Good evening, and welcome to the September 18th City Council regular public meeting.

We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Council members, we have a proclamation if you'd like to join us on the flip side.

Thank you as always to the mayor's team for helping us put these together.

Recognizing United Nations International Day of Peace, which is September 21st, 2025.

The International Day of Peace is observed around the world each year on September 21st is established by the United Nations General Assembly in nineteen eighty-one.

And whereas this day is devoted to strengthening the ideas of peace, both within all within and among all nations and peoples, and to promoting nonviolence, justice, and equality for all.

And whereas Frederick's strategic plan community twenty thirty envisions a city that is equitable, inclusive, and thriving with a commitment to sustainable development, social well-being, and civic engagement, values that align with the United Nations mission to build a culture of peace through understanding peace and justice.

And whereas the observance of Peace Day in Frederick affirms our shared vision of a world at peace and fosters cooperation between individuals, organizations, and communities, encouraging acts of kindness, dialogue, and unity.

And whereas the City Council encourages residents, schools, places of worship, and community organizations to commemorate peace day through activities and such as community service, cultural exhibits, movements of reflection, bell ringing, and sharing the university message, universal message, peace is our path forward.

Now, therefore, we, the City Council, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim September twenty-first, twenty twenty-five as international day of peace in the city of Frederick, and encourage all residents to join in recognizing the importance of peace and taking steps towards a more just and harmonious world.

Would you like to introduce yourself and who you're representing?

Sure.

Good evening.

I'm Reverend Doug Jones.

I'm representing the Key City Rotary Club here this evening.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Judah Shawul, and I'm representing the Youth Council of Frederick.

Thank you very much.

And would it be okay if we gave this to you to share with them?

I think that's appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

Additionally, Council members, I have an item here to read from our charter.

The results of the City of Frederick 2025 Democratic Primary Election have been certified by the Board of Supervisors of Elections pursuant to Article 5, Section 19 of the City of Frederick Charter.

The City Council hereby enters the results of the final canvas of the September 9th, 2025 primary election into the minutes.

The results are as follows for Mayor Michael O'Connor, City at Large, Libby Taylor, DearChackleford, City Council District 1, Katie Nash, City Council District 2, Cesar Diaz, City Council District 3, Peter Brem, City City Council District 4, Scott Lasher, City Council District 5, Sarah Hemp Bilrani.

Pursuant to Article 5, Section 6 of the City of Frederick Charter.

No Republican primary was held as there were no contested Republican races.

All Republican candidates will advance to the general election.

We have approval of minutes August 21st, 2025.

So move.

Second.

First and second.

All in favor.

That's 5-0.

Thank you very much.

Council comments.

No comments at this time.

Councilman?

I I would just like to say a quick congratulation to those who made it through the primary.

It is great to see some of your faces here tonight.

Some have been here a couple of times before, many times for a number of you.

But congratulations.

I the city will be in great hands.

Councilmember?

Councilmember.

Nothing for me either.

Okay, so good evening.

We welcome you to tonight's regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Frederick City Council.

If you wish to offer public comment, please be aware of the following guidelines.

Each speaker will be allotted three minutes to share your comments.

When it is your turn to speak, please begin by stating your name and if applicable, your general address to ensure that you have uninterrupted opportunity to speak.

This will be your time, so that means that members of the council will not be answering any questions or engage in a back and forth discussion.

We are, of course, willing to answer questions.

And if you'd like to email us, you can email us at City Council at City of Frederick MD.gov, City Council at City of FrederickMD.gov, and we encourage you if you have written remarks to send those an email.

Those of us who have signed up to speak will speak first.

And depending on our agenda this evening, we may pause and resume general public comment at the end of the agenda.

The city council uses rules of procedure, which were most recently passed by resolution 24-27.

Pursuant to our rules of procedure, conduct that disrupts the meeting or interferes with the rights of members of the public to attend and observe the meeting is not acceptable.

And we also have posted our code of civility in this boardroom.

It's over there.

Please take note of your exits for your safety and silence all electronic devices.

Thank you very much, Miss Phyllis.

I'll read the first three names.

We have Christian, you're signed up for general citizen comment.

Do you want to speak first or do you just do you want to speak at the item that you've signed up for?

You signed up for both.

Okay.

Um Tina Meadows Are and Grady Ariar.

And then Fatima.

Oh, you're gonna speak now, hon.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Yeah, okay, great.

Thank you.

Um Good evening, Council President Nash, uh, Vice Council President Shacklet, and members of the City Council.

My name is Christian Gobel.

I'm with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

Uh, Ask Me Council 3.

Our council represents approximately 50,000 public employees across the state of Maryland, including K-12 school support staff, uh, state workers, higher education workers, city workers, and county workers.

Um, and every single day, AFSME members across the state of Maryland are delivering essential public services in their communities that make it possible for our communities to run.

Um, tonight we want to thank the Frederick City Fit Council for considering collective bargaining legislation that would grant the city of Frederick workers the opportunity to collectively bargain.

Our union does support this legislation with proposed amendments.

AFSME's proposed amendments are concise, but we do view these as essential and vital in order to ensure a robust collective bargaining scheme.

AFSME's uh proposed amendments concern the election process or the recognition section and the collective bargaining process section itself.

So our first set of amendments concerns um the recognition section, which establishes the standards for how workers democratically select a union representative of their own choosing.

Our amendments would assign the responsibility for the administration of an election to a neutral third-party decision maker, such as the American Arbitration Association or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

This practice aligns with collective bargaining laws at the federal level, at the state level, and at um that's comparable with other local jurisdictions across the state of Maryland as well.

At the state level, this is represented by the Maryland Public Employee Relations Board.

This is an independent neutral agency that's responsible for, among other things, conducting union elections and certifying those results.

Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board at the federal level is also responsible for conducting elections, union elections, and again, this is also an independent agency.

Similarly, across the state of Maryland, local government jurisdictions through their ordinances typically assign this responsibility to Triple A or FMCS.

Additionally, the recognition recognition section does not currently have any language that establishes any timelines regarding the commencement or conclusion of when an election must be held.

So under the current language, it's really unclear whether an election would be held within 30 days, three months, six months, nine months, a year from the date when a valid election petition is filed.

We recommend in our proposed amendments that timelines be included in the election process so that workers have a fair opportunity and notice to be engaged in the election process.

And our recommendation is to have 90 days, uh, 90 days from the date that a valid petition is submitted.

That's consistent with state law as well.

Um, and similarly, in the recognition section, we have very minor amendments.

It's the addition of three words, wages, hours, and and in subsection F3 swapping may with shall.

And the reason for that is to ensure that there's uniform, consistent, um, strong duty to bargain language that's also consistent with state and federal standards across state.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

We urge you to support these amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christian.

Next we have Tina Grainy and then Fantama.

Good evening.

My name is Tina Meadows O'Rear.

Uh I live on Chookstown Road in Frederick.

I'm um happily surprised to see that the International Day of Peace is viewed as a local Frederick issue.

Um I certainly agree with that position, and I'm glad that it's been honored by this council.

In contrast, today, 79 more bodies were brought to the hospitals in Gaza in the last 24 hours, while 228 people were brought in who were injured in the last 24 hours, taking the number of injuries to 165,092 in the Israeli onslaught.

Many victims are still trapped under the rubble and on roads as rescuers are unable to reach them.

Also noted is the fact that nine Palestinians were killed and over 33 others injured by the Israeli army while army fire while trying to get to humanitarian aid in the last 24 hours.

This horrible, horrible violence is continuing as we speak.

There's a ground force onslaught that has started in Gaza, in northern Gaza, um, in Gaza City by the Israeli army.

And hundreds of thousands more people are expected to die as a consequence of this onslaught, as well as many, many more people who are expected to starve to death.

As you know, I've been enormously disappointed in this council's lack of action, lack of recognition of the pain of our Muslim citizens who number close to 4,000 in Frederick County and City.

The very least that we can do, I believe at this local level, is not only celebrate the concept of peace, but attempt to recognize the pain and injury of our Muslim citizens.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

Grady Ariar and then Fatima Kareem.

I also live on Shukstyon Road, Grady O'Rear is the name.

Members of the Council, I want to thank all of you who have had the energy and the commitment to run for office, whether you won or you lost.

Appreciate that public service.

Grady, it's difficult to hear you.

Do you want to point out?

Okay.

I was thanking you guys.

I hope you heard some of it.

As we know, the carnage in Palestine is not an isolated tragedy.

It is the most visible tumor of a cancer that has metastasized the militarization of U.S.

priorities.

That cancer drains resources from our communities, weakens investment in uplift here and abroad, and erodes rights, including the speech, the right to speech, and due process.

Consider these facts.

The U.S.

spends over $1 trillion each year through the Department of Defense, and nearly $2 trillion when including Homeland Security, Nuclear Weapons, Veterans Care, and particularly war debt.

A presidential executive order has rebranded the Department of Defense as the Department of War, which is in truth our nation's largest socialist enterprise, centrally directing resources and guaranteed corporate profits, while health care, housing, and education are dismissed as too socialist.

Frederick's share by population of U.S.

militarism is over 480 million dollars annually, more than double the city's 238 million dollar FY 2026 budget.

Meanwhile, the city has had to create the secure program with just 700,000 in emergency funds to help nonprofits keep food, housing, and health care programs alive after federal cuts, while $80 million annually in countywide nonprofit funding due to federal cuts is now at risk.

So the city is coming up with a little less than 1% of that cut, which is appreciated, but obviously only a small slice.

Nearly 170 jurisdictions nationwide have passed ceasefire resolutions, recognizing that local governments must help influence federal action.

We cannot keep mopping the floor while the faucet of militarism runs wide open.

Thank you.

Fatima Kareem.

And then that will end the folks who have signed up.

So if you'd like to ask, if you'd like to come up for public comment, I'll ask at the end of Fatima's comments.

Thank you.

Dear board members, good evening.

My name is Fatima Kareem, and I am here tonight standing before you as a single mother who loves my sons very much.

I have raised my sons as human beings who value and have learned how to respect everyone, treat others with kindness and love, and to view the world around them as what it actually is, not based not base their views of the world based on false fake propaganda, uh news channels and media outlets that portray and put stories out for the whole world to see that aren't true reality news.

As the world revolves around us, us Americans are watching a genocide of a people in Palestine daily that is so unprecedented and a fragrant violation of international and domestic law.

What does this exactly mean?

Well, let me explain this.

Explain what this means.

The definition of international law is the body of rules, agreements, and principles that govern the conduct of states and international organizations and their and and their interactions aiming to maintain peace, security, and cooperation worldwide.

This is exactly what the U.S.

is doing and has done in Palestine for the past 75 years without taking responsibility of this action.

But the but the Lord of all the worlds will render his divine justice to end this genocide for Palestine and its people, God willing.

Senator Barnaby Sanders on Wednesday said Israel was conducting genocide in Gaza, urging the U.S.

to use every, in quotes, every ounce of their leverage to demand an immediate ceasefire.

Why it matters?

It's the first time Sanders, the country's leading progressive voice, has called the conflict a genocide.

His comments could unlock similar criticism from other lawmakers on the left.

The intent is clear.

The conclusion is inescapable.

Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

Sanders said in a statement released Wednesday.

Sanders is also the first sitting U.S.

Senator to uh uh definitely declare the war a genocide.

The truth is, whether you call it genocide or ethnic cleansing or mass atrocities or war crimes, the path forward is clear.

Sanders said, and in quotes we as Americans must end our complicity in the slaughter of the Palestine people.

So my question to all of you on the panel sitting here tonight is will you continue to be complicit in the genocide of the Palestine people?

Or will you stand for stand on the side of the truth and raise your voices and say, not another nickel, not another dime, no more money for Israel's crimes.

I hope and pray that you'll make the right decision, and let's stand together as human beings that deserve a life, uh a life I'm sorry, deserve to live a life full of human rights and dignity that we and the entire Palestine people deserve to live every day of their lives until God calls them back, home and not at the hands of an oppressive regime and country that is carrying out a horrendous genocide in the name of Israel.

Thank you.

Additional public comments.

Do I need to swear in beforehand?

Are you are you here to give general public comment?

Yes.

You don't need to swear in.

Okay.

Yeah.

On one of the items.

Uh is it the historic preservation item?

Correct.

So when we get to that, we'll swear you in.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yep, absolutely.

Okay.

We will move on to our consent agenda.

All items included under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by council.

They will be approved by one motion without separate discussion of each item unless a person present requests an item or items to be removed from the consent agenda.

Any item removed from the consent agenda will be considered separately at the end of the consent agenda.

If you would like any of the items below considered separately, please say so when I announce each category.

Approval to serve alcohol in city parks.

Move for approval.

Second.

First and second, all in favor.

Five zero.

Thank you very much.

Special ordinances.

Move for approval.

Second.

First and second all in favor.

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

First item in our public hearing this evening is the approval of a contract with Mid Atlantic Utilities in the amount of 450 dollars and forty 450 42 dollars for the water valve bolt replacement in the Tuscara Noise Knolls community.

Good evening, Council members.

Um I'm Ben Arnison, the water superintendent for the City of Frederick.

Um Councilmember Nash, uh Ridd, I'm here for the approval to inter contract with Middle-Landic Utilities for the next round of the bell bolt replacement in Tuscara Knowles for 450,000 dollars and forty-two dollars and twenty-five cents.

Does anybody have any questions?

Questions up here?

When's the last time these bolts were replaced?

So the this is the the same group of valves that were installed in the city somewhere between 1993 and 2000, um, where they had coded the valves and did not use stainless steel bolts.

So the bolts are what are getting eaten out instead of the whole entire metal as one.

Um so they as the pressure builds the valves give out.

That's what happened to Market or Market Street out by TJ High School.

And the lifespan of these?

The lifespan of these?

Uh the stainless steel bolts, hopefully longer than anybody here.

You're trying to say then we owe uh well you said it.

We have some in the we have some in the ground that have already made it 103 years so and without being replaced because they were done right.

So we're hoping that we do them correctly this time.

So whenever your team comes before us, you talk about water valve bolt replacement, and I sort of go on a leap of faith that you obviously know much more about this than me.

And when I think of bolt replacements, I think of those little things, and that's about it as far as how much I know about bolt replacement.

But I will say that whenever you all bring something forward, it's always a proactive to the extent that you can, it's always a proactive measure, and it it costs us 450,000, but I have a feeling it probably saves us lots and lots and lots more.

That's a technical term.

So I appreciate I appreciate the work.

I appreciate you coming before us, um, even if I don't always understand what it is that you're asking for.

But thank you.

Yeah.

Um is there additional comment up here?

Public comment on this item.

Is there a motion?

Move second.

First and second, all in favor?

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

Uh next item is the approval of an agreement with Census USA for the software services to manage the city's water meter system and issuance of a purchase order in the amount of seven million dollars to LB water services for compatible modern meters.

Again, thank you.

Item two.

Council member Nash.

Um Ben Arneson, the water superintendent for the city of Frederick.

Uh so I'm here seeking the approval to enter an agreement with Census uh US Incorporated for the to change out all the water meters in the city of Frederick that haven't been an overall update in a significantly long time.

Um the last time they went through, they did a nine uh nine thousand out of the fourteen thousand that we had at the city at the time, and that was done in uh oh four, oh five.

Uh and we've been chasing our tail since then.

So I'm hoping that with one big push and the help of all of my staff that we can get this done in the 24 months that we laid out.

So it does seem to me that um you're talking about 20 years.

This was done about 20 years ago.

Yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

And and let me see if I remember this right.

We did it then so that we could start reading from the street.

Well, so that's what they had started with with the val the the uh meters that were out in the street uh versus the ones that are in the home, um, because they were easier, quick quicker to get to, and that was also done with by a contractor.

Uh and that's part of why this one is we've added extra time to it because we're gonna do it in-house for the staff.

Um when I cut did the pricing for it to uh have it contracted out for somebody to come in and do the actual meter replacement instead of using our staff, it was gonna take them 14 months to do the entire project, and then it was gonna cost us us another seven million dollars on top of this seven.

So I I'm more concerned uh about so we literally just paid or voted to spend four hundred and fifty thousand dollars on bolt replacement, right?

Because what you said was it was done incorrectly in the first place.

See where I'm going with this?

Yes, ma'am.

So how do I know that our staff has the expertise to properly put these in?

Our staff seems to be more generalists than than this.

So if you can run me through this, okay so that so that I can trust that in 15 years, the next set of people aren't gonna be sitting up here saying why do we spend some of the things that we're gonna do?

The contract itself is a guaranteed 15 years with a five-year uh warranty with a assuming we put them in correctly.

Correct.

Well, actually that does it the meter body itself that we're getting the warranty on will not change.

That that warranty won't change regardless of how we put it in.

The only thing that would happen if we put it in was the if we could cross thread it and it would happen that'd be leaking.

Um but that would be something that we fix now on a regular basis with all the meters.

Just to give you an idea of my staff at the moment with all new developments and the overall changing of meters just in general are doing somewhere around a hundred to a hundred and fifty a week.

Wow.

Okay.

Good to know.

We practice a lot.

Okay.

And these will also be the um as as technology continues to run much faster than any of us.

Well, it will be um one of the biggest uh bonuses to it is that we no longer will have to have somebody take take a van around once every quarter or once well once a month and read sections.

Um we'll be able to pull the data right off of this um in your computers at your desk, and we won't have to send anybody out to do it.

So whenever finance would like billing questions, um one of the other perks that comes with this system uh is that the homeowners once the everything is up and functional, they'll have the ability to log into their own meter and it'll tell them whether it's been running for 24 hours or if they have an issue, which will us actually also come back to myself and my staff um every day until even before the system is totally up and running.

Once we implate the meter is in place, they will they will we will get emails and notifications if someone's home is running versus now it only happens when we read it every quarter.

Right.

So it will actually allow us to get to problems much faster impact the homeowner much less.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'll just add here that when we were having the conversation about water rates, I was probably the most critical about it, and this was one of the reasons why we needed to raise water rates.

So I'm happy to say I think that was the right call.

Um because of the issue that through your questioning we brought up with respect to um catching problems a lot faster.

Um so appreciate that addition line of questioning.

Additional comments up here.

Is there public comment on this item a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Approval of an agreement in the not to exceed amount of 150,000 dollars with Wood Valley Community Strategies for conceptual design of the Rock Creek Trail, RFP 25-9.

And excuse me.

Good evening, everyone.

So as background, the the uh Rock Creek Trail, as you probably all know that uh proceeds uh west from Bauman's Lane almost to the mall.

Um is uh very narrow, unlit, um, and prone to flooding, also is quite steep at some points.

Um this uh uh work will assess how to make that into a uh more modern shared use path that is ADA compliant, it deals with the slopes, it deals with with widening, and also assesses um if its current alignment is really the best place for that.

Um after a after a after a competitive bidding process, um uh we found that this that this contracting team is best for um this questions up here.

So this is this is just for the um the plan in essence, right?

Yes.

So there's so many unknowns uh and the we don't we don't want to get into a really deep um uh process of figuring out things until we actually un we we literally understand what the the lay of that land is.

Sure.

So um I I have some concerns with um just I want to ensure that um the plan is being worked out within property that the city owns um because if you're talking about places that are too steep, I have some concerns that we might not be able to work out a path in that place necessarily.

Um I just want to be sure that we're not we we're giving um specifics to the plan designers that they know that we're not expecting to go out and buy properties to do this.

Yeah, uh we're we are expecting all of the options to be within our existing uh uh lands and not to uh onto any private property.

There is one small segment at the very end where that trail currently does go into a private space.

Um that uh any time we have any links like that, we'll we will want to work directly with the the HOAs to ensure they uh either want to be a part of this or not.

Um but we would never design something without their explicit consent or a per um or approval.

So it goes into uh the property of an HOA but not a private individual.

There is uh at the at the current endpoint, yes.

If they if that uh HOA decides not to allow us in there, that's fine.

What we will do is we is we we will design an appropriate endpoint for the trail.

Okay.

Thank you.

David, we don't have a scope of work and that's okay, but can you just tell me unless I missed it, I thought maybe I missed it, but can you just the communication to the HOA and the NAC and the sort of like area groups involved, like I would imagine the Friends of Waterford Park might be interested, right?

So uh is that on us or is that on them?

I just want to make sure as we're as the as the consultant I as part of the design process, are they including any community outreach?

It's okay if they're not, I just wanna yes, they are.

Okay, so okay.

One of the things which they are interested in doing is um a walking workshop to um invite folks out to to come and show us where they see things not being really good and where things are great.

Uh and so what are the things that folks are also really worried about, such as light intrusion or else other um other kinds of impacts.

Once we get started, we will be creating a formal um a f uh a formal plan for stakeholder outreach, both internal and also external.

Okay, fantastic.

Anything else up here?

Is there public comment on this item?

Move for approval.

Second.

All in favor?

First and second.

Thank you very much.

It's five zero.

Thank you, David.

Thank you.

I think you're up.

Task order two with Delta for a master plan update relating to a grant already accepted.

Explain that to me.

Good evening, Council members.

Andrew Moore, uh, airport manager.

So tonight I've got a few projects to put in front of you.

Um the first one is gonna be uh an approval of task order two with Delta Airport Consultants for a master plan update.

Um these master plans are think of it a planning document the FA requires every 20 years.

It looks at uh our current demand, future demand, current traffic, future traffic, community needs and uses in the future, and what our current inventory of infrastructure is, and then it updates it for the next 20 years.

Um last one we did was 2008.

We've accomplished most of everything in that plan.

Um and this is what we're doing to look at the future.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions up here?

Public comment on this item.

Entertain a motion.

No for approval.

Second.

First and second, all in favor.

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

Are you gonna you is it is it Rachel's at one motion for the whole thing?

That'd be awesome if it was.

But it's not right.

Um yeah, if that was if that was your intent was to approve all three in one, then I think that's fine as long as you have I didn't read that into the record though, so I need to read that.

Let's do a demo.

Um but you didn't present, did you present on all three?

Not on all three.

Not on uh all the time.

So why don't you keep going and then we'll just wait for you up?

Okay, yes, keep it.

On board.

Um the second project that's also grant related is for an approval of task order one with Delta Airport Consultants and a construction contract with Connawango Enterprises for the the first actual physical pavement construction to our South Corporate Apron.

So this will be a new apron area that the taxiway is already stubbed out to.

And um when it is fully built out, which will likely be largely done with private development of hangers, it could double the space currently available for businesses to grow um at Frederick Airport.

So right now we're full on all space.

Um I think that's it for that one.

And then the third item on there was a um special ordinance to adjust um the budget for to account for the um the master plan, that first one I talked about.

Okay, so we're gonna take task order one and I'm gonna read them we're gonna take the budget special ordinance separately.

So yeah, we're gonna need to do that.

So um so the first motion will be I'll make the motion to approve the Delta Airport Consultants Task Orders 1 and 2.

One being for sorry, I just 18,000, and two being for anyone nine seventy-seven.

977, what is it?

21977.

2197, thank you very much.

That's my motion.

Second.

All in favor.

That's 50.

Thank you very much.

And then we'll have a motion to approve special ordinance s 25-19 budget amendment to include grant revenue from the FAA to as well as Pago and County Grant matching funds to fund the expenditures to Delta Airport Consultants.

Move for approval.

Second.

All in favor.

It's 50.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

And you have another one for us.

I should have another item.

Yep.

Keep going.

Oh, ready for the next one?

Yep.

Okay.

Um, and this last one went to workshop recently.

Andrew Moore Airport Manager.

This last one went to uh workshop recently.

It's a uh ground lease with uh hangar club LLC, who's gonna build 80 uh hangar units at the airport.

Um and we talked a lot about what their lease entailed.

I included a lot of details.

I'm happy to answer any further questions you guys may have.

Any questions up here following up from the committee?

Or any comments in general?

Any public comment on this item.

Move for approval.

Second.

First and second, all in favor.

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Andrew.

All right.

Memorandum approval of memorandum of understanding with East Frederick Rising.

Richard, you're on the good evening, uh Richard Griffin, director of economic development.

Uh I'm presenting this on behalf of Mary Ford Nail, who is our manager of economic development and is the staff liaison to East Frederick Rising.

We have several events going on tonight, including Tech Frederick, which is uh General Nagasoni speaking next door at New Spire Art.

So we're double double duty tonight.

Uh this is a memorandum of understanding between East Frederick Rising and the City of Frederick.

We did bring this to the government operations committee back in July and received comment.

Uh additionally, subsequent to that meeting, the legal department has fully reviewed the MOU.

Uh East Frederick Rising has continued to review the MOU.

There were a few uh non-substantive changes made in terms of just making it more readable and legible, legal, but all of the substantive items remain the same.

Uh I did want to recognize that Heather Goddard, the president of East Frederick Rising and her crack team uh board members are here.

Um raise your hands.

Uh where did Heather go?

Oh, she's up here.

I thought she was with me.

I was like, where did you go, Heather?

Uh in any case, they have done an extraordinary job.

They did provide an additional briefing that's in your packet.

Um I am here to answer any questions that you may have about the um the legal document.

Also, I wanted to recognize our legal uh um city attorney is here uh and could answer questions as well.

And if you have any questions for East Frederick Rising, of course, Heather can uh speak to those anything up here.

Any public comment.

No.

All right, I'm gonna take a motion.

Move for approval.

Second.

All in favor.

It's five zero.

Thank you very much.

And uh East Frederick is really doing a great job.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next item is approval of ordinance G 25-08 concerning collective bargaining.

Councilmember.

Thank you, Council President.

Um this is an ordinance to uh authorize collective bargaining for employees that are not uh members of the police department.

We discussed this.

I'm sorry, the executive summary has a couple of pieces missing.

Um this was discussed, I believe initially in July of night of 2024.

And this is being heard tonight at the public meeting and not at the government operations committee.

Um so this is uh bit basically parallels with the language that was in the um that's in the ordinance for the police department.

It uh authorizes employees to collectively bargain, and I'm happy to answer questions or have discussion.

So I have a um just a a couple of questions.

I I we we did have a couple of discussions of this before, so um the verbiage came from the uh FOP.

Is that what you just said?

No, sorry.

The the ordinance that enables the collective bargaining uh language is currently in our ordinance.

This basically parallels and and mirrors that same language, but for non-sworn employees for staff members.

So it's basically so you have the the charter enables the ability to have collective bargaining by ordinance.

There was an ordinance put in place many years ago for sworn employees.

I've taken that language and amended it to apply to non-sworn employees.

So it's essentially this the enabling legislation to allow collective bargaining to occur.

Okay, I I think that's what I meant, if not what I said.

So the language is taken from what permits the FOP.

It's it's the same language, that's where the language comes from, correct?

It's modeled closely on Chapter 17, Article 2 of the police department that talks about police employee relations, which allows for that collective bargaining to occur.

So it basically is the same enabling language, but for non-sworn employees as opposed to sworn employees.

Okay.

I understand that part.

I'm just trying to figure out where the verbiage itself, the actual writing of the language, because we we got some requests for changes that I I don't know that actually make a significant difference in what's being attempted, other than the um having a uh non a neutral third party be part of it, having some dates put in, um, and some of that language is the same and some of it is not the same.

The requests for um changes by AFSCME.

Do you know what I'm talking about?

I believe you're talking about um uh proposed amendments that were sent.

Correct.

Some as far back as earlier.

Well, I've lost track of time now, last fall, this spring, and then as recently as two or three days ago, um, an amendment request was sent.

The earlier amendments were shared with our legal department with HR and with staff for their review.

And there were many points that were not the points of concern on behalf of each of those three groups that we've not reached any consensus on.

And so what I have done is just taken the original proposal and brought it back here.

I have not included any of the amendments that were suggested by the union because we were not finding mutual areas of agreement, and I think it's going to take more discussion to do that.

Sure.

Basically.

Yeah, I'm I'm great with that.

Okay.

Great with having the discussion.

I just not sure why then we're not having that discussion at the governance committee instead of at the public hearing.

So I conferred with council president Nash and and she conferred with Council Vice President Shacklford.

And because this exact same ordinance had already been workshopped by the same people that are on the government operations commission committee.

We just felt it was prudent to move it right ahead.

Beautiful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I I have some of the um I I do have the concerns the the same concerns that have been brought forward having to do with the um having having there be a uh neutral party and um timing ensuring that there is timing um in the ordinance itself.

Um I'm I'm really not sure that I have specific wording for those changes tonight.

I have an a different concern that hasn't been brought forward by um I I guess they call it asks me.

Um and that is um E3 No, is that right?

No.

Yeah.

It talks I I'm sorry, it's it's E2.

And it talks about there shall be no more than two units of general employees, one unit of supervisory employees with a community of interest.

So in essence, this city um could end up with four different bargaining units, correct?

The FOP and then three here.

What would the the three how would you define the three?

Well, they're they're defined in here by it's simply I don't know how I would define them because what it says here is there shall be no more than two units of general employees and one unit of supervisory employees.

So I think they define themselves.

There's the question.

And it says with a community of interest.

So if um administration, administrative employees came forward with an interest in having that, that would be their community of interest.

Let's say, let's say they came forward, moved through the process, ended up with a union.

I'm fine, that's fine.

Um I don't know.

Um I'm sorry, just uh uh like DPW.

A group of people from DPW comes forward, they have their maybe they all work outside or something.

They have their common interest.

So then we have one, we have two, we have the FOP, we have the possibility of a supervisory, and everybody else in the city is left out.

I'm just trying to figure out what's the point.

So I guess that might question would be generally speaking in these structures, and specifically based on the language that is proposed.

How and who defines a community of shared interest and is there any process for vetting or affirming that?

And and who is responsible for for that process if one exists?

If it's straightforward.

It would be straightforward to understand the concept of all employees of the city of Frederick are pursuing collective bargaining.

That's pretty easy to understand.

I guess it's relatively easy to understand all supervisory employees.

Okay.

Pretty easy to understand.

You can imagine who's a supervisory employee and who's who's not.

Is it allowable in the proposed ordinance that other subsets of our city workforce could define themselves as an entity?

And how and with what parameters.

And I think that's an important question.

Who does that then leave out?

Who's out or those people that are left out asked if they want to be left out?

Is would this be pursued as a logical method to unionize if if the entire workforce was not going to support the petition, but a a subset would, and then you can define your subset in order to try to get the percentage that you need.

What about people that aren't in that group?

I don't really understand how this works.

And I'm supportive.

But myself, as an employee at various stages of my my life do not have my own first hand experience with being a member.

So I don't really know how this works.

Let alone I have no personal experience with with the initial organization and launching a petition drive and things like that.

So I don't really understand how that would how that would work.

Who's in, who's out, who defines that, et cetera.

The employees.

So the way that I need a I need way more information than that answer.

The way I read this is various groups of employees can form themselves, right?

And again a community of interest, it could be a lot of different that that could mean a lot of different things, right?

I just I think that it is we've had the same conversation, Councilmember McShane, from the beginning.

I think we've both had these concerns clear from the beginning.

It is so broad as to just allow too many people to be left out.

It it allows small pockets, and once you have these That's exactly how it's written.

And and Councilmember Russell, if if you're saying it doesn't allow those, you're shaking your head no.

So please explain to me how it doesn't.

Sorry, I didn't move.

Okay, well, to some to exactly this is exactly the same ordinance with the language changes talking about non-sworn employees as sworn employees that enabled the FOP to come and be recognized by the City of Frederick.

They have two contracts, one for sworn, one for non-sworn.

So they've got two.

This is simple.

It parallels language we have, and there's always opportunity to add to change.

I would just what my plea to you is that we enable the employees to do this, and then you can work with and change anything you want.

But I'm not organizing employees.

This just gives them permission to do it in the same manner that have that worked for the collective bargaining non-union, by the way, organizations that bargain for the police department.

Thank you.

This uh seemingly is the moment to do uh to make those changes or address uh aspects of the the ordinance.

Uh I'm I'm not on all of, you know, we have we have committees here in in the city in our our structure.

I'm not on all of the the committees.

Um but I am here today and and do have some kind of basic questions that have been brought up.

Uh I don't I don't have information.

I would like it from someone here in the room uh about the process for establishing one group as an entity as that is a subset of the employees, how is that done?

Is are there any parameters or any guidelines for how that is that is established?

The seemingly included language that limits the number of times, the number of identified organized shared common interest entities that will be recognized by the city per the ordinance seems to have a limited number, and I think that is an appropriate question.

I don't know if this will happen, but if a number of subsets of the overall workforce establish themselves, what happens if if then we get to two?

Then are remaining employees not able to organize and and why are why do we have that included?

Why do why are we limiting that?

One way or the other.

Um it does seem like the questions that were brought up and have been emailed around about are there supposed to be elections?

If this happens, then is there an expectation that an election will occur and through what means?

I think that's an important question as well.

And I I don't know if if if someone has additional information about about this or or relevant background, my my colleagues or or our legal staff or or anyone that's um can speak on this from other jurisdictions.

I know lots of places have collective bargaining agreements with their municipal or county or or state employees.

I'm sure everybody's worked this out, or those wouldn't exist.

So somehow they all they all came to to exist.

Okay.

So I I'm trying to get to the heart of the of Councilmember Kazemchuk's question without referencing what AFSME has sent us, and I don't know how to do that.

And I'm not maybe I'm just not being creative enough or because I they've presented APSME has presented information to us in a memo type form.

And that's like what like because that's what I have to go off of given and I'll just I'll just readily confess that I I do trust their expertise in this area, and so I know I have not talked to the employees about this, so I don't I don't know how they feel about this the the changes, the edits.

So I'm sort of going off of I don't know how to answer your question without adopting the length.

So I'm I'm struggling.

I think I'd want to get your qu I want to get your So my question really deals with both um the with the amendments and without the amendments.

The the the wording that I'm concerned with really doesn't have anything to do with the amendment the wording that I'm concerned with doesn't have anything to do with the amendments.

It has to do with the um two or more, two, and then one supervisory and then a community of interest.

Without some type of glossary I got nothing.

And that two or more was consistent, I believe, with the introduction.

And I if I recall the conversation, you brought it up then.

I did.

And I did not.

I've I we've had a lot of time since then, a lot of conversations, so I don't have I don't have an answer that's so I'm but are there other we could take public comment?

I don't I'm I'm trying to be helpful, but I don't have a well I I guess I'll I'll share that you know we we the council received an email with a memo with some amendments, but they have not been published the employees have not seen them.

If a member of the council wants to make amendments, they certainly could read all of that into the record.

I I'm personally not willing to move forward with or without those amendments.

My concern has to do with the numbers.

And again, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I said it day one.

Would you like to table it and take the amendments back to the employees for their feedback?

Is that a compromise?

Or would you like us to I don't have an answer to her question?

I don't I'm not I just I don't know.

I'll be honest.

And I don't know, Rachel, if you have any feedback there or in other ordinances, we have a legislative clerk that has done um work to bring us different versions of things in the past.

It's not that I don't want to provide collective bargaining to the employees who wanted to do that 20 years ago.

Uh that's fine.

And I don't mean to make you I'm not suggesting that at all.

I I'm disappointed because I remember you asking that question and I forgot to double check.

That's really truthfully.

I didn't, I forgot.

Um so and I just sitting here at 7 o'clock, I don't have an answer.

I do know it was it hasn't changed, so I don't I don't think we have the benefit of having any context around that.

So I'll I'll def, you know, it's it's the councilmember's ordinance.

I'll defer if she what she would like to do here, but I don't have a I don't have an answer for her.

I don't I don't know the answer.

Well clearly if there are not three votes to move this forward, I'm not going to let it be defeated.

So whatever action you all need to for me to do.

I won't consider it a compromise.

We've been discussing this for well over a year.

It's simple enabling legislation.

So I don't want to be disingenuous because I think we will ultimately have a discussion about the amendments.

I just don't have the answer to the councilmember's question.

So we could proceed, I think a prudent, a more prudent because it is, it does employ it does affect all of the employees.

I recognize that and you've been very uh strong advocate for that.

So I don't want to rush before having an answer to that question, and I just don't know the answer.

Um so I think maybe it might be prudent to table it and bring it back if that is the will of the body, but I there's five of us up here.

I'm um if we don't have answers, I have some questions and we it doesn't I have some questions that I would like some more information to um if it is the case that the proposed ordinance does not stipulate a timeline or process for elections, then my question would be should that be included?

What or is it or it is there a position advocated by by someone that we shouldn't put that in?

Okay, well then I need to understand both.

If it should be included, then we should include that.

I also have questions around the various communities of interest, I suppose we can maybe refer to that as sort of similar employees.

I would assume that this was going to represent basically all city workers.

If that's not the case, then I am then I have questions about how do select groups within the city organize and does that leave other workers out and basically lose their right to organize.

I'm also available if if the position were argued, the enabling legislation should not have any should be should have no opinion about that.

Maybe that's an argument, but I I guess I need to hear that.

If if we are trying to make this work the best, then I can easily imagine these scenarios.

If Department of Public Works employees of their own accord converse with one another and conclude that they are like-minded employees and they would like to organize for themselves, but they're not going to involve or include people that aren't the public Department of Public Works employees.

Is that a is that a good thing?

Is that is that how this works?

Or what if just sanitation workers choose to do that?

What if what if the employees of the wastewater treatment facility choose to do that and they talk amongst themselves after they were were in enabling legislation to pass, they see that that happened, and they talk amongst themselves.

Maybe they don't call anybody from any of the other divisions of the Department of Public Works, they say, well, we think we're we're our own team.

We're here, we're the wastewater treatment facility workers.

We're just gonna do this for us.

We think we're gonna you know take care of our own business.

Is there any concept that other employees should be given the opportunity to join their effort or and if there's a limited number of entities that the city is willing to recognize, what if wastewater treatment workers and parks and rec workers each do this?

And and the IT folks weren't paying attention, or they like oh well sorry, nothing no space left for you.

I don't really understand how that would work.

And and if that's a scenario, I think we should avoid that unless unless it's in the city's interest to be agnostic to that, which I don't really understand why we would be.

Well, I think two parts of that.

Or not from the FO?

No, it is city ordinance.

Okay.

So to that end, to my colleague's question, did you have anything in mind where you the word two?

Did you was that specific for any reason?

I believe I'd use the existing language that's in the ordinance and modified it so it would only apply to non-sworn employees.

I made no substantive changes.

Okay, within that framework, do you have any idea in terms of that, your thoughts in your mind what those two may be?

And I know it's in the ordinance, but I wasn't around when the ordinance was written.

I mean, so to that extent, do you have any uh thoughts on that?

No, I do not because that is an employee-driven effort.

So there are any number of ways that they could choose to organize.

This simply lays out a process for them to be recognized or not with a majority in the process laid out.

So there was testimony back, I think, when the original piece was heard about the wisdom in limiting the number.

One, and two, it was not that it would be in small numbers, but wouldn't be beneficial.

Right.

So to my colleague's point, if the wastewater treatment plant wanted the employees wanted to unionize, have to believe unionize.

That may not be in their best interest to do so just amongst themselves.

It would be in the best interest to include as many persons as possible.

And I would imagine in the interest of the municipality, the employer, the employer does not want to deal with having to negotiate with 20 different organized entities.

So in the interest of the employer, if the employer were agreeable to an enabling policy, that a position of the employer may be, but you all got to get together at least in a in a just a couple groups, or altogether.

But then what does that do with does that allow for the I would consider unfortunate scenarios that that we've brought up?

Does that allow for small, small groups of employees to unionize and leave out other people and hey, that's up to them to do, except that we're passing the enabling legislation that defines only a couple people can do, only a couple teams can do this.

Is that that seems like a bad thing?

I'm asking you the question, are you saying only one team?

Is that where you say?

Only one set of employees are you saying more?

Because you're saying if it's two, that's if these two small pockets or possibility were to unionize, then that would leave the rest out.

It seems like that's a possible scenario.

But if you had one, that's the same way.

Those no the employees don't have to unionize.

So just because it started, not everyone has to be a part of that.

That would be the question.

I'm sorry, I had a I just lost my train of thought.

You saw it leave the track there.

I'll get it back.

I I know there was I think the reason it's caught out specific to management, there would be two that their minimum is that you have management or supervisory, excuse me, as a different as a different union or different bargaining entity, and that's from what I understand pretty consistent.

Um I think it makes I think the the at least two is defined and make sense.

I I don't have a legislative history of the choice of two.

I don't I don't have that.

Um it could just be that they had this conversation back way back when, and they said, well, we want to limit it in some way to preserve bargaining power, but we also recognize that there may be I'm literally you know making that up, but I I could see that as a as a plausible answer, but I I don't I don't know that to be true.

I have to I'd have to ask.

Well, and I'll just say in my research and looking at different ways that places do organize, there are some employees that would naturally and rightfully under whatever logic it is be excluded.

For example, the chief of police who's not part of the collective bargaining unit.

So if you have somebody that is, you know, maybe the legal team or a confidential employee of the mayor or the budget director, I don't know.

But there are scenarios where there are there are going to be people who will not be covered by collective bargaining.

That is not unusual across the board.

I am not a union organizer, so whatever writ research I've done, I've done just sort of trying to understand.

But there and we heard before, and you're recalling the testimony that there is the strength in organizing comes from the number of the number.

So if you have an organization of five, they're not gonna have any sway because it's not gonna make that much difference.

If you have all of your non you all of your sworn employees that are non-supervisory, and you have all your sworn employees that are supervisory, or you have your department of public works, or however it lays out, the strength is in having sway through the number of people involved in the organization, if I'm understanding it correctly, and that's what was conveyed.

I think that there obviously has to be a limit because we have only a certain amount of bandwidth to bargain.

We don't want 17 different contracts that we have to bargain with.

So again, uh, you know, what whatever the wisdom was back in 1990, whatever it was that this got passed.

I'm just carrying that on.

And I'm quite sure that at some point, maybe in the next few months, maybe in the next few years, there will be a need to update not only this provision, but the police department provision too, and bring it into more modern standards.

But that's complicated.

And so I think it makes sense at this point that these run parallel until such time as there is an ability to have that more robust conversation.

And I'd like to see it before I go.

This, not that.

So I have been involved in the past in and city employees getting together and um talking about unionization.

Um it's been an employee effort, an employee-led effort in the past, and I'm talking way past.

Um probably 2000, and again in 2000 and six, two thousand and seven, maybe.

So it's it's not that this hasn't been discussed, it's that a large enough group of employees has never gotten together and brought it forward.

This is being brought forward by an elected official, which makes it different, and I understand that.

But my I take my job very seriously in that my job is to protect the city, it is also to protect employees.

And the way this is written, I have serious concerns.

Now again, I brought these concerns up at the very first meeting.

I've brought them up at every meeting.

I don't know what else to say.

I'm not voting for this with the it worded the way that it is.

Okay.

I think I'll just there's a there's a request, so essentially, if I I'm condensing, there was, as the council member said, there were several pages of initial amendments in reaction to the initial introduction.

Um I I am not privy to the conversations that were had between the council member and the employee folks or legal or HR.

So but then we got another request on Monday for basically a very condensed version.

And I I've looked at those, and for me, I think there's I'll just want to highlight something because I don't want to leave this conversation without being truthful about where I am.

So there is in the bargaining process language, we there is discussion about or it it appears that, and we we don't have to adjudicate this tonight.

You can take it back and ask the employees what they think, but there does seem to be an inconsistency with when we talk about terms and conditions in the bargaining process, we do seem to leave out the work and hours that's in the other sections.

So, if you're gonna be referenced that.

Sure, I'm sorry.

So the bargaining process is Section F.

And if you look at the the employee, so section F number three, it says the employee organization and talks about wages hours, but then we in above and on number one, when we talk about negotiating collectively and in good faith, we don't include it's it's pretty it's pretty obvious that we don't include wages hours.

You include terms conditions, but we don't include wages hours.

So and that's that's important from where I am because if we're talking about negotiating a good faith, you need to make sure from where I sit, those those are enumerated, that's all.

And then I think the probably the big source of contention might be that for number three, also it's the May versus shall.

And I think we may just have to agree to disagree there because when you you are, and I understand why it was written this way, because you're authorizing, you're doing an authorization, right?

I mean am I assuming that's why it was why it's may instead of shell.

But to me so the employee organization in the city through the representatives may bargain collectively.

To me, if you don't at least upgrade that to a shell, there's nothing that forces folks to the table.

And again, we don't, and you've referenced this, and you're correct that we do not have a binding arbiter section, and so in all with all intents and purposes, the management could continue to move forward even after bargaining and make changes, so and not have to try to be fair about how I use my language because yeah, not abide by the terms is a fair.

So in you know, we've talked about how I feel about that, we can leave that there.

So, but that's if if we're gonna do it, I think I think asking, you know, and you can take that back if you'd like, but upgrading that from a May to shell.

I'm just interested in thoughts about that.

So if you're you're looking at F1, and so would it it would would it satisfy you to change to strike May and put shall in there, and then above in one, I think it's because it says with respect to terms and conditions that you want to make sure that that it says wages hours and other terms and conditions so the language is consistent in one and three.

I think it might have been a drafting error.

I think the one, I think one might have just left it out.

Yeah.

I'm fine with that.

I I guess the thing that I don't see everything the negotiation and the contract, the contract itself can lay out so many of these details, and probably is a better place for a lot of these details to be worked out because they'll be specific to the organization.

So for me, having this more just sort of I don't liberal is not the right word, but just this general language that says you can organize you shall negotiate with uh about wages, hours and other terms and conditions.

I think we're all in agreement about that.

Um the next step really is for employees to decide what they want to do and then how they would want to put together an agreement.

And so it makes sense to me again, just to have this sort of parallel track.

We don't even know if there's gonna be traction.

And Councilmember Kazemchak, there have been efforts in the past.

I remember one point where unions were invited to come in and talk to employees.

The only thing is they could have all decided at that point we want to do it, but there wasn't any legislation allowing them to do it.

So all I'm doing is opening the door.

But the elected officials at that point in time are willing to open the door.

But the charter requires an ordinance to be passed.

Okay.

It really feels to me like we don't know what we're talking about.

And like there should be somebody else in this conversation, and we're like anybody who has experience doing this.

I'm kind of perplexed.

Why aren't we hearing from employees who have who are working on this, or why are we hearing?

There's a whole millions and millions of union members in America and thousands and thousands of union organizers, like there's countless people that know the answers to all these questions.

And I'm sure where the employees decide if they want to organize, they'll be conferring with lots and lots of organizations.

This seems like a process or something.

Oh, what am I missing?

Pardon me?

This seems like a joke process.

Like, why isn't there like shouldn't there be like some people sitting at this table with those microphones who have can help us?

Do I need a motion to table it?

I'll move to table this.

Second.

All in favor.

It's five-zero, thank you.

Or for all of one abstention.

Okay.

Our next item on our agenda is the approval of ordinance G-22-23 to apply a historic preservation overlay to St.

Timothy's Chapel 27-Franklin Street.

I do need to.

How are we doing?

Okay.

Since this is a quasi-judicial public hearing, all persons who wish to give testimony or cross-examine a speaker on this matter must be sworn in.

If you would like to testify or cross-examine a speaker, please stand and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the statements made in this hearing will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

And if so, please answer I do.

Reasonable cross-examination of a speaker is permitted.

If you wish to cross-examine a speaker, please make that request prior to or immediately after the speaker has concluded his or her testimony or there.

The failure to make a timely request to cross-examine may be deemed a waiver of the right to cross-examine.

The questions must not be preceded by any statements, repetitious questions, and the examination on irrelevant matters will not be permitted.

The hearing will generally be conducted in the following order: introduction of the case, presentation of the case by city staff, presentation of the case by applicant or agent, testimony in support or opposition, rebuttal, council discussion motion, and council action.

Who's up?

There we go.

Good evening.

Uh Christina Martin Koske with the planning department.

Thank you so much for your time this evening.

Before I begin, I just want to make sure that the council received the updated ordinance.

Just want to confirm that no text was changed, but it was observed earlier this week that the maps were not attached.

Um, but I do want to note the maps um attached to the ordinance are consistent with the boundary outlines provided uh with the original application material or are posted online, and you should have um had access to them uh well in advance before this meeting.

Um Christine, if I may, just briefly we're gonna make sure that those are posted.

We can't update them uh while the meeting is ongoing, but we'll make sure that they'll they're posted online after the meeting.

Okay.

And I also just for the record of the um representative for the property owner were was given a copy of the the maps with the ordinance, I believe, yesterday morning.

Can you speak a little louder closer to Mike, please?

I'm sorry, I know it's terrible.

I'm so sorry, thank you.

Um so I am presenting the historic preservations commission's application to plot to apply a historic preservation overlay at the property here at uh 27 Franklin Street.

The site holds the historic St.

Timothy Chapel, a stone building constructed by noted builder and longtime mayor Lloyd C.

Collier in 1924.

It serves as a good example as ecclesi uh a good example of ecclesiastic English Gothic architecture.

The building is an early example of a suburban church built outside the city center to administer to the spiritual needs of the emerging working class suburb community of East Frederick.

The property is comprised of approximately 0.84 acres of land situated to the east side of Franklin Street and adjacent to Grove Park.

The property is zone institutional with the airport overlay, and of course, the application of a historic preservation overlay would not impact the existing zoning.

Per section port 23B and C of the land management code in accordance with the land use article Title VIII and annotated code of Maryland.

City Council is authorized to designate the boundaries of sites, structures, and districts that are deemed to be of historic archaeological or architectural significance.

This designation application was created as a result of a uh request for demolition review.

At the May 22nd, 2025 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the request and voted unanimously to make this application.

The Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission serve as recommending bodies, but the final decision ultimately rests with the city council.

At the June 17th, 2020 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission bound that the property meets the designation criteria.

That's what their designation or review criteria are.

At the August 11th public hearing, the planning commission also recommended support for the preservation overlay.

They found also that the property met the designation criteria and that the proposed overlay was consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and did not create a conflict with the intended use of the property owner.

All of this review has led us to tonight, uh, where the historic preservation commission is seeking city council to authorize and designate the boundaries of the historic preservation overlay at 27 Franklin Street.

And with that, I'll take any questions.

Questions up here.

Anything from the applicant?

It will be the property owner.

The historic preservation commission is sorry.

Okay.

No, I know.

You can correct me four more times, I'll still get it wrong.

But you're right.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Sean Hughes from Miller Miller and Canby on behalf of property owner, Pastor Serrano, who's with me tonight.

Um I was here a few weeks ago for the work session.

He was ill at the time, but um appreciate the opportunity and appreciate um the work we've done with staff.

We have been trying to work um separate than this, I guess I understand what we're here for tonight, which is uh the proposal about the historic designation.

And as we said at the work session, um we certainly recognize that this is probably qualifies, and we didn't necessarily oppose it, we haven't opposed it yet.

Um certainly there would be more flexibility if it didn't get passed, but we're not here to oppose it tonight.

We're really just here to make our commitment to the city.

Um the pastor and his congregation and his organization bought the property in 2008.

They've been working towards um renovating it, need a lot of work, getting it open, and as um council member McShane picked up on, we appreciated the comments at the work session.

Really, our goal is to get a UNO so we can start operating, have the congregation there, start have helping the community, yes, raise some funds, and then move forward on the longer-term expansion plan, which is pending, which is I guess I should say it's it's um been submitted, but it needs it will need some work because we're gonna assume that it's probably gonna get historic designation, and we will welcome going through the working through and trying to get the historic um approvals for that and all the other approvals.

But we just want to say um we're here.

He's he and the congregation are excited, they want to get open, they want to start being a positive contributor to the city, and we're hoping we can work through all the process to get open as soon as possible on that front, and then um have a little bit there's a larger expansion to the building to help it uh kind of meet the 21st century.

So we welcome any questions and we we appreciate the opportunity tonight.

Is there any additional testimony or public comment on this item?

Peter Brem, I live in district three.

This uh building is also in district three.

I heartily endorse the recommendation um to make this a historic overlay.

Architecturally, the building is significant, and it is one of the few buildings in East Frederick that has an architectural presence.

So I view it as a destination architecture, among other things.

It really is an impressive building.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Goddard, and I am uh speaking on behalf of uh the NAC coordinator who had to step out um early.

Um he requested that I submit this uh opinion.

Um he wanted to convey uh the fact that the with over 200 and plus pages of well-researched application, he wanted to send his compliments to Christina Martinkowski for her good work.

Um wanted to also note that it was a unanimous decision by the HPC and the PC.

Um and I was at the NAC 12 meeting when uh we reviewed the application, it was very well received by the residents at NAC 12.

Um, and so we wanted to request that you please re approve this application this evening.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Additional comment on this.

And then just as a formality, do you have any additional rebuttal to anything that was said?

I I would imagine probably not.

Not I think it was said, thank you.

Okay.

Council discussion.

I'm supportive of the request for a historic preservation overlay on the property.

It seems like a very strong candidate to be protected and preserved for for all the reasons that were laid out and and many more.

And fortunately, it seems to me that the property owner has largely attempted to maintain the existing structure and to renovate the existing building.

It there's not been an attempt to demolish it or to tear it down or to change it entirely.

And thankfully, the property owner seems to want to use it in its uh historic nature.

I do also very much hope that our city and and staff and and the departments can work with the property owner to try and quickly address any of the issues that have come up.

I know there are some concerns about some work that has been done that may need to be be altered.

I really hope that we can get through that process quickly and and get folks into this into this place and using it and and having it serve our community um, you know, as as soon as we can.

I think it it is a building that and site that should be preserved, but I also really would love to see it in use as quickly as we can helping people.

I agree that I think it it is one of the most significant um sites in that area of town.

It's it's just it's beautiful.

It truly is.

Um it's not public comment time.

It's so you'll you'll have to just speak to the president about that.

Um so I do plan to support this.

I'll just comment that I've been blessed to do a lot of work in this position.

And one of the things I'm most proud of is working with then Alderman Michael O'Connor and our historic preservation staff to put the demolition review ordinance into place so that this process can even happen.

So I just wanted to say that that that a lot of work went into that and with staff cooperation, a lot of support from the community.

We now have a way to protect these resources.

Well said, Councilmember, I would imagine a younger Katie Nash probably had questions or fussed at you about that or at some point, but you're absolutely right.

And I think this is a really good example of how it saved uh I admit when I'm wrong.

I was wrong.

How are you?

Well, I was a lot more crazier than you'd imagine that.

Um I wanted to say I Christine, I am often I get distracted about making sure I don't mess anything up with quasi-duditionals, so I don't always give you the appropriate um kudos, and I know it does take a lot of uh I can't only imagine how much work it takes to shepherd this through multi-levels of process and making sure that everything is documented perfectly.

So congratulations to you for the work that you do.

Okay.

I was I wasn't here present today, but I did watch the discussion.

I appreciate this discussion by my colleagues and the work that you've done and um the owner of the property.

Um thank you.

Sometimes um is difficult and challenging because sometimes you want to be flexible to what your property, but I appreciate you um agreeing to these to these terms.

And there is a period of general public comment after we conclude the case.

Yeah, if you're ready to make a decision, you should ask for a motion and just remember that you need some findings.

I move for approval of ordinance G 22-23 to apply the historic preservation overlay to St.

Timothy's Chapel 27 Franklin Street with the following um findings of fact.

The site is associated with events that have made significant contribution to the bride patterns of history, including those that exemplify the heritage of the city.

The site is associated with the lives of persons significant in the history of the city, and the site exhibits significant and significance in design or construction by embodying the distinctive characteristics of a tight period or method of construction, including characteristics particularly associated with the city of Frederick.

And it retains its um it retains significant integrity.

I'll just leave it with that.

Second all in favor.

It's 5-0.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

So it's back up here for comments, and then we'll do general public comment.

So uh is there any council comments?

We'll do the same orders, no one's surprised.

Uh no, thank you.

Councilmember.

Councilmember.

September 22nd is car free day.

Councilmember, did I skip you?

No, I was I was busy shaking my head.

Did you have an amazing birthday?

Happy birthday.

Thank you.

Uh general public comment.

Is there general public comment this evening on any topic at all?

Yes.

Uh thank you, uh all the council members.

Um we are gonna want your name and a general address.

Just uh your name.

Uh my name is Luis Serrano.

And a general uh Frederick is a general address.

Do you live in Frederick?

I'm live in Frederick, yes.

Yes, in the village of Urbana.

If you want you want my home address, okay.

Um I've been identified as the owner of 27 Franklin Street, and I'm just the pastor of the church and the president of 501c3, the non-profit.

Then the owner is a Christian network, not me.

That's number one.

Number two, for me, this is um uh unhappy that is being uh uh the building become historic, even though when we because it will triple the price uh of the investment.

Um not only preserve.

Um about preservation, we already show seven years plus a million dollars plus all the permits and all the endorsements and all the meetings and everything that was done in that building, it was done because I asked the question.

Is this building is historic?

When I get a uh on my hands, the same documentation that Christina used to base his comment.

Uh we went to the city of Frederick, I meet with the previous code official.

He said, Pastor, we're gonna go and ask.

He went and asked, and he came back and say, no, it's an ordinance that it was uh no historic, and it was changed to park to um the the use that we have now.

Um Miss Christina Martinkovsky seed that ordinance to uh uh requested to my engineers to present when we submit the site plan for an addition in 2019.

Then when I meet with all the code officials that say, hey, I'm like a soldier.

I just want to do this and do it right.

And then I say, Pastor, we're gonna do three stages.

So what do you want to do?

Well, restore the building because it's unhealthy.

It's mall, it's lead, um the bathrooms are 100 years old, the sewers is a fire hazard.

We look uh something else when when we purchase that, we find out that um somebody did something without permit, and uh it was a seriously structural compromise.

Um then I say, okay, number one, submit the permit.

We submit the permit in 2018.

That I have I call it number zero, and now we are in revision number two or three.

That means I was surprised when I almost get a heart attack.

When uh I see a video where Christina says in the NAC meeting, hey, thank you everybody on NAC.

I wish when we send all the mailing uh to everybody, like two, three hundred letters.

Um is is um nobody show up in that meeting.

Then we did the meeting, we did the technical review, um, and we start grading permit for the retaining wall, and everything is done.

All the roof that it was changed, all the mortar that it was replaced, um, all the waterproofing that it was done, the roof, the windows, the doors, none of that could be done if the building was historic.

You what you just kind of approve it.

Can you can you wrap up, Pastor?

Can you wrap up, please?

Your time is up.

Yes.

Um sorry for that.

And I've been very emotional with this because uh still I don't understand why we are stuck in this situation.

Okay.

Yeah, I I I will finish.

And um, but um I hope we can get a UNO and I hope we can get a resolution.

And um thank you.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Is there additional public comment this evening?

All right, with that we will have final word that we are adjourned.