We have on our agenda a draft ordinance that seeks to address a challenge that is not a new challenge to the city of Frederick, one that seems to be coming up more and more frequently now.

Um I'll speak for myself.

Um last term we had a neighborhood in Councilmember Bram's district that uh was plagued.

Uh I'll call it plagued because it really was plagued, and we were getting videos of rats uh that were just running amok.

Uh and it seemed to sort of settle down.

There were some actions that were taken.

I know the neighbors really worked really hard.

Um, but I don't say I would think the neighbors there have I haven't been talking to them as much because I no longer represent them, but I'd say they would would argue that um I saw them at National Night Out uh last August, and they would argue that they're still very much a challenge.

Uh and I have a neighborhood of my district, uh, Carroll Park Manor.

We've heard some constituent comment here in this boardroom uh that we just there is a um it it it sort of goes beyond a problem.

It's really a crisis.

If you go, and I have to Carroll Park Manor during the day, you will if you wait and you just sit in your car and you just watch, you will see rats running around.

Um it's disgusting, and it is not acceptable in twenty twenty-six in the city of Frederick.

So what we have in front of us is a beginning of a draft um for the public's awareness for our awareness.

This is the first time that we're sort of working on this draft in public.

The full council will get a chance just as a sort of process matter.

The we've had staff weigh in, we've had the Department of Public Works as well as legal weigh in with their respective changes.

That's not the version that is published today.

The ver the version that is published today is the original version.

So what's going to happen is we're going to talk about those changes.

We're going to talk about changes up here that we'd like to see or you know, just discuss.

And then I'm going to make additional changes with those staff comments and flip that around for posting for the Thursday meeting.

So for Thursday's meeting, there will be the original um draft that's posted right now, and hopefully there will be a version that's been edited uh after our conversation today, just so there's sort of this version control of what we're talking about.

So everybody knows what sort of what's going on.

And then eventually, I think sometime in August, hopefully we'll go to uh hearing.

If the committee agrees.

That seems annoying.

But but staff did go through and make pretty sizable changes or s significant changes, I should say.

Zach Kirschhner of the Department of Public Works suggested that we eliminate all references to timing and leave that up to code enforcement, which I thought makes sense.

I'm open to other ideas, but why write it into an ordinance when code enforcement could could probably be big allow greater flexibility?

Building construction and demolition, the ordinance as written refers to demolition.

And and thank you for your reference to what happened in District 3 last year.

That was a that rat infestation was caused by the development of the building on prospect where the field was disrupted and all the rats moved over into the neighborhood.

I did check with a couple residents since then, and I said, now are you sure that it was only just after that building started being constructed that the rat infestation occurred?

And they both said yes.

So I just verified that that my my recall on that.

So I I just I think that we need a building construction plan as well as building demolition, just to write construction as well as demolition in here.

Um then as part of that, I just want to make sure that it's the developer of the building who is responsible for the mitigation program, not in the neighbors.

So if the neighborhood is infested by rats because of a building construction that that that's the developer pays for that mitigation or that the city does it and then bills back the developer.

Um however that works is okay with me.

So those are really the the two the two big ones is time make give the city flexibility on the timing and then uh make sure that construction is covered.

I I don't know if I agree on removing the days.

Um I see the comments that we we don't want to we wouldn't want it to be we don't want to if it if we could be less than 15 days, we certainly would want it to be like you know, the less than comment, I thought so let me think of a good example.

So sorry, we've got like so many different versions of the pages are now all messed up.

But the when we look at the what about 12.5.93 D is in Dr.

Exactly, thank you so much.

Okay, so I don't I don't know I don't know why there that resistance, I'm not sure I'm understanding the resistance there.

Um it's just that it is it the code enforcement doesn't want to be held to that to that time frame.

I mean, is that I'm trying to because I don't know that I agree.

That because part of the reason for the ordinance is to get action very quickly, right?

To to put this to put this on the top of the list, given that unlike unlike some problems, this problem I'm gonna really try not to use a lot of horrible mom puns when we talk about these things.

But like this problem does multiply very quickly, so I don't know that.

I'm not sure I understand that part.

Other than we just don't want a timeline.

So I'll probably I probably will resist that.

But a lot of the other changes that that code enforcement recommended, and I can I can generally go through those just for the good of the order.

A lot of um Director Kirshner's corrections were I think grammatical, or should I say improvements to the legislation, like the wording?

Um I think I'll also there was some comments about not including reporting.

I'll resist that too.

But uh Chair, what one more item.