousness of the offense.

Okay.

Uh would anyone from the administration see this impacts AFD and APD?

Um care to speak to this issue.

Okay.

Any discussion from counsel?

Alderman Shandemai.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh so this is uh what's our definition of interfering with emergency equipment?

Is this failing to get out of the way for an ambulance or a firefighter or a police officer when they have their sirens going?

Is this actively sabotaging equipment?

What's our code says it?

Alder I'm sorry, Chief McGuess.

I think Chief Amy Megeth with the police department.

It's a it's a parking violation, basically.

It's obstructing interfering with the operation of any emergency vehicle or equipment, uh, which also means access to any fire hydrant, fire sprinkler connection, fire stand fight.

It involves um being in a fire lane, either on public or private property, parking in that area as well.

Okay.

So would this override the amendment that we had just put forward where we just increased parking in front of a fire hydrant to 300?

Chief McGuez, I think the question was directed to you.

It's to anybody who would know if this overrides the amendment we've just passed where.

I think it's just another thing you could cite the person with.

Um because this also applies to vehicles.

Rally?

I believe that this section here is actually for emergency incidents where the other one uh Ansonic could be any time somebody's parked in front of a fire hydrant.

It's just two different sections in the city code, plus we have state law also that covers these type of event, especially with interfering with our operations.

Okay, so this is building is on fire, I was lazy and parked in the fire lane by building, I deserve to get fined.

It it doesn't specify it that way, but that's what I believe the intent is that's when it's enforced.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Okay for Mally, are you seeing um instances where your investigators are issuing these citations on a regular basis?

We are not, no.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alderman Thor.

So repeat question.

Do you track this?

So this is uh in the parking violation section again.

So if for some reason the private contractors cited for it, we would not have that.

But it's more likely that if this was an act of scene and the fire department was asking us to come and cite, it would be something that an officer would do.

But again, we don't necessarily track whether someone's convicted uh or paid their fine, is more likely in a in a parking citation rather than going to court and like fighting it.

We don't track the outcome necessarily.

So Chief McGuez and as well as director of planning and zoning, one of the criticisms in the city is we do not enforce the code, which I think is oftentimes unfair criticism, but it's out there.

So if we pass this legislation and somebody knows of a second violation, and and they do not get cited, it you're gonna be we're gonna be criticized for it.

So if we pass this legislation, it's my take that you have to start tracking this.

So it's a discussion that we've had since the these have been introduced.

I think it we are a little with some of these putting the cart before the horse, um, but we're gonna work on improving the communication and making sure that we can track these, especially if they're passed, obviously.

Oh, do you have any idea yet how many hours it's gonna take you to do that?

No.

So when we pass these, I think the city council should be aware that we're adding hours of work to the city staff, for which we don't know the answer.

And wouldn't we be better off expressing our sentiment that we're looking to do this and maybe changing the legislation so that Chief McGuez and planning and zoning and Chief Romali can come to us and say this would take two hours a month to track?

Okay, it's worth it.

This would take one full-time equivalent person to hire because we're we're gonna pass all these and they're not enforceable.

So it it a card before the horse, it's a little frustrating.

Um, and I'm gonna continue to vote no on every one of these because we're laying a requirement on the staff without knowing what that requirement is, and I just think that is not good government, similarly but different.

I'm gonna be voting no on this because I haven't heard a problem be identified that this is a solution for.

So to me, it's a solution looking for a problem that hasn't been identified.

Any further discussion?

Okay, all those in favor of S 53 say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

I only heard what's that?

Roll call.

Yeah, roll call, please.

No.

Alderman.

Aye.

Also, Alderman Alsa Johnson?

Nay.

Alderman Savannah.

I'll be no.

No.

Albany Savage?

Aye.

Alderman Thorpe?

No.

No.

Okay.

The motion fails.

Uh up to S54.

Alderman Savage, would you like to make the motion on this?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

I would like to move S54.

Thank you, sir.

Second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

Alderman Savage?

Yeah, again, this is same rationale as before.

My intent is just to.

Let's see.

Do we have that on the screen?

Yes.

So my original intent, this doesn't quite reflect it.

I meant to I wanted to keep the initial violation at 50 with the repeat up to 250.

I believe this is public works and forced.

So I think they do have a system in place to be able to keep track of repeat violations.

Council members.

Alderman Channelmeyer.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

Look, an issue that we on the Forest Drive corridor frequently have is that folks do not shovel their damn sidewalks.

And that puts kids walking to Annapolis Middle School at risk because they have to walk in the street on Forest Drive, one of the most dangerous roads in the state of Maryland.

And if you are on Forest Drive after a snowstorm where people don't shovel it, you will see middle schoolers walking on a highway where cars are going 30, 40, 50 miles an hour because they can't walk on the sidewalk covered in snow and ice.

We have to start slapping people who do not follow our rules and think that they're better than shoveling their sidewalks.

Thank you, Alderman.

Anyone else?

Alderman uh Huntley.

Wow, I can agree more with Alderman Channelmeyer's sentiment, but uh I feel like this kind of works the opposite way.

Like this strikes me as uh you're you're almost like you're potentially fighting somebody who is clearing the sidewalk, right?

If they put it in the street.

So I I'm gonna vote no on this mainly because I think like with some of these other ones, we need a more comprehensive rewrite of the actual code section, not just changing the fine.

I've been working on that with the director of public works for a while.

Uh and I'd rather address this as part of that.

So I'm gonna vote no.

Alderman Huntley, you are right.

I was on S 55.

My apologies.

I appreciate the sun.

So on S 54, I just want to make sure I'm reading this right.

It's depositing snow on cleared street.

So is this a violation for someone who's clearing their sidewalk or driveway into the street?

Yes.

But it seems like.

Okay.

And is the and Alderman Channel?

Are you seeing that as a problem in Ward 5?

Uh I had my mind on S55 because I saw sidewalks there and I saw snow on S 54.

So I just made a grand speech over absolutely nothing.

And I have so much egg on my face.

It was a good speech.

It was a great speech over absolutely nothing, and there's a lot of egg on my face right now, and I'm a little embarrassed.

We'll remember it when uh we get to uh the next piece.

Uh um, not sure who was first.

Alderman Thorpe and Alderman Savage?

Um, so I would like to ask the director of public works the same question.

Do you track this?

And if not, how much uh people power, how many hours per month, roughly, would it take for you to do that?

Just don't follow along.

We're talking about depositing snow on cleared streets.

Is that right?

I think we are, yes.

I've never heard of this being a problem.

Like, not one time.

Roger, but uh but I think that I are you looking to pull this out?

Oh, I I'll stop my line of questions, even though you know what it is, but if the if my colleague to my left is going to pull it, then Alderman Savage.

Well the sponsor can't vote down their own amendment.

You have to move move to uh withdraw.

I'll move to withdrawal.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any uh all those in favor of Alderman Savage's motion to withdraw this motion, say aye.

Aye.

Not opposed.

Motion fails.

Um that motion uh passes.

Excuse me.

Um now I have to go back to uh the underlying uh so that is it's withdrawn.

I don't have to do anything further.

All right.

Uh S55.

Um would someone like to make a motion to move that move.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Uh any discussion?

Uh ditto to Brooks' former comments.

So uh 1404050.

Sidewalk maintenance by a butting owner, right?

That's what we're on.

Alderman Thorpe.

Director Vogel.

Do you currently track this information?

And if not, what would it take for you to track it?

Sorry, which one are we on now?

This is 14.0, this is a modification to 14.04.050 point B, which is sidewalk maintenance by a butting owner.

And what what it would do would be to make a repeat offense more expensive than the initial offense.

So while I totally agree with Alderman Chandelmeyer, we would like to know if you track this information, and if not, what uh what people power, what what requirement are you are we putting on you to track this information?

I'm thinking, since it's in a system, it I think it would and really I'm I'm speaking here for kind of for IT.

I don't think it would be hard for anything that's a municipal infraction, which these are, to have the history when you go in to enter a municipal infraction at an address to have it show you the history for that address.

But I don't know that the system currently does that.

So I really I can't speak to it, but I don't think this would be a hard thing to implement.

It would be of convictions, not of you citing them.

Sure.

Then it would just require uh the law office to go into that system and and kind of close the loop at the end of that process.

But just a point of order on this particular amendment.

Um in looking at the code right now, is currently drafted 1404 050.

There is no subsection B, which does raise a question about uh whether we have uh made the changes to the code yet to support imposing the fine.

Okay, ultimate savage, you want to make a motion?

Yeah, it sounds like we have more the legwork to do uh on the code, so I will make a motion to withdraw that.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor of the motion to withdraw, say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now, if we can imagine I did that speech during that one, that'd be really good.

All right.

We're now on uh S56 tree permits.

Would anyone like to make this motion?

So moved, okay.

So thank you.

Any discussion?

Alderman Savage?

Uh yeah, and and this is just for all the environmental uh code provisions.

Uh again, just reiterate that um having the escalation for the repeat is important.

Um environmental enforcement's done a little differently than some of the parking.

Uh it's it's typically the inspector, the code enforcement inspector keeps more closer track uh because uh especially for some of the latter ones on like the the um as we'll get to like critical area grading, those are immediately following up based on a field correction notice.

So you issue field correction notice one day, and if they're not complying you issue the fine.

If you come back the next day or next week, and there's the same things in place, you want to be able to escalate.

Uh and that is something that is kept track of on the um again, somebody who who used to do it.

Uh it's something easy to keep track of, which the department should already be doing.

Any discussion by council?

Is there a um so I'm sorry, Alderman Chandelmeyer?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh so what would our definition of repeat offense be here?

Because this would jump up from 500 to 3,000, and that's very substantial.

Is that like do it twice, do it once, or then do it again a year later?

Um let's see if our administration representatives can answer how this if you first identify the problem that exists, and if you're encountering this problem issuing these citations and what the nature of any repeat violations looks like.

Uh this particular uh code references deals with trees in the public right-of-way.

Uh so that's something that public works uh administers.

I don't think we as a city submit or issue many citations for this violation, but uh planting a tree in the public right-of-way, removing it or severely pruning it uh could run afoul of this um this uh code provision.

I could I envision that it's could be easy for owner doesn't know their property boundaries that they could accidentally plant a tree in an area that's actually public right away, is that am I right in that or is it um are we talking like I'm having a hard time envisioning how someone could violate violate this code provision?

Usually it's clear uh the the street uh uh has a sidewalk and a curb uh and then if it has a planting strip, that planting strip is most frequently within the public right of way, it's between the curb and sidewalk.

Uh that is a public uh place, it's a public property, and um city law prevents someone from planting a tree there or removing a tree.

So during Greenscape, where one of the organizations were on Forest Drive.

Now I realize Forest Drive is in city, but they were planting tulip bulbs in the uh the strip, that would be a violation of the code if that was a city road.

Uh I don't know about tulip bobs, but uh if it were uh tulip poplar, then yes, it would be a violation.

All right, thank you.

Point of horticultural order.

Uh uh Alder Woman O'Neill.

Um I actually have a direct example.

Um there is a an alleyway in West Annapolis, and the resident adjacent to the alleyway did plant trees in order to prohibit people from utilizing the alleyway.

Um, we did end up not finding that one we just made that home that resident remove the tree, but there was quite a fight about it.

Um, and being able to tell that resident that we could have charged her three thousand dollars had she not removed that particular it was a big hydrangea bush that were plant were planted, um, could have very well been um a determination if we got f you know her stalling that resident stalling.

So you're in favor of the increase.

Yes.

As long as it's not tulips in the center meeting.

It's a tree, not a tree.

Not a bush or bulk.

You need some uh Alderman Thornton or Alderman Savage?

But what is what is the current fine?

500 500.

Okay, so not to be repetitive, but to be repetitive.

Does the city currently track convictions for this violation?

And if not, and this law this was passed, it would require tracking it, and how much work would it take in number of hours of people hours to do that?

These don't happen frequently at all.

Um the uh when violations happen and citations are recorded in our intergov.

We have a uh the we have the resource and we can can begin tracking them, but we would need support from IT to set up that uh search function.

Okay, and so since you mentioned another department, I'd like to look at the city attorney or excuse me, the city manager and ask the same question is this requirement put on the city staff worth the the number of times this violation happens a second time.

Would you support this use of staff people power?

Um thank you, Alderman.

Um I think where we are is that and I'm following your line of question is to make sure that we have a robust performance management tracking system.

We do not have that in the current form.

Uh I think that it is something that we can do, but at this current moment, we don't have those things in place.

I do think that the staff um is in agreement with trying to do that.

Um the actual effectiveness of that will need we'll need some time to build that out.

I have a question for the law office in our 1126, and the initial fine, it's showing a change from 500 to 3,000, and for the repeat offense from 500 to 3,000.

So I'm not seeing a difference in the initial fine versus the repeat.

I think the initial fine isn't in the proposed, so I think the initial fine it might be a mistake that it was not being proposed to be changed from 500.

Is that do I have it right now?

Correct.

All right, so it's only the repeat.

Right.

So that middle column should not say 3,000, it should go revert to 500.

All right.

So which gets us back to Alderman Thorpe's point that it is an increase from 500 to 3,000 that on something where we haven't heard demonstrated an issue, a problem that we're trying to solve.

Yeah, that's right, Mr.

Mayer.

And I I think I'm gonna end up taking hours and hours of our time if I keep asking this question every time.

I think what the city council needs to decide is we have a very can-do staff, which has been traditionally, oddly, a problem, in that the answer is yes, we can do it.

Yes, we can do anything.

If we start tracking all of these, we start to end we start to create a real task, a real job.

And I think that's what we as a city council, as we look at this, and and again, I'm a total fan of how do we prevent repeat offenses, but I think we continue to hear we don't cite people once for this, and we're requiring the staff to create these tracking systems for which they're very positive about doing.

And I just think we have a responsibility to manage their workload because it's real easy for us to put more work on them.

So I don't know, Mr.

Mayor, I'll ask this question every time we get to it.

At some point it's repetitive, redundant, and not useful.

Um, I don't know if we want a little discussion real quickly about are we tracking down the right process because there's numerous amendments here which don't appear to have a problem that they're solving, but yet do appear to have an added workload on our staff, which we've all experienced is part of the problem.

I agree, that's why I'll be voting against this.

Not that it's um, yes, for exactly that I don't need to believe my point.

Alderman Smith Brown.

Wait, wait, I was on the list.

Well, you I apologize.

Go ahead.

Um so just I wanted to just again iterate uh as somebody who used to do inspections for the city and worked very closely with the previous urban forester.

I know directly first-hand experience how that operates.

Uh and as far as the trees, there are only think these are public trees, right?

So we're talking street trees that somebody may be removing.

This fine is attached to that.

Uh and if this could be a 30-inch tree, it could be a five-inch.

Uh and repeatedly have heard concerns over the years that the fines are not enough.

A contractor could go out there, remove a public street tree and pay $500 bucks.

That's not a lot of money when you're talking about a 30-inch tree.

And so we need to have the deterrence there.

And there are again, are only a handful of contractors who do this work in a city.

The inspector knows which one is doing the work, and if it's a repeat violation or not.

They keep track.

It's only one person, one inspector, keep track of all these violations.

They're gonna know if it's a homeowner doing a repeat violation.

There is not an administrative workload to this.

I can't emphasize that enough.

If we had staff here, we could ask them, but um so I I just I don't think we should over overthink this.

This is certainly something I've heard even from a lot of people in Eastport over the years, the fines are not enough for the tree removals.

So I'm trying to respond to that.

Alderman Savage, the remove street uh trees from property concern me as much as they concern you, it's the planting trees and maintaining trees that I could see um being mistakenly make doing something in an error and being overcited.

Uh Alderman Smith Brown?

Yes, um, thank you.

I was going to just put on the record, I think it'd be great to get an answer uh from Anona County um for the trees that were cut off of Forest Drive.

I don't know if anyone's seen those trees that were cut uh off of Forest Drive, but this is right from Chickapin Round Road and Bywater Road, and I've seen this for the past month, and I'm wondering why would they cut these trees?

Um and so uh what that is tied to, which I think draws to the conversation about snow removal or maintenance for sidewalks, is we have to have the same accountability on our government as we do uh for our residents who may not be doing it with ill intent.

Um and the other part that I was gonna mention is uh I know in ward three, some residents have shared with me that some of the trees are not even taken care of by the city or by the government, and they're dying, and residents have to be dealt with that.

So maybe also a communication education pieces as to how people can contact the city.

I know there's a form and all that, uh, but just making sure that residents know that if there is a tree that you question um whether it needs to be trimmed or you feel like it's dead and you want to you know get it removed, contact the city, and we can do that.

But I did want to get the question to answer to the first question that I put out there is why those trees are removed, and maybe that's something that someone from our department can answer.

I'm uh can I make a point of order that we're talking about the fee schedule here, right?

We're not talking about trees in the county.

Uh so I I think we should stick to talking about the fine schedule.

That's great, though.

The question is it can be for now, it could be for later.

I said for the record, this question should be asked because it was to the grander part of this conversation.

Um we don't have to spend 10 minutes answering it right now, but I do believe, as I mentioned, that that question should be answered.

It's it within our city, and there are many, you know, roads within our city like West Street that are not maintained by the city, but we still are impacted by what happens on those streets and roads.

So I'm just asking if we can get an answer from the county at some point in time as to why those trees were cut in half in my ward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Alderman Thorpe?

Yeah, I I think to Alderman Savage's point.

Um, if are we solving the right problem?

Uh the point uh that Alderman Savage made is that the fees are not high enough.

Would it be more efficient and more straightforward to raise the fine, the fee, um, for every offense, recognizing the significance and importance of it, and then not have a tail of workload that the city staff has to do of going back to check is this a first offense, second offense, or whatever.

So are we solving the right problem by escalating the fee, or would it would a more efficient way for the staff's perspective to raise the fee for every offense?

Alderman Thorpe is that a motion to amend the amendment to set the initial fine and the repeat fine at $1,500.

Yes, it is.

Okay, is there a second?

Second, okay.

Any discussion?

Alderman Savage, does that address your concern?

Um thank you for asking.

It's it's certainly a step in the right direction, but I still have the same concern about uh being able to have escalation of enforcement.

Thank you.

All those any further discussion?

All those in favor of Alderman Thorpe's motion to make the initial and the repeat fine the same at $1,500.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I believe the motion carries.

If there's any objection to that, let me know.

So now we have a the underlying S56 uh increase for treat permit violations.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of S56 as amended, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Not hearing any.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Um as we continue to move forward.

I'm gonna check um get try to be more disciplined and motion.

Uh the rules allow for each person to speak twice.

And I've been generous in trying to come back to everyone because I want to allow conversation, but it just pointed out that it's 225 and we're still on the fine schedule.

So try to um control yourself to two remarks per amendment if possible, and we'll still try to be lenient because we want discussion.

Would anyone like to move S57?

I'd like to move S57, S58, S60, S 61, and S62 as a block.

Okay, and you left out uh S59, correct?

Thank you.

S59 and S63.

Oh, okay.

Uh so just want to make sure I got it again.

So it was S 57, 58, 60, 61, and 62.

Very good.

Thank you.

Second.

Thank you.

Doing it's uh the remaining amendments except for 59 and 63.

All right.

Is there a second?

Uh second.

Okay.

Um is there a discussion?

Or is there discussion on the motion?

Uh no, just just one clarification.

Tree conservation area, are street trees, anything near the street.

The last one I should have specified were public anything in the public space.

This is limited, that one particularly limited.

Uh otherwise uh pretty self-explanatory, but I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Um any other discussion, Alderman Thorpe?

Uh Mr.

Mayor.

Uh doing them in a group makes this a little more difficult, but I would propose an amendment to raise the fee similarly like we did the last one, um, uh to numbers, and and I would actually ask Alderman Savage for his inputs if he'd be willing to give them uh and make them single across the line increase in the fines, um, and not require the city staff to track convictions, Alderman Savage.

Yes, that was that a motion.

Or just discussion point.

It's a discussion point because I'd like to work with you to get to the numbers.

I could create numbers, but I would uh love to work with you and and create uh the right number uh based on your experience, and then uh propose it.

I will propose an amendment one way or the other.

I'd like to work with you to get the numbers right and then release the city staff from having to track the convictions.

May I miss please?

So uh I'm adamantly opposed to that.

Again, this is code I'm intimately familiar with that I've done a force of myself on, and to not be able to have the authority to escalate fines on people who are doing repeat issues is really gonna hamper our environmental protection.

It is going to degrade our environmental enforcement.

So I cannot support that, and I asked my colleagues not to.

That's a complete revision of our overall enforcement philosophy in the city, and that is a much larger conversation than I think we should have today.

Any further discussion?

Alderman.

I didn't see any other hand.

No.

Yeah, go ahead.

I've already spoken, so I'm ready to defer to you.

Okay, can I go then?

Yes.

Yeah, I think that there's a real benefit to having this distinction.

And I the I take Alderman Thorpe's point that we should take into account how much work we're adding to city staff, but to me, uh this is pretty clearly something where it is worthwhile to be able to tell the difference between the first violation and the second.

These are all things where if we tried to make them even, it's gonna be too high for first or too low for second.

There is a real benefit to having it be bifurcated.

So uh I yeah, I wouldn't support this amendment either.

Anyone from the administration wish to speak about any of these fines, either initial fence, repeat, the frequency that you encounter them, the burden of tracking and appropriately following repeat.

Just give you an opportunity, don't have to speak.

Okay, seeing done.

Last comment, Alderman Thorpe.

Yeah, so Mr.

Mayor, uh, again, I'd like to go through them.

I mean, I think we owe it to the staff.

As leaders, we owe it to them to put them on the spot and make them accountable for saying how much work we're we're causing them.

It's a hard question.

Um, but we continue to add a couple hours here and a couple hours there.

I I agree philosophically with everything Alderman Savage and Admiral uh Alderman Huntley are saying, but we've got to make sure we know what workload we're putting on the staff.

So I would ask the director of public works, um, do you track convictions?

And how much work would it take for you, IT, and the staff, and then I may go right back to the city manager again.

Um, how much time would it take to track this?

Because if this passes, we are going to hold you accountable to tracking that information.

I'm just gonna repeat the same answer.

It's go it goes into a database.

That database could be modified.

I can't speak to how long it would take to implement that process change.

Adam City Manager, do you support the workload that it would take to do this?

Ultimate thorough.

We know that this is an important um issue for the city.

We also know that it's important to be able to track these successfully.

So if it passes, what we would like to ask is that we're able to work with you and members of the council to actually uh develop a tracking mechanism and to give us appropriate time to do so with a little bit of grace in order to accomplish that.

Oh, so what I'm hearing, Mr.

Mayor, and we we are we are signing up for the city manager to come to us and say we need X dollars for the IT solution and we need X dollars for the staffing.

And I we just we don't know what that is, and if this is that is this is so important that we would sign up to do that unknowing what it is, then we should move forward and support it.

If not, we should we shouldn't.

And Mr.

Mayor, I I will not put the staff through the same question for the remainder of them.

I think but I think that for the city council we need to acknowledge that's what we're doing.

Thank you.

Final comments.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Mary.

Uh yeah, just to walk perhaps through an example um how this is needed.

Um when you're doing grading or even in some cases the tree protection under chapter 17, uh, you're going out to the same project, it's a work site.

So they have perhaps grading sediment control on the work site, they could have a tree violation on the work site.

It's the same contractor, it's not a different actor.

Uh and again, it's it's so there's no I don't know how else to say this, other than to be completely direct.

There is no, I'm not exaggerating, it's not hyperbole, it's not misinformation because I did it.

There is no administrative burden for these environmental fines.

If you're talking about the same site, it's the same inspector.

They have inspection records that are already entered into the system if they need it, but the inspectors on the same site, they know what they just told the violator, they know if they've done the work, they know if it's a repeat.

There is no administrative burden, period.

Again, don't know how to emphasize that.

The other danger with this is we would have to go back through the entirety of the city code for these environmental violations to make sure, because I don't know off the top of my head, a lot of these are based on state code.

If they specify that you have to have uh, you know, repeat violation that's higher.

I don't know that without looking at all of them.

But again, uh I don't understand why we're even that's a much larger policy conversation.

We should not be inserting in the middle of this budget process.

Let's focus on just the fines, as I think Alderman Huntley was alluding to.

Just focus on the fines.

If you want to change the the process, the complete philosophy, let's do that later at the proper time.

Specifically, integrating permits.

Uh I I'm I'm no problem.

Completely agree with Alderman Savage.

We absolutely know when a contractor commits a repeat violation.

Because these things are not things that go on in perpetuity and we're out there every week.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Alright.

All those in favor of S 57, S58, S 60, S 61, and S 62.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Would anyone like to uh introduce S59?

So moved.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Anyone care to discuss?

Discussion.

Um director, uh, deputy city city manager.

Would you like to just tell us what we're about to vote on?

Great.

I just want to make sure everyone knows what we're you're about to vote on.

Um so this provision, this emergency compliance provision.

Currently, the fine is at $1,000.

The proposal is to increase it to $5,000.

Um, an emergency compliance situation would be like if there's a hurricane coming, and um the city the harbor master asks someone to get off their mooring and move to a safer place or to come into the harbor or tie their lines differently, and they are ignored.

So that causes a hazard not only to themselves but to others and others' property.

So that's what this is meant to address.

Um, the harbormaster usually says that they rarely, if ever, give out these violations because the people that they tell to move want to protect their property and themselves and they move.

The people who don't comply are usually those who are living on what we would consider a derelicted abandoned boat and usually have some mental challenges.

And if we gave them this fine, we would never receive it if we went to court with it or otherwise.

Um, this we wouldn't be able to recover it.

So the harbor mastery, you know, it's not opposed to raising the amount, but if we rose it raised it all the way to $5,000, we're not going to recover it.

Thank you.

As I'm looking at the uh the amendment itself again, and this is page nine.

I don't know if that's being shown yet or not.

Uh again, the initial fine in this as it's being presented to us is also increasing from a thousand to five thousand, but I don't think that's what the amendment does.

So I wonder if that's a mistake.

I believe so, yes.

I think this is this is a thousand dollar fine right now.

The whole thing, okay.

Alderman Savage would like to make a motion.

Make a motion to withdraw.

Okay, so S59.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Alderman Savage.

Thank you, uh, city uh deputy city manager.

Um, we have S 63, forest conservation.

Would anyone like to make a motion to introduce this?

So moved.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, any discussion?

Okay.

Um Deputy City Manager, do you want to come back?

Sorry for this one.

I think it's the last one on the fine schedule.

Let us know what we're about to vote on, please.

This is um S 63.

It's Forest Conservation Act section 21.71.80, increasing from 500 to 1,000 and 500 to 3,000.

Actually, um, for the forest um urban forester who um works for the department of planning and zoning.

Okay, sorry, forgive me.

That's all right.

I'll hang out in case we need anything else.

I saw forest conservation, I assumed badly.

I s I just saw my fellow director here, and I shifted to a crisis management uh mode.

So I uh wasn't listening to your.

No worries.

This is uh forest conservation.

Uh, do we have it pulled up?

Uh yes, we do.

Um section 21.71.180, forest Conservation act enforcement increasing the fine schedule from uh 500 to 1,000 for the initial fine and five hundred to three thousand for a repeat fine.

So can you give us a scope of the problem uh that this is trying to address and that how often you have these repeats?

Um what is the violation look like?

I guess just give us some questions.

The violation would look like a removing trees from an area that's protected by a forest conservation plan and easement.