Good evening and happy new year, Rockwell.

Today is January 5th, 2026.

And we are now going to begin meeting number one 26th.

The proclamation portion of our meeting.

Please join us.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, independent with liberty and justice for all.

Now we'll have our colleagues join the podium to celebrate three or two proclamations and a recognition.

First will be Dr.

Miles honoring Dr.

Martin Luther King Day.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you for the opportunity to read this proclamation.

It states, whereas on November 2nd, 1983, a bill was signed into lawmaking the third Monday in January, a federal holiday.

To honor and commemorate the incredible life and legacy of Reverend Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr., whereas we can all learn from Dr.

King's words.

Make a career of humanity.

Commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal rights.

You will make yourself a better person of yourself, rather, a greater nation of your country and a finer world to live in.

Now therefore, the mayor and council of the city of Rockville, Maryland, to hereby proclaim January 19th, 2026 as Martin Luther King Jr.

Day in Rockville, Maryland, and call upon the residents of Rockville to observe this day by helping our families, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and leaders to better understand the value of providing grace, peace, dignity, tolerance, and respect to everyone equally.

With that, Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Shaw, seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

It is unanimous.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles, I believe we have uh someone uh receiving this.

Thank you so much for reading the proclamation.

Uh, do we have uh Montgomery County Government Director of Human Rights, James Stowe here.

Yes, you do indeed, Mayor.

How are you?

Thank you so much for joining us.

Absolutely, and all the members of council.

Again, let me also add my uh happy new year greeting, uh, and certainly wish you all very, very well for uh 2026, and I'm calling it a year of opportunity, a year of opportunity.

And I would hope then that that finds its way to every corner of our county.

So thank you so much again uh for allowing us to be part of this uh ceremony.

Um Councilmember Miles, thank you so much for the reading of that proclamation.

Uh we are indeed very, very pleased that we continue the 31 years here in the Montgomery County in celebrating this great holiday along with the city of Rockville.

And we're so pleased to join you as we hope to do when many many things uh coming forward and we've done in the past to partner with you uh uh as our our city of of change and and and uh progress.

And so we thank you again for allowing us to be a part of this day.

Let me quickly say that on the 18th of January at 4 o'clock um p.m.

at the Strathmore Music Center will be the countywide celebration.

Uh and we're looking forward to that.

Uh hope you'll be able to come out and be a part of that four o'clock again on Sunday, January 18th.

Uh, and then of course, on January 19th, along with your own celebration will also be then the annual Alpha Phi Alpha um LK Scholarship breakfast uh that'll start at 7:30.

It'll be at the Marriott uh Bethesda.

Uh and we look forward to you all participating in that as well and all of the residents of Rockville.

And then from 2 to 4 on the 19th, 2 to 4 will be an opportunity to volunteer to serve and be a part of the most important part that Dr.

King talked about because everyone can be great because everyone can serve.

And so we hope then that you'll find your way to some of those events uh throughout the weekend.

Uh and I'm just so pleased again to be part of this process this evening.

And I want to thank you again for allowing me to be able to say a few words, and I almost always end, I think, in the way with Dr.

King's own words.

And they seem most appropriate for now.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness.

Only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate.

Only love can do that.

The Reverend Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

A charge for us all to make sure that we have enough love for everybody.

Our theme this year is every kind of people, a blueprint for unity.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you so very much.

And I also want to thank the county for your work on spreading light and the opportunities, but also there's a hate bias portal that the county has set up in case anyone does have anything to report.

The county is investigating those issues.

Thank you.

We will now have a proclamation, another big one, uh read by Councilmember Member Zola Shaw on the 250th anniversary of America.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

It's my honor to read the 250th year of the 250th anniversary of the United States of America.

Um these are some challenging times, and this is a great moment to not only celebrate but also learn our history.

Today's proclamation is the city's kickoff of a year-long celebration of our nation's 250th anniversary.

Throughout 2026, the city will incorporate the 250th anniversary into city events, including town center flag display, upgrades to hometown holidays, and 4th of July events, an event decor and giveaways.

America 250 will be incorporated into remarks made by the mayor and council members at events.

Rockville has created a logo to celebrate America 2250 and will create a website that will provide all the details.

Additionally, the city is engaged with Peerless Rockville, and they are developing programming for America 250, and we will continue to work with them as they develop the details.

The city of Rockville looks forward to celebrating this important milestone for our nation with the city with the Rockville community.

And so I'll read the proclamation.

Whereas the American Revolution was a political conflict that involved the settlers of the 13 original colonies and Great B and Great Britain.

And now, therefore, the mayor and council, the city of Rockville, Maryland, do hereby proclaim July 4th, 2026 as a 250th anniversary of America in Rockville, Maryland, honoring the full complex nature of our nation's history and affirming Rockville's ongoing commitment to building a strong future for all who call this community home.

Madam Mayor, I move the proclamation.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Fulton seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

It is unanimous.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Shaw, we have um Peerless Rockville accepting the proclamation.

Thank you.

And now we'll hear a few words from Peerless Rockville, Executive Director Nancy Picard and Board of Directors, President Deborah Liverpool.

Good evening.

Happy New Year.

I just wanted to say Peerless Rockville safeguards the tangible reminders of our shared history.

So future generations can learn from them.

I'm very grateful to the city of Rockville for aiding us and joining us in all the things that we do in this community to preserve our legacies.

Thank you.

Nancy Picard, the Executive Director.

I want to add my thank you to the city for recognizing and kicking us off in this way.

We look forward to partnering all year long in different ways to share the stories and the history.

So we look for a lot forward to much more to come and continue to partner with the city.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is for us.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have a recognition to the city of Rockville Recreation and Parks for their outstanding work and for being a 2025 national gold medal finalist for the excellence in park and recreation management.

We have presenter Rosalind Johnson, Director of Recreation and Park from Annapolis, led with our city uh recreation and parks lead Steve Mater.

And I also want to acknowledge staff members, Jessica Carraza, Elizabeth Deal, Terry Hilton, and Andy Latt.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, council members.

On behalf of the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administrators, I would love to present you with the finalist gold medal award.

Um, this is a huge award.

I know you know everyone thinks, oh, we want to win, we want to go for it, but I just want to caution everyone.

There are 10,000 recreation and parks departments in the country.

Rockville is in.04 percent, meaning there are only four people, four organizations who received a finalist award.

So that's extremely special.

It's an extremely rigorous process in order to become a gold medal award winner, but it's even harder to become a finalist because to get to the cream of the crop, it really speaks about how you all value, you all value um recreation and parks where you put your money and how much you value the staff and how hard the staff work for the residents of Rockville.

So this is a huge feat, and it's not gone unnoticed.

And I hope you recognize and appreciate all the staff who've done this.

I know they're going after accreditation, so I will tell you there are 10,000 recreation and parks departments in the country, and less than 200 are accredited.

So that tells you how special it is.

So you have a special place here in Rockville.

You have a special team here in Rockville who do a lot for the residents of Rockville.

So on behalf of the American Academy of Park and Recreation Administration, I want to present you with this finalist award because you are the cream of the crop, and hopefully next year you apply too.

And in uh Pitts in Pennsylvania for the 250th celebration in Philly, you all will bring back the final gold.

My mother always said I was the cream of the crop, so I um this is an effort by our whole team.

We have uh 150 employees.

Uh we have an amazing team.

I had nothing to do with the getting this.

It was this group that put it together and others, so I want to say thank you to them and great job by all our folks.

And uh congratulations to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I know the recreation and parks department does such incredible work.

Uh thank you for this recognition.

No, no, I do have my shots.

Thank you.

Good evening, Rockville, and happy new year again.

We are reconvening meeting number one-twenty six, and today is January 5th, 2026.

We'll begin with the gender review, Miss Sarah Taylor Pharrell.

And Judy Penny.

Good evening, Mayor.

There are no changes to the agenda for this evening.

Thank you.

Mrs.

City Manager will hear the city manager's report.

Welcome to F Mahalik.

Mayor Ashley, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen.

Good evening and happy new year.

It's good to be have us all back together after a bit of a break.

I really only have one announcement today, and that really is to invite everybody to our Martin Luther King Day celebration, Monday, January 19th at the F.

Scott Fitz Sterl Theater from eight thirty AM till noon.

We're in lots of a lot of good speakers, a lot of good conversation, and more than anything else, remembering this important day in this incredible leader in the United States.

And we hope people can join us.

Councilmember Valerie.

Madam Mayor, um, I just wanted I have one thing to to add to the city manager's report, and that is something that I actually got in the mail over the holiday.

And that was a really well put together letter from DPW about um pipeline and water testing in regards to possible lead.

It's more so trying to figure out what kind of pipes you have.

I just want to urge everybody who got it to read it to help DPW to do this this inventory of all the pipes and to um there's a section on how you can get your water tested, and I encourage everybody who has any questions to get their water tested.

Water is safe, but this is just a good way to get um the inventory done.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

City Manager.

Anything you want to add?

No, I just appreciate the extra notice.

Really do.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Well, now open to our first community forum of the year.

And we welcome persons to address the mayor and council.

Please speak in a civil and courteous manner.

And members of the audience that also be respectful to others.

We look forward to hearing your ideas, suggestions, and needs.

Each person's allowed three minutes, and we ask that you stick to the three minutes allowed.

There will be a time clock in front of you, and you will hear an audible beep at the end of your three minutes.

Please state your name if you live in the city of Rockville for the record.

And we have a few folks who have signed up in advance, and then we'll open the floor.

Is she still here?

I know that she was here for the ceremony earlier, so maybe she was excited and signed in.

Um I wanted to just uh take this moment.

I'm Michelle Whitaker, Executive Director for Ranked Choice Voting Maryland.

Um, and we're really excited for the new year.

And I just wanted to give a quick uh review of 2025 for you all and all those millions of viewers at home on the things that have happened with ranked choice voting um over the last uh year.

We had bills introduced uh to uh adopt ranked choice voting in the city of Annapolis and the city of Hyattville.

While those bills did not move forward in the councils due to timing around uh their local elections, their boards of supervisors and the council continues to review them, and we have a number of other uh cities that have come on board to get more information from us, work with local advocates on uh how to introduce ranked choice voting for their city.

In addition to those legislation, we had a really big opportunity in Greenbelt, Maryland, where uh the city overwhelmingly the residents got together and said by 67% they want to move to ranked choice voting.

And so now they're in the next phase where they'll be starting their implementation to do that for their next election in 2027.

And we're really excited about the opportunity that we have to work with Greenbelt and to continue to do voter education that we did throughout the summer uh around the ballot initiative and moving forward in that.

Here in Rockville, uh, we've been really glad that we've been able to be part of the community conversations that uh the city has held, as well as our own engagement with residents who've been active and really interested in learning about better ways to do elections.

And uh we've presented to the council, the mayor and council an implementation recommendation that includes considerations around voter equipment, what you need to do for training and procedural changes to for uh your election administrators, and the key piece, voter education, which is always a good part of any uh campaign that when you're getting voters out to vote, and we have uh included lots of great examples of how other cities have done this really well across the United States.

We also had 36 jurisdictions hold elections in 2025, and in 2026, we'll have Tacoma Park, who will have their next election.

Um, and they've been using ranked choice voting since uh 2007.

So we're hoping that um Green uh Rockville will join Greenbelt and becoming another city that's using ranked choice voting and really helping to give all voters a better uh opportunity to really express their vote and to make sure that we have campaigns that are civil that are based on the issue and really creating a government that reflects the people.

And so I want you to have a wonderful year.

I'm excited to work with you.

You'll see me more throughout the year.

And um I look forward also to see you in Annapolis because we have statewide bills too that we're working on to help make sure we're moving this forward.

So thank you.

Happy new year.

Talk to you soon.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Please come to the podium, state your name and whether you live in the city of Rockville.

Hi, my name is Vince Vong, and I do live in the city of Rockville.

May I approach to hand uh map?

Please give it to the court.

Thank you.

Um, as background, I live on Crab Avenue, and we recently submitted a petition for a parking permit designation.

Um the Transportation Commission uh recommended not to approve the parking petition.

Um, as the map shows, every street that borders Crabav uh is parking permit designated.

We're the only street that is not.

And so as a result, over the last two years, I've lived here for five years.

Um the last two years, uh especially during the spring and summer, many non-residents park on the street.

After discussion with neighbors who have lived there for more than 10 years, they have agreed that the situation has deteriorated.

And we were able to uh gather 17 out of 19 households to sign the petition.

I don't think you could get 90% of people to agree on anything.

So that was really shocking.

Um, and because I work two jobs, I have a chronic illness.

It did take several months for me to be able to talk to every household to get their signature.

Um we were spurred by consecutive chaotic springs and summers, and the petition was submitted on August 25th.

City staff waited to observe the area until September 30th through December when things started to quiet down because of the holidays.

Um I was not told, uh I had contacted city staff to determine what the process was.

They didn't inform me that they would be uh looking for it's it appears bright line specific, like parking vacancy rates.

Uh apparently this is the first time it's happened where they've counted these sort of metrics.

So if you look back at the last approval for Lewis Avenue, this wasn't done.

City staff confirmed it.

Um so I have two main concerns.

It's the arbitrary application of the code and the guidelines, and then also arbitrary and misleading factual considerations.

So city code sections, um, summarizing here non-resident parking result may result in hazardous traffic conditions, overburdening of existing streets, roads, uh, other facilities, air and noise pollution, inability of residents to obtain parking near their residences.

The commission focused solely on the last point and waived away all other concerns.

Although for Lewis Avenue, the most recently approved parking designation.

Um the only one it appears in the record in the last five years.

Uh residents reported.

Um just parking in the street and loading in the neighborhood, reduced visit visibility from parked vehicles when trying to access Lewis Avenue.

We raised similar concerns, and the commission uh essentially dismissed those concerns, stating a parking permit street would not remedy this.

Parked parked vehicles can block lines of sight if they belong to residents as well as non-residents.

So, following the commission's logic, permit parking would never um resolve safety issues because presumably you'd have a one-to-one replacement of resident parking, which I don't think the uh city legislators uh intended that.

I'm running out of time and does quite a bit more, so I'd love to speak further either individually or uh with the council and madam mayor as a whole.

So thank you.

Thank you very much for your sharing your testimony.

And we'll get that uh paperwork from the city clerk.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

All right, thank you very much.

Did you want to anyone else?

Councilman Van Grack, they have a question.

Okay.

All right, we'll now be moving on to our consent agenda.

We have a few items.

Uh, agenda item 9A authorize the city manager to execute a writer agreement with electric advantage, a Maryland corporation and the amount not to exceed 250,000 for the initial term with terms including optional extensions through April 18, 2029.

This is consistent with Montgomery County pricing and their county contract.

Item 9B, award and authorize the city manager to execute a writer agreement with Key Randscaping and Maryland Corporation and the amount not to exceed 500,000 for the initial term with terms and pricing consistent with Montgomery County's contract 1175974 for time and material and fencing services.

And then we also have 9C staff recommends the mayor and council award and authorize the city manager to execute an agreement for the purchase of software support and professional services with UKG of Lowell, Massachusetts to replace the city's end of life employee, which is used for timekeeping software in the amount of 96,252 per year through July 14, 2029, with an optional three year renewal.

And then we also have the approval of minutes, December 8th, 2025 and December 15, 2025.

Those are meetings numbers 30-25 and 31-25.

Colleagues, do we have any questions or do we have a motion to move?

Councilmember Shaw.

I move to approve consent agenda items A, B, C, and D.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Jackson seconds.

I just wanted to thank staff for answering all of my questions in advance on this.

That helped to move forward with an approval from me today.

And we'll see how my colleagues vote.

All right.

We have a second.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

All right.

Thank you very much.

It is unanimous.

We next have agenda item 11A, potential adoption of an ordinance to amend Chapter 2 Administration Article 2, Division 2 Mayor and Council of the Rockville City Code to, among other things, provide for certain rules and procedures for mayor and council meetings.

I'd like to welcome Jeff Nihala, our city manager as presenter.

Mayor Ashton members of City Council, good evening.

Is an ordinance to potentially amend the city council meeting rules and procedures.

And we've done the best we could to put together an updated rules of procedure that really hits on a couple of these.

One is really to try to make the rules as simple as possible, as easy to follow, both for the council, but also for residents, and to have really direct procedures.

And really more than anything else, to have them more aligned with Robert's rules of order.

So that's really the goal.

If adopted, we think that the outcomes of the amended rules would create very efficient meetings.

It would provide equal participation by all members of the body, and it provide additional clarity to staff when you all make motions and give staff direction.

And also, and this is something that we discussed well over a year ago, to the best of our ability complete our meetings before 10 p.m.

We all know that's going to go beyond 10.

We can't control that.

Depends how many people show up for participation, but that has been the goal for a while now.

And if all that goes well, if all those um outcomes are met, then we certainly will have enhanced community engagement because we expect there to be more participation by residents, particularly when we get to agenda items that are crucial before 10 p.m.

in the evening.

So let me start with, and it's actually a very short presentation.

Let me talk about some new ideas to amend the agenda at the meeting, again, at this meeting.

First, it's really removal of meeting agenda items would require support from six members of the body.

Again, that's so there's no surprises to residents.

If you guys are going to pull something, it would seem appropriate that there's a supermajority.

Placing items on future agendas, again, future agendas, not the meeting that you're at, but in the future, we're to require the support of at least four members of the body.

There was a really good question submitted by you all earlier in the week or last week, and it was what about reconsiderations?

This would include reconsiderations.

Again, that would require a majority of the body.

And that's generally in practice how we do it too.

When you guys ask me at LPT or some other meeting to add something to the agenda, we try to have a majority before we put something on.

So that there's some consistency there.

Um, removal of consent agenda items for discussion at the meeting.

It's at the request of any member of the body.

That's nothing new.

That's how you guys practice right now.

I just wanted to remind people.

I think one thing that you guys have been doing, and I think it works well is you may have a quick question about a consent agenda.

You ask that a staff, we answer the question and then move on, and it's a way to keep it on the agenda, but to get some clarification without pulling it off and then adding it later on.

And I think that process has been working pretty well.

And the last one is old new business items require support for at least six members of the body to adopt any motion under old and new business items.

This is not new, it's actually in our code.

Um, we're just bringing it up again because if there's something that's to be discussed, it's not in the agenda.

It's a new idea, and particularly direction to city staff.

We think it's appropriate to have a supermajority to get that direction since it's not on the agenda.

And again, that's what the code says right now.

Okay.

So this part is very new.

A lot of folks have said, how can we have a little bit more equity in terms of how we go through asking questions of staff, and then how can we have a little bit more equity amongst us in terms of who goes first, second, third, et cetera, when we're debating different policy issues.

One idea that I've seen one jurisdiction I've seen do this particularly well, use the rotating order system.

So let me kind of describe this.

It's actually pretty simple.

So for both questions and during the deliberation period to ensure equitable access to the floor, the presiding officer shall recognize council members in a rotating order, beginning with a different member each time a specific agenda item comes up.

And the presiding officer could go to their right or through their left, and someone could go first.

So just by way of example, council member Jackson may have his time to go first.

He goes first with all his questions, then council member Shaw, Councilmember Van Grack, etc.

And it rotates through.

So for the next agenda item, councilmember Shaw could be asked to go first.

There's a third agenda item, Councilmember Van Grak, and so forth all the way.

What I've seen presiding officers do pretty well is they keep that rotating order going from agenda to agenda.

So that way the next meeting, if someone went, didn't get a chance to go first, they get the first opportunity of the next meeting.

So again, rotating order just provides an opportunity for people to go first, if you will, when they're asking questions.

So again, the rotation continues sequentially from council member to council member across agenda items so that no council member is consistently first or last.

I've had a couple of you ask me, it's like, well, what if I don't want to go when it's my turn?

I said you can simply say pass, and it goes to the next council member and ex-council member and the presiding officer should keep going through that rotating order until all the all the questions are exhausted.

That's how that would work.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

Next one is really questions of the body, and this kind of puts a little bit more meat on the bones.

Um, questioning by the body would be after staff reports.

I know sometimes every now and then we get a few questions during the staff report.

It can get a little clunky because we'll get a question and it's on the next slide.

So we're encouraging you guys to ask your questions after the staff reports.

And again, those questions would be rotated amongst members of the body, just the way I described with the presiding officer asking questions last, and that's consistent with Robert's rules of order.

This is the other part that's important.

Individual members of the body may ask up to three questions per round of questions.

That way, if someone goes first and they have 12 questions, they have to go through at least four rounds.

That way, if someone asks 12 questions and your second, third, or fourth, or fifth, all your questions may already have been asked.

So it's just three at a time, right?

There's no limit on the number of rounds or the number of questions.

If there's 50 questions to be asked, you just kind of continue to go through the process of going three questions from a council member to the next council member to the next council member until all the questions are addressed.

Another part that's really important is that not questions, but comments, observations, and opinions regarding the agenda items will be separate, right?

After the body asks staff questions.

So we're making a differentiation between questions by the body and then forming opinions on the agenda item.

The reason for that is, and I've seen different bodies do this very effectively, is I think you guys all benefit from hearing the questions of your colleagues and then also hearing the answers.

So if we get into this challenge of people are providing their comments and questions and opinions right out of the gate, they don't have the benefit of hearing all the questions from all the council members before they start forming their opinions.

It's challenging.

It's if it's new, I've seen bodies struggle with this a little bit.

The presiding officer may have to say, we're just doing questions right now before it gets into the comment period.

But with a little bit of practice, I've seen people do this really well.

And then there's the deliberation.

So again, after questions and their deliberation, um, after the questions are asked, then each council member has the opportunity to offer comments, observation, and opinions on an agenda.

It's really important.

I think you guys do a pretty good job, but sometimes you'll see some drift, and all members must confine their comments, discussions, and opinions to the agenda item under consideration.

And that's that's hard for the um for the presiding officer because they don't want to seem rude and interrupt, et cetera.

But I think it's important too for clarity for the public, clarity for others to make sure that we stay on to on the agenda topic instead of drifting off of that.

And then after you go through all the questions, then through all the deliberation.

If there's no desired deliberation by the body, additional deliberation, or after the deliberation has ended, the presiding officer invites a motion from a council member regarding the agenda item, and you guys go through the process like you always have in the past.

So that's really it.

There's not a lot of changes.

I think the um the draft ordinance is very short.

Uh use plain language, appreciate the city attorney working with us on that.

It's tightened to the point, and that's what I heard from the majority of the body on this.

So staff recommends approval of the updated rules for procedure.

I'm sure you don't have any questions.

So thank you, Mary.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I'm just looking for some hands.

Uh council member Fulton.

Okay.

That's funny.

Um, so thank you for this.

I I think uh it is just for context.

You know, we're two years into this term.

There's seven of us for the first time.

It we've gotten through a lot of really important stuff as a body up here, and I think it's good good to pause and see if there's some ways we could be going about it more efficiently.

And more to your point, bringing more clarity to the public.

I think um being clear and orderly and what's being decided when and how is something that is important when for the public.

And and I will just share, like I I know that we all like to laugh that like council member Folden doesn't like long meetings because she's like lazy.

It's not it.

Like, I like good governance, I like efficiency and I like clarity.

And just for context, um, in 2025, our average and median meeting length in Rockville was just shy of four hours.

The average and median mayor and council meeting in the city of Gathersburg was an hour and 15 minutes.

The average and median meeting length in Montgunnery County was three hours.

There has to be a way that we can bring a little bit more clarity and efficiency to how we do things.

So with that in mind, I really like what you put forward.

I do think that there might be some places where it's even more prescriptive than we need.

We need guardrails.

Um we need uh to provide clarity and equity and efficiency.

Um, but overall, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate what you have here.

I like it a lot.

And I think much like our current rules that we have in place where they're there, um, but it's us up to us to enforce them.

They're not self-enforcing.

So I think it's worth giving something a try.

Uh, and this is a good place to start.

And if we find that they're too prescriptive, if we find that they're not working, we are the mayor and council, we can change them at any point in time, and we can selectively decide how to enforce.

But I think taking a pause and trying something new on a hard reset is a really good idea for us and for the city.

Thank you.

Councilmember Van Grack.

First, uh thank you.

I know that staff as hearing from the city manager went back and forth and have been working on that, this, and I really do appreciate it.

Um, a couple um uh amendments that uh to it as I was going through that it asked my colleagues uh consideration.

Um, for type um when we get to type of meetings with regular session meetings, um, one of the things it we've had for a while that it said that it must meet no less than every month.

I know at times when we've said exactly a month, given some of the constraints, it might um run afoul.

So I would recommend either a 35 or a 40-day period so that we have a strict day period and it isn't beholden just to months.

Um another um with regard to the the very next section, regular session meetings uh F1B, I agree to the extent we can get um out of here before 10 o'clock.

That's great.

I also know that especially when we get into the budgets, we might not be able to.

I would argue that it's not prescriptive, that we certainly can, and this body has at the initiative of the the mayor, um, cut a meeting short when it's gotten too late.

Um, and I think we can do that, but to have an automatic end, I don't know if that's good governance because it could potentially potentially be used by an advantage.

Um on the next page, when we get to that same section, but in section three, um, I'm noted that sometimes the ceremonial session meetings have gone slightly after 6 30.

So I would just note that it goes from 5 30 p.m.

until concluded, so that if we need to go a little bit into the meeting, it's not a problem.

Um the very next session of emergency session meetings, we have a wide variety of primarily natural issues, but there could be some issues such as a personnel emergency.

Whereas we have, you know, um a significant amount of the personnel that all quit on the same day.

That might need to have an emergency meeting.

So I don't know if we can think of other things.

And the first thing I thought of was a personnel emergency that there might need to be it, and I don't necessarily want to restrict it just to what's in here, as there could be a need for an emergency meeting.

And I think finally, the only other oh, only two other um notations.

Um I do like keeping the um six vote necessity for removal of an agenda item meeting during agenda review.

I would pull back a little bit on placing an items in first future agendas, and instead of at least four members, make it three members.

And finally, I know there was a discussion, and I know you discussed it a little bit in the presentation, and we've discussed it with regard to what happens with regard to majority, supermajority, and votes when you have uh people either not here or an abstention.

And I note that in section two-26 voting, subsection B, it noted that abstentions are not counted in the total number of votes that are cast.

I think we might want to make it clear because Roberts Rules does talk about supermajority and we do talk about majority, make it clear that either an abstention or someone not present, how that would count and whether it's supermajority or majority is only those who are voting yes or no, or those who are present and abstaining, or those who are present, period, and make it clear how many votes are needed through a majority and a supermajority if there's abstention and if there's absent uh members.

Other than those um specific amendments, um I do hear what my colleague had said.

I don't know with regard to some of these talking points, whether that's the right way to go with regard to um three questions and the orderly.

I know that's going far to a direction where we don't have any restrictions on the other chance on the other hand, if we want to try something to see if it works, we can always amend these if need be.

Because we if there's something that we don't like about how we're doing it, we can always amend it.

Um I'm somewhat agnostic as long as it's fair with regard to how we're all um commenting, giving questions, and giving comments, I have no objection.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mahillick.

Thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate it.

Um I understood all the comments.

The only one I wanted to add a little bit of clarity just to make sure we didn't write it in a way that that creates confusion.

The 10 p.m.

is still a target.

It doesn't say the meeting has to end at 10 p.m.

It's just saying that if there's four or five items left to go and it's 10 p.m., then the presiding officer may say, members of the body, I'm willing to extend the meeting, but should we do it for one item, two items, three items, or should we set it to a time certain?

There's all that flexibility.

I think what we're trying to do with the 10 p.m.

and our recommendation to you is just much like we do with adding times to the six-month calendar, really trust trying to make sure that we can get through the work of the council in a reasonable amount of time, juggle that up and down and sideways to make sure that people are still around, willing to participate, whether they're home or in person before 10 p.m.

Having said that, if we have a crowded room of people and have experienced this before, and they're very excited to testify, hear reports, hear the deliberation of council, and you guys want to hear the item, all it takes is a is a is a motion, roll call vote, and you guys can keep going.

But again, it's a goal of saying to saying to the community, we're going to do our best to get done by 10 o'clock, but if it's an important issue or in the middle of it, we are going to extend it.

So it's going to be clear.

So and I'll be clear.

I agree with having that goal.

Okay.

My problem is the exact phrasing is the regular session meetings shall end at 10 p.m.

I see.

And then it gives the the exceptions of the process of what needs to happen to extend.

So I have no problem saying that it is the goal of this council to end by 10 p.m.

It's the it's it's that particular shall um that ends in the sentence.

That's very helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to just see, I'm taking a stack here.

I see council member Valeri.

Did I see any other hands yet?

I don't want to press anyone.

And I also just flagging sent a lot of questions in advance and share, you know, those have been shared with my colleagues.

Uh Dr.

Miles, did I see your hands?

Okay, all right.

So you'll go after you.

Just go after Councilmember Bellary.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I'll lead by example, and I would like to use this time to take to uh ask questions, and then you can come back to me with comments and discussion.

Um, which I appreciate.

Um, my first question is why is this um being proposed as an ordinance and not a resolution?

Uh clarity more than anything else.

When people um don't know the city and they want to know how the meetings run, what's the procedure, what's on the agenda, they won't search for a resolution, they'll look for the city code.

So it's it's easier to see it in the city code.

I and I can completely appreciate that.

However, the search function and legislature, you think both things will come up.

So most of the time people are not going to know which section of the code to look in.

Um so I hear what you're saying completely.

Thank you for that answer.

Um I will reserve the rest of my time for the rest of my questions.

Um I was a little confused.

You touched on it slightly.

How does any of the language in the proposed ordinance quote enhance community engagement?

Yeah, I I think it's really more than anything else.

If people want to engage in a meeting, and the later it gets, I just think practically speaking, the more people are just not going to be tuning in.

They have other things to do with their families, they need to go to bed, get up early, et cetera.

So I think if there's clarity on the agenda and there's clarity in the in the conversation, whether it's questions, direction, et cetera, and things are a little bit tighter, there's a greater chance that you're going to get through the items that are on your agenda.

And that way people are more likely to engage with discussion or even watching the meeting if there's more predictability.

I can appreciate that.

I think um there's several ways we can get to that for sure.

Um so that was that question.

Um my next one.

I didn't see it addressed in here, but um I am extremely dangerous with my summary of Robert's rules.

Um, should this body consider some of this to be um considered as standing rules as opposed to rules of order?

I would answer it this way.

The the coding charter already refers to Robert's rules of order, and that's the default.

So if the meet is unless there's something called out in your city code, your city code, I'm sorry, or charter that deviates from Robert's rules of order, Robert's rules of order, rules, right?

What this is doing is really amplifying certain Roberts Rules of Order, or more specifically saying we understand Robert's order and we like it, and here's some other things you want to add for rules of procedure for the council.

And and I appreciate that.

Standing rules are more uh determinative of administrative details rather than rules of procedure.

So they seem to be intertwined in the proposed ordinance.

And if so, what will be codified versus what would be um perhaps uh uh just a standing resolution or something else?

Um but I'll I'll move onward on that.

Um my next question, and then I'll stop because I know that I will have hit four, but we haven't passed this yet.

Um I noticed that um I note that in Robert's rules that an agenda is an alternative to following a standard order of business.

However, the proposed ordinance actually includes a quote standard order of business.

As this body um we are already acting under an agenda.

So what exactly is the um I'd like to hear more about the rationale for why there should be a prescriptive order um versus just accepting it per Robert's rules that we have an agenda which allows for more flexibility again.

Um this answer I feel I apologize for the same thing over and over again.

It's clarity more than anything else.

It's like what what's the difference between a work session, an agenda item, a consent item, etc.?

We're just laying all those out, our recommendation in the ordinance to provide clarity for people so they know what it is.

So when someone looks at a six-month agenda or they call us or they call you and just say, is this a work session?

Is this an action item?

What is this?

If they see it in the city code, they can have a better feel for what that is.

So it's all about clarity.

So that there is in this proposal a definition of all the agenda items.

I don't see that that exists.

What exists is under section 12-25 C agenda order.

I don't see definitions, and I appreciate what you're saying.

However, I would then presume that there would be definitions for each of these um agenda items.

We can do that if that's the will of the body.

We're trying to keep it tight, but I understand the the need for additional clarity.

Okay.

Um I appreciate that.

And Madam Mayor, I will conclude there and thank you.

I will note that you want to come back.

All right, Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh thanks also uh staff who are getting all this together, coming back with an even more polished product.

I actually want to associate myself with comments of my colleagues thus far, particularly uh council member Fulton.

Um although I do want to highlight that having um served on the previous mayor and council, the meetings are at least anecdotally, it's a little bit shorter, and we're having fewer of them.

So I think there's progress been made.

However, I am of the mindset that there's always work that we can do.

Um I think it's to be fair to staff uh and the public as well to make sure that our meetings are even more efficient uh and fair.

The only questions I have, I did reach out to staff with these in advance.

I'm still a little bit confused, so that's why I'm asking them in this form.

One has kind of been addressed, um, you know, take the answer and appreciate the comments of my colleague, Councilmember Van Greg on um F1B, I think that's page 156 about the stop time.

It was um some of the language has made it a little less clear to me that for example, if we did not vote to extend the meeting, but there's other businesses that occurred after that stop period.

Um if whatever's done after the stop period is still valid.

And that I mean that's this is one of the sort of contingencies or um things that was going through my head.

That wasn't quite clear what the result was.

It sounds like simple is is the ideal if we continue moving forward despite not having voted to extend whatever we do past 10 PM is still valid.

Is that correct, sir?

That is that is exactly right.

Okay.

Um, I won't belabor the point.

I think the conversation that you had exchanged between you and Council Member Bank, right?

Uh certainly help helps me with that one.

And the last point I had he also addressed uh to some degree um on this is two-25 e pack of page 159, this notion of putting items in a future agenda.

Uh the reason I asked the question is uh whether it requires four to put an item on the future agenda or just add it to a list of things to do.

There used to be a uh difference between the number of council members or number of individuals who support to make it an item back in the day.

I think when there was five was I think it only took two of us to put it on some future agenda, and it didn't give it a date.

But if there were three people in favor, you could actually put it on a particular date.

Is that is that descriptive is is there a difference in the two as are articulated or is outlined in this particular provision?

And if so, how would we address that?

Or is there is there a is there no difference between the two?

Um there is a given an actual date versus just putting it on the on the to-do list.

Yep.

There is a difference between the two.

I I think you're right.

I think not being here, I don't think any of us were here when the original rules of procedure were put in place.

But the idea that two members of the body could put something on a future agenda was when the body had five members, right?

That made sense.

Now that there's seven members of the body, we're suggesting that it should be a majority.

As you guys know, um, that's kind of the practice that we use for a number of different things.

If if the body wants to do something, and you know, I say tongue in cheek, but I but I follow it is if I can count to four, you bet, we'll get it on agenda.

So that's that's number one.

Number two is you guys have been very generous in allowing um all of your appointed body, appointed officials, the ability to be a little bit flexible on dates.

Um the code does not specifically say that if any number of members of the body, whether it's two, three, four, five, or six, it to picture the actual date of when it will be heard by the body.

That just gives us uh a little bit more ability at a staff level where it's a legal issue, a clerk ising or city management issue, the ability to make sure we can do enough research, due diligence, provide you guys with options, and to put it on an appropriate date.

As you guys know, we use the six month planning calendar to juggle those things as much as we can.

And when you guys start suggesting dates, that's the first thing I look at is the six months because if you guys want to have a deep policy discussion on a certain date, and there's already four items on there, then I'm gonna suggest you guys look for a different time.

So that is very intentionally not prescriptive in the draft ordinance.

And and sorry for the long answer.

No, no, not appreciate the long answer.

It was helpful.

I would agree with my colleague, Councilmember Van Greck on this one.

I think, and I correct me if I'm wrong, he would lower the threshold from four to three in terms of putting it on the future agenda.

I think that um as you correctly pointed out, I believe in the past it was it only took two of us to put it on on a future agenda, three to actually give it a date.

And so two out of five is still it's not a majority, it's a minority.

But I think there's something to be said, not for so-called minority rule, but I think we don't want to lose uh the voices, even if it's a less than popular topic to just have it discussed.

Um, whether or not to, you know, be even more prescriptive about dates.

I I agree.

I think it's a little tough for us to mandate to to to you and staff, you know, when to discuss things.

Um, and I think there has been a good give and take uh between us and in and your staff about when to bring things up.

But I guess well I'll in where I start.

I think you know, going lowering the threshold to three to get on agenda, I would certainly be in support of.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Jackson, and then Council Mr.

Shaw.

All right, thank you, uh, Madam Mayor.

Um, and thanks, Steph, for uh putting those together.

Uh I definitely feel like it's time to pause and take a look at what we're doing, how we're doing it.

Um that said, um, we should just note that you know, Gaithersburg uh and others are are their own separate entities.

And this is Rockville, and we do things uh the way we do them.

Um so just to say that we don't have to be like Gaithsburg or like uh uh others if we don't choose to.

Not that we shouldn't be efficient, uh, but um we are you know our own body.

Now I just take it um uh down a list of of things that I like and things that I don't like.

Um I really don't like the the time constraints.

Um I feel like as a body, if we have an agenda, we should get to the agenda as much as we can.

And um we should not be under uh uh uh uh uh time time constraint or watching the clock.

Um I agree with my colleague uh Doc uh Dr.

Um Councilmember Miles and uh Van Greg uh on the the items on the future agendas.

Um I really feel like four is uh a little bit too much.

Uh I think three is a good number uh for putting an item on a future agenda.

I want like to pause for a second though and uh ask you, you know, what is the difference between putting an item on a future agenda uh and reconsideration of the item?

I think candidly, I think reconsideration is just a descriptor.

That's all it really is.

If you guys have thought about it before and you're thinking about it again, you're reconsidering it, right?

So I'm trying to make it super crystal clear and simple, not think about Robert's rules of order and not looking at the code by just saying this is just me of making it as simple as I can.

If it's an agenda item, whether it's a reconsideration or a new item, it should be four votes.

But that's just how I looked at it.

You guys may have different thoughts on it, of course.

Thank you so much for that.

I also see that uh city attorney Robert Dawson has his eye on.

So under Roberts Rules of Order for a motion to reconsider, that really is about an item that's been passed by the body, and someone wants to reconsider that item that's already been passed.

And the way Robert's rules of order works is if someone wants to reconsider an item that's been passed by the body, only someone who voted in the majority can move to reconsider that item.

And that reconsideration must be done either at that meeting or at the next meeting.

So that's how reconsideration works.

And in our in our current rules, it sort of mimics what's in Robert's Rose of Order.

And this slimmed down version that's in the ordinance, it isn't in there, but what the ordinance does say is if something isn't in the ordinance, then you look to Robert's rules of order to see if there's an answer, and that would be the answer in Robert's rules of order.

Thank you.

I know just to for the record, there is a chapter on re on how a body may change its mind.

So uh Councilman Jackson's voice to yours.

Thank you.

Um so uh I like the questions uh uh the number three, uh although I would note uh you know, sometimes we have a follow-up um uh when we're asking questions of staff.

So I mean, I don't like a hard uh a three.

I think sometimes, you know, additional question might be um uh warranted, but I think that it would be at the discretion of uh the the chair or the the the presiding officer who of course is is is the mayor.

Um I do want to ask though, uh, because I was curious, um, what provision in Robert's rules uh requires the presiding officer to go last.

I just don't have it in front of me, sorry.

I don't have Roberts in front of me, but I don't think there's a section of Roberts with rules of order that requires the presiding officer to go last, number one.

But there are presents in Robert's rules of order, for instance, that would say the presiding officer wouldn't vote or participate in the discussion, that they simply would preside over it.

Our charter is different.

Our the way our charter works is the presiding officer in this case, it's the mayor, they it says the mayor may take part in all discussions.

The mayor shall participate when present in all votes of the council.

So in this way, the charter is clear that the mayor must vote as if uh with the body.

But in terms of the mayor's participation, when it says may, that really is up to how the body wants to come up with its own rules, and that's what's being done here.

So if the body doesn't want this to happen, it isn't gonna be in Roberts Rules of Order.

I think the most important thing for the body to understand is that these are your rules.

And so if if if there's something in the ordinance that you you don't agree with or that you don't want, et cetera, then I think it's up to the body to have that discussion and go from there, but it isn't gonna be in Roberts Rules of Order.

All right, no, no, that that's a good answer.

Um and just lastly, uh on the the questions.

Um I don't really like the rotation uh idea.

Um I think that's difficult to um uh pull off uh uh in the way that is envisioned.

And um uh I I think that uh when we have three questions, you know, I think it's gonna police itself uh uh almost.

So I I really uh that that going down the the the line, I'm not really for the for that.

I understand exactly what uh is meant by um you know putting it out there and uh uh having it in the ordinance, but I don't really think it's as necessary uh at this point.

Um the final thing is uh on transparency.

And um, you know, I I note that um uh section 225 um uh B uh one talks about um uh that uh all things on the agenda, including staff reports, should be uh delivered uh at least seven days prior to the the agenda.

Now this presentation was not this presentation was delivered on Friday.

And so, you know, I mean if we're gonna be putting out there that we're gonna be transparent and um uh asking for community engagement and more community engagement, then we should actually follow every letter uh of uh what we what we say we're gonna do.

And the straff reports also should be released seven days prior to the uh agenda.

That's only fair.

And with that, I give my thank you very much.

Uh Councilmember Shaw.

I want to echo my colleagues and thank you for um proposing some ways that we can make our meetings more efficient and equitable.

Um I did have a few questions.

Um I'm just trying to understand the rotation that's being proposed.

So you're saying that once a topic has been presented by staff, then uh a council member would begin the rotation.

Would it be that same council member each time for that day, or does it just it's different?

It would change, it would rotate based on the next agenda item.

Okay.

Yep.

Um so each so um each council member starts with a new agenda item.

Correct.

Okay.

And then after that one round of rotation from the council members, then the presiding officer will speak, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And then after that, say there are more questions, or after that, then it goes into uh discussion and comments and so anyone can speak, or we have to go through the rotation again.

Go through the rotation, both for questions and then the deliberation.

Um I I'm I am concerned that that second rotation may lead to longer meetings as opposed to shorter meetings.

Um because uh yeah, I I've I think it may prompt um it just may prompt more discussion.

Um if if you are if you have the second rotation.

Um so I think I I'm I am fine with the first rotation, especially if council members are able to pass when they need to, but um to go for the second rotation or maybe even a third rotation, I think that actually makes our meeting a bit longer.

Um and then the other the um council member Balleri did ask about the enhanced community engagement, and I appreciate your response.

Um I'm just wondering um with the four council or sorry, with the four members of the body required to add a future agenda item, um, and also thinking about our values in terms of our um bringing a diverse perspective, um, some uh and all of us in some way representing some underrepresented group.

Um I'm concerned about the structure of having four members where I think if you have a lower threshold, like three, um, you're able to bring up newer ideas um to at least discuss them to represent various different things that you're hearing from the community, and maybe not all members are hearing that particular issue, but um I think it it it aligns with um our 10-21, and we're we're creating structures that are able to provide policies that may better represent our community.

Um, so that's why I would support three.

Um, and then um uh so I I know the first round are questions and then the second round.

I'm just I'm just trying to understand the first round is questions and then the second.

Uh once we have that round, then we can have our comments and observations.

But are we able to oh no okay?

So let me let me take a stab at that again.

So there's two as proposed again.

This these are your rules, so whatever you guys want to do, we'll amend accordingly.

Um, but the concept is specifically differentiating between when it's the question part of the meeting and when it's the deliberations and comments part of the meeting, right?

And the thought again is exhaust all the questions from the body before you move into deliberations, comments, etc.

So if there's let's just say you all have at least six questions, then you'll see two rounds going all the way around.

And then the presiding officer will always say, are there any other questions from the body looking in the same direction all the way through?

And once there's no questions, then it reverts into deliberations, and then the deliberation does start with the same council member that started with the agenda item and it goes all the way around.

Hopefully that provides some clarity.

Um that does, thank you.

My concern is, and I I understand why we why the structure is helpful and making our meetings efficient and equitable.

I'm just also concerned about having more of an authentic kind of conversation and discussion or something that's more organic.

Sometimes I I will speak for myself.

If one of my colleagues, council member A, B or C says something, that may prompt another question for me or a discussion point.

And so, or the presiding officer.

And so I I've I feel like if we go more than one round of this rotation, I'm concerned that our conversation won't be as as organic or well, I'm I'm concerned that we we probably may not get I may not get what I need from that kind of conversation with that's very rigid structure.

Um so that that's just something to consider.

Um I'm okay with the first round of rotation, but I'm just concerned, and also around timing as well.

I'm just concerned if we keep going with all these rounds.

Um it it we I may not get what I what I'm uh looking for from that type of conversation.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Really, really good comments.

Um, I just have a few, and I won't go to my full list.

I'll kind of come back around.

I just want to know I started a new stack.

Uh I will go and then uh Councilmember Valeria and Councilmember Fulton.

If others want to speak again, please raise your hand.

Okay, all right.

Uh she has you will go after me.

Um I just want to say thank you for uh providing this draft.

I know this is not easy, uh, so just say that first.

I think this actually could have been more of a work session because there's so much to work through.

Um, but I just want to say thank you for the start.

And I also want to say thank you to my colleagues.

Seriously, uh, when I look back at what we've done over the past two years, I'm so impressed with this council.

Um, and I really appreciate the diversity of thought and what we've been able to accomplish together.

I mean that in a heartfelt manner.

Um I also want to say that this council has had shorter meetings.

Um Dr.

Miles and I have been there.

Um, someone in the mornings, um, and we've also taken breaks.

That has not been something that the previous council necessarily had in that same way.

And so I just I I appreciate with new life of a new body coming in, trying different things, right?

Seeing what works for the new body.

With that said, um, I think that uh previous bodies have had rules and procedures and operating guidelines and had flexibility to adjust to what they see fit.

And I want to be careful about being so prescriptive that it's put into law or code.

Um, and I I do like the opportunity to have written rules and procedures that we are crafting for the our term.

Uh, but I I would caution the the level of specificity actually going into ordinance as an overarching comment for me, and I've listened carefully to my colleagues' comments and agree with many of them.

Uh some of them might be some things that we're trying out, and maybe we like it that we say eventually that should go into code, but I just caution us changing the code so specifically in that way.

Um there were some things that I felt like we went so specific, and then the things I thought were missing.

So I looked carefully at both the operating guidelines and rules and procedures that are current.

This body actually amended the rules and procedures in March 18, 2024.

Uh, we did not touch the operating guidelines.

Um, I just wanted to point that out.

But um, in the um rules and procedures, there's a very good section on public hearings, and those are very specific, you know, there's things that we have to do in our code, and I do think that it will be helpful to have a rules and procedures where everything is together and have the specificity on public hearings because there are legal requirements that we have to do.

So I I didn't see that in this updated draft.

So I just wanted to flag it and see maybe there was something that uh, you know, you were thinking on that one.

So the thought for for um public hearing guidelines is to bring back to mayor and council two other documents as resolutions.

One dealing standalone for your public hearings that's actually already been drafted, so it's ready to come to you.

The second would be not necessarily a resolution, but a document for the mayor and council that deals with motions under Roberts Rules of Order.

That's something that's also in the current rules, but I think it would be better to have just sort of a standalone document, sort of a cheat sheet, if you will, for the body in terms of how motions work and how you know your body could be run a little more, your meetings could be run a little more efficiently using the motions that are in Robert's rules of order.

Thank you very much.

That is extremely helpful to get that context.

You also made me think of it would be great to have all these things in one rules and procedures document versus the floating um uh resolution.

So that is just my comment is that as this comes back to the body, um, maybe there's an Uber document that because I I do think that to the transparency comment we heard earlier, having everything in one place, and previously in the old website, the rules and procedures were actually listed on the mayor and council website and the operating guidelines.

I like a mashup to put them all in one, um, but I and and to be transparent on the mayor and council page.

Um, so that is my suggestion of lighter on getting into the code.

Um, because once you put things like 5:30 and 6:30, I mean, there's so much specificity there.

I I it I I just worry about changing the code versus having a nice robust rules and procedures that hits what you said, uh, Mr.

Dawson.

So thank you for that clarity.

That was extremely helpful.

Um I commented on the public hearing.

Um, I as we go through this and see this again.

I I would love to see um some examples from other jurisdictions.

I know that no one is us, and this body is very unique and the city's unique, and we also have a high level of community engagement.

Uh so I just would love to see you know just how we're comparing against other jurisdictions when it comes back.

Um, in terms of the um items coming before the mayor and council and the uh agenda items put out.

I wanted to see if we could put seven business days.

Um that's I think important because um and most of the time we're already hitting that, but I think that is a good clarity because you do have things around holidays, uh, and we want to make sure the public and the mayor and council has adequate time to review uh the materials that are put before in the spirit of transparency as all as well as allowing for effective community engagement.

Um the four the the how many people it takes to put something on agenda.

Um, I know we've talked about this in some strategic planning discussions early in our term.

I do feel very passionately that we need to be mindful of um diluting the mayor and council uh's ability to move new ideas forward, even when they come from a minority.

Um we also looking through the history of Rockwell, have had times where there are factions and things that you know, and I I just I want to think about the potential impact on that.

So for me, four um is a bit too high.

Uh, the last body had the two, I would support the three.

I think that the diversity of thought in this council is is really important, and I wouldn't want to limit the ability for someone's ideas to be heard.

Now the body can vote to you know, not you know, move forward with it, but at least the opinions of our colleagues should be heard.

Um, so I wanted to weigh in on that.

Um, the longer versus shorter meetings, again, I I do I do think that this body has had shorter meetings.

Um, and I there are two things specifically where meetings tend to be longer.

One is during budget season, and two when there's things that people are passionate about in community forum.

When you look at some other bodies, like the county council or the board of education, people cannot just come up and write in and I think that's very unique to Rockville.

It gives more opportunity for people to speak um on a variety of topics, and so I just I wanted to be mindful of that 10 p.m.

I think that we should all be striving and it should be strongly encouraged, and I think the body's already saying, hey guys, it's 10 p.m.

What do we want to do?

But I I don't think the prescriptive nature of putting it into our code is something that's concerning to me.

Um so I will I will pause there to hear the comments of uh my my colleagues.

I will say the the draft said the presiding officer going last is in Robert's rule of order.

I racked the whole of Robert's rule of orders trying to find it, and it's not.

Um so I want to be careful and in terms of what we're saying is something in Robert's rules versus not, because we're we take those things very seriously and sometimes try to align.

And so I just wanted to note that it says it in the staff report, but it's I couldn't find it.

So thank you for clarifying that.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

Um a couple thoughts I had well prompted by people talking.

Um, first of all, I will I will add that I um I think three is the right number of people to add something to an agenda.

Uh as not four, not two, three, I think is the right number.

So I'll just weigh in on that for other as others did.

Um thing I'm hearing, and I tend to agree with that there is a a lot of prescriptiveness in the rules about this, you know, three down the line and another three down the line, and I absolutely understand where that is coming from.

Um, and I think it gets to the clarity.

Um, but I do think that we do a nice job.

The mayor does a nice job of like facilitating, like once we get going, like making sure that there's an organic conversation.

I think what would be helpful and what might dread the needle on that is rotating who has the opportunity to speak first and then go from there, right?

So for every agenda item, one member of the body has the opportunity to ask the first question, say the first thing.

For the next agenda item, one member of the body that that provides sort of equity and fairness to speak across the board paired with limiting to three questions at a time.

That might be sufficient, those two rules in and of themselves to get to where I think we wanna be.

So rotating who gets to go first, opportunity to speak first on agenda items and only three questions at a time.

Um I offer that to my colleagues as one way to maybe streamline but still get to the sort of main goals of what we're trying to do here.

What I what I will say though is we know we talk about community engagement, and you said that's in the um that's in the presentation.

To me, it's not it is community engagement, but part of it is also community like resident clarity.

When we are loosey-goosey, when we about what's being decided, what we're actually talking about, is this actually relevant to the agenda item, or is it a thought I had it creates confusion for the public on what was actually decided, what happened to that meeting, what was actually decided watching, but I don't really know what happened.

So I do like the rigor and discipline of questions and whatever.

I just don't know that it's practical.

But if we do pair that with sort of policing ourselves on staying on topic, I think generally as a general rule that would actually provide the clarity too.

Um so I offer that as three three high-level ways to get what I think everyone's talking about that streamlines a little bit.

So I offer that to my colleagues as three things.

I wanna thank the mayor for mentioning the operating guidelines that are on our mayor and council site.

I I wanted to make sure that whatever it is we come up with here replaces both of those two things.

Uh the operating guidelines are from 2006.

Uh and they also do have a nice comment that um the body will uh be responsible for working together to make sure that things are clear and relevant and comments are on topic.

So if we pull that over, I think that helps too.

Um the last thing I'll say, just because you know I introduced it.

Um yes, I know that Rockville uh is different, and I like uh the conversation and uh that we have up here.

We don't need to be like anyone else.

I was providing it to everyone as context about how how different we are.

We're not slightly different, we're very different.

Um and I wouldn't want to chill the community engagement through our community forum either.

Um that does take up a good deal of time, and we should never put any sort of restrictions on that.

Um it actually doesn't account for how long the meetings are when it comes to the median, because we exclude the outliers in that.

So it's for even excluding those.

So again, we can be who we wanna be, and if we've made a whole lot of progress uh since last term, that's great.

And it's really not to me about the length of the meeting, it's the length of the meeting as an indicator of how clear and good and efficient as policymakers we're being.

So that the goal isn't a shorter meeting, it's the outcome of being more clear and efficient and orderly in how we do it.

So that I think that was my last round.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Valerie.

Okay, so here's the part where Marissa gets to share her opinion and ideas.

Um I think that I may be the only member up here, except for Mayor Ashton and Councilmember Dr.

Miles that has watched a preponderance of mayor and council meetings.

I have been in this chamber until one o'clock in the morning.

I've been in this chamber until 10 p.m.

I think I was even here when um the agenda concluded at 9 p.m.

Um things were a lot to to council member Fulton's point, things were a lot more loosey-goosey then they are right now.

Um I I'm struggling, and I struggled with this the beginning of what is the problem that we're solving for.

And I think that's at the heart of all of this is a difference of opinion.

Like what is what are we trying to do with this?

And I see I because I can compare it um pretty easily because for a variety of reasons.

I was paying very close attention last term, even the term before that.

Um there are a lot of better things that are occurring right now.

And funny because I don't eat meat, but making the sausage is actually really the most important part for transparency.

The community needs to hear what we all think on a variety of issues so that we can be accountable to them if they disagree with us or if they agree with us or whatever.

I think that's I think it's just it's at the heart.

Discussion and debate is at the heart of what we're doing.

And anything that stifles anything of that, you know, the devil's in the details, you can have the most efficient meeting possible, but if you stifle discussion and debate, is that ultimately the best thing for the community?

I I would say not.

I actually do have an idea to Councilmember Fulton's point.

And actually, I do want to say on the record, I don't believe Councilmember Fulton is lazy at all.

She is self-de-deprecating here.

Um it is just very joky, but I just want to go on record with that.

Um that at the beginning of agenda items that have a presentation, there should be one, maybe two slides that are clearly written, clearly explained to the public, the public being the audience, what we're actually voting on, what this will do.

I think that if we really want to bring the community into what we're doing, then that's what needs to happen more than anything else.

I know how many times I sat in the audience and I was following things along, and I was sitting there going, so what is the vote actually going to mean?

What is this gonna actually do?

I wouldn't know until I heard more of the discussion.

So if we have sort of a level setting, this is this part of the budget, and mayor and council will have a discussion on capital projects, those are projects that blah blah blah blah blah, whatever.

Um because the audience is not us, the audience is the public, and so things need to be in accessible language, and a lot of our agenda items are not written in accessible language.

Um I I will also say as someone, I did not think I was going to uh uh out myself during this meeting, but I'm going to.

As someone who is neurodivergent, um diagnosed with attention deficit disorder.

I often tell stories or I give context before I give my question.

That's how my brain works.

And I think that I can honestly, I can always you know make changes, but I think this body needs to be very deliberative on how we're gonna make changes and how it will affect people who are no neurodivergent or think or learn differently.

Um, I think that we do want to be as open as possible to people in that way.

Um I agree with uh many people who said that prescriptive nature of various provisions is is troubling.

I think for me it's troubling because it is actually stifling debate.

Um, as the public may or may not know, um, the majority of us have full-time jobs.

We cannot all hang out and meet as a body to like talk through some of these things.

So these discussions are happening at these meetings.

Um, so we need to be able to have those discussions, and it might be a question that I ask or council member Jackson asks, and then it like, oh yeah, I agree with that point, and I think this idea would be great.

Um I understand efficiency.

What I don't understand is any stifling of discussion, and frankly, some of this prescriptive um parts of this proposed ordinance are are going to be stifling, in my opinion.

Um I do believe that this should be a resolution.

Um, there's a problem with our code, a lot of problems with our code, but we're fixing them.

The problem with our code is that some of it is so specific that it actually hinders policy.

So, in certain instances, um, let's take for instance, we're very clear in our code on what kind of fences you can use if stormwater management is anywhere near your project.

And then in other instances, we don't define fence.

So I think that I I think for flexibility going forward that we really do need to be as as broad as possible and then look at resolutions as a way to bring specificity, and so I think it is applicable as well here.

And so I think it is applicable as well here.

Again, people noted the number one reasons for meetings going late, and this was consistent with the previous elected bodies as well.

Um, is the length of community forum?

And I have been present when other jurisdictions talk about they cut up community forum after half an hour.

They only let people you know go for two minutes.

If you don't sign up in advance, you can't speak.

I love the fact that we truly have uh an open forum for residents, um, but we need to be extremely clear that um they may be the outliers, but they are the unique structure that is extremely different from any other jurisdiction.

Um, and I'm actually extremely proud that we are that way.

Um, if we are going to go into any sort of rotation, um, everybody taking turns, I would like to propose the city attorney be the one to facilitate that because frankly, the mayor has a lot of the components of the facilitation of the meeting, and what we're looking at here is another component, and um I I ultimately don't think that it's entirely fair.

We do not have a parliamentarian.

Um, and in lieu of that, as much as I love Robert's rules, which by the way, Mr.

City Attorney, I do have my full version as well.

Um, if you'd like to have or borrow it during this meeting, um, we don't have that.

We don't have it explicitly within our code, even that we have a parliamentarian.

So in lieu of that, I would say that it would be helpful to have somebody who's not on the diet to be the one to facilitate that.

Um, um, then this is mentioned in there as well.

Um, and actually, Robert's rules is not good on this.

Um, for accessibility purposes, I'd like us to continue to have both voice and hand raising votes.

If you are a member of the deaf community, or if you have a hearing impairment, it's actually very um considerate, I think, for those um for those in those communities to be able to see a vote.

I appreciate that the mayor um reiterates the vote, but in the moment, um, that's where the the equity should occur.

Um I could say a whole whole lot more.

You all know that um I I do like to share why I am voting in a particular way or why I'm asking a particular question.

Um, so really having it um segmented apart is is frankly going to be a challenge for me and in the way that I do approach topics differently than perhaps my colleagues do.

So I just want to end it there.

Thank you, Councilmember Shaw.

I I support a lot of the comments um from my colleague, Councilmember Valeri.

Um especially in terms of um uh thinking about the way that we have uh questions in one segment and comments in the the next segment.

Um I was thinking about that as well in terms of uh trying to to engage with the public and explain some of the reason uh behind my question, which would essentially be a comment, and then I would have to wait for the that next uh round to then be able to explain and go back, which I think is actually inefficient.

Um, and so I think it it may actually make our meeting shorter if we're able to speak at one time and have the questions and comments together.

Um and I also just wanted to ask, I know we're we're using the words community engagement.

Um has there been any feedback from community in terms of uh better ways to engage them during these meetings that informed this objective other than anecdotes, I would say no.

We hear from residents, but there's not a consistent pattern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm looking to see if anyone has any other comments.

I have a few, but I I want to make sure because I have a little bit of a list here.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um I want to uh go back to the comment on the reconsideration of a moment uh of a motion.

There is a whole section of Robert's rules on that.

I do think it's worth clarifying for us, because bodies can change their minds, and we should know how to do that or have it clearly articulated on that.

It's actually in the current version of the rules and procedures and our operating guidelines.

So it's it's already somewhere in our piece, but I think it would be good to clarify.

Potentially resolution, rules and procedures.

I I would ask the city clerk to say what is most common.

I know that the clerks get together and look at how this is managed across the state of Maryland.

I just want to get your opinion from that kind of level of perspective.

Most jurisdictions keep the policies and procedure guidelines separate from the code.

Okay.

But it doesn't mean that we can't address okay.

Thank you for that.

The other comment I'll make about agenda length is uh as a body and working with the city manager to balance agendas.

There are times that we have like a lot of heat on one day, on one day, and then the next week it's very light.

Like for instance, next week is very light, but then we've got some big things coming up.

So I do think at LPT, that may be a point of how are we balanced across the next three months.

Can we shift things?

Or maybe it's because things are not ready.

But I do think there are times that we get out super early and times that we don't.

Um, and even shifting that could help us to be more efficient and effective.

I do think that after 10 p.m.

or even late, the residents are trying to stay up with us, and also there's research about uh cognitive decision making.

Um so I generally support, I just want to be mindful of being so prescriptive in code on that.

Um I did like my comment, the comments of my comment, the comments of my colleague, Councilmember at Van Greg on clarifying supermajority and absentia.

Um that is something that is more clearly articulated in Robert's rules of order.

And if you go to some of our rules and procedures and operating guidelines, there's some things there as well.

There's some things that are not clear.

So I just think that's worth taking another look at in what's in our current two documents.

Um I know I've asked the city attorney, it's here, but not here when it comes to supermajority versus an absentia, those are two things that have come up for me that I've uh sought counsel on, um, and I think that would be good to look at.

Um I um the comments of my colleagues on community engagement, I uh wholeheartedly uh support them, and I I do want to um see how we can continue to support community engagement.

One thing that we have heard that is not necessarily um necessary tied to how we run our meetings, but to what happens after is some people are like, I can't watch hours and hours of tape.

So I know that the things have come up of like how do we track polls and uh is there a meeting summary that can go out after?

I just wanted to throw that out there because it relates to how the transparency and community engagement question.

Um, and I don't have an answer for that yet, but I think that's something that we should continue to discuss is how do we support our community in that.

Um, the draft that we received goes very deep in very big detail what into what's already in the open meetings act on the different kinds of meetings, but it's missing the administrative session.

Um, and so I thought that was I didn't, I wasn't sure what why why that was missing.

Um, but I thought that's important if we're gonna be transparent to the public know that we do um administrative sessions, particularly for uh personnel matters.

Uh so I thought that if when we come back to the Uber rules and procedures and condense operating guidelines, um, if we could add that as well.

Um the rotating order, I do feel like it's overly prescriptive.

I can tell you that there are times where I'm watching the body language of my colleagues, and they're like, don't call me yet.

I want to keep hearing from what my other my colleagues are saying.

So I I think that we are all adults.

Um, and I think that we should be more mindful of like not always rushing to raise our hand first, but letting other people go, and I will also work on that.

But I just I wasn't sure if there's a need for prescription and into the comments of my colleagues, it could make our meetings longer.

Um I I had a differing opinion on um the comment of waiting to weigh in on a vote or like share your opinion until after questions.

When I first read that, and my colleagues are making me think about that more deeply, and I would like to think about it some more.

But sometimes people are, you know, you're counting I know the city manager's counting to four on work sessions, and so it puts you in a difficult position because people are working to get to the four, but then someone may say something, and it's like, oh yeah, that's an interesting perspective, and then they have to come back around and change.

So I I liked that idea, but I I think it could be complicated and lengthened our meeting.

So I just I'd initially when you put it in, I thought that could be interesting because at least everyone gets their questions out.

We could hear from everybody, and then as a body, we can really listen to each other before rushing in with our own opinion.

Um so I'm I'm not necessarily against that, but I see practically it could lengthen our meetings.

Um I wanted to flag that.

Um I've already talked about um presiding officer last is not in Robert's bill of order.

Um there was a comment on on comments, observations, and opinions.

Um, sorry, let me I went through that one already.

I'm repeating that one.

I want to hold that.

Um talked about admin meetings.

Uh the meeting agenda section.

Um, the agenda is the bodies, and so I just thought there should be clarification that the mayor and council set the agenda for council meetings.

The meeting preparation does happen by the city manager in conjunction with the city clerk and city attorney.

Just I and then we as a body during LPT do review and approve those agendas, and sometimes we make some changes.

But I it was kind of took that ownership away.

I think it's a shared ownership, and I just wanted to clarify that.

I mentioned the public hearing, so I won't go too deeply into that, and I'll pause there.

Colleagues, any other questions or comments.

Ah, no one okay.

Um, so I'm not seeing any of the comments, but I'll go back to one other that I had earlier.

The consent agenda, it was overly prescriptive on don't poll poll.

I think the body's handling consent agenda quite well right now.

I don't know if anyone feels differently, but I I don't see a reason to change what we're doing.

Um so it was so specific.

I also worry that if we make it so specific, like our colleagues are breaking the law, they're doing something against our code, and I want to be mindful of that.

Um, so uh that's that's one of the final questions I have there.

Councilmember Fulton.

You reminded me of something I wanted to mention, but maybe I did already.

Um but I I do think that we can make some tweaks that I that I had posed earlier to make it a little bit higher level, streamlined and less prescriptive, uh, which would be just rotating who goes first on an agenda item and then going from there, um, limiting to three questions first time around, generally we wouldn't be splitting it up and going downline.

Um but I do think it's also important to remember that and and there's commentary in Robert's rules that say these aren't meant to be a hindrance, they're there as guideposts, not to restrict.

Like there is always nuance and there's always discretion in enforcement that we would retain.

So some level of it being incredibly specific, I'm okay with as a guardrail because it allows we don't, they're not self-enforcing, right?

Like we we can always decide how much to follow.

But I do want to I do want to check and make sure.

Let me understand.

We did ask for this, right?

Like you're getting a whole lot of feedback in a in a lot of different ways that could be in total, seemed like you're right.

Every we asked for for this, and you gave it to us.

Uh, maybe now there's time to look at it, we can have some tweaks, but I I will reiterate what I said at the beginning.

I think it's important that we do this.

Not because our meetings need to be shorter, but because we need to provide more clarity and be more efficient and give something a go.

So thank you.

And I'll add combined two floating documents.

Um, because as my colleague mentioned, the operating guidelines haven't been updated since 06.

I will just see uh Mr.

Mahalek, we've given a lot of feedback.

Uh so I want to pause and say, are there things I know that you are gonna go back and take a crack at it?

And I hope that the city clerk and the city attorney will be part of this group of you know, uh working together to uh revise.

Absolutely.

If I can ask just a couple quick poll questions, just or else it's gonna be hard for us to put together a document that you guys would all generally agree with.

What I thought I heard, one thing I heard absolute clarity about it's adding things to the agenda.

Three people heard that clarity.

I got that perfect.

Thank you for that.

The one I thought I heard, and it does make sense to me, and I'm watching Sarah and Robert's body language when I do this, but putting all of our rules of procedure operating guidelines into one document is preferred.

Does anybody disagree with that?

Okay, we can do that.

Yeah, I think I also heard um more preference for resolution and less preference for ordinance.

For me, yes, I'll just say maybe we should all just be clear.

Should we do it?

Uh and let me ask, can I ask the city clerk a question?

For for the um, and we can do it any way we want, but for the uh rules and procedures, is that normally done by resolution or it's a kind of a it's a a document that the body agrees to?

Resolution that they gave the last ones, the last one said then by resolution, not a board.

Perfect.

Yes.

So uh colleagues, I just think it's fair to the city manager that we just straw poll this.

Um those who prefer combine the two documents and creating a resolution.

Please raise your hand.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

Let me just glance.

It'll just take me a minute if it's okay, Mayor.

Um do we want to try the rotations?

We'll rewrite it a little bit.

Do you guys want to try the rotating of agenda items or not?

So, in other words, it starts and then it goes to the next person, next person, next person.

Can I provide it?

Please.

Okay, quick council member Fulton.

Let us adjust a nuance of that that I think might be more palatable to my colleagues.

It's not one person goes, then the next person has to go, then the next person has to go, then the next person has to go, then you go around.

Okay.

It's simply for each agenda item.

The first agenda item, Councilmember Valeria's gonna have a first opportunity to talk.

She can talk or she can pass.

After that, anyone can go.

The presiding official manages for the next agenda item.

Councilmember the mayor gets to go first.

She can pass like so just an initial opportunity for people to go first and then let it flow from there.

Thank you, Councilmember Van Grat.

I was gonna say, uh, I don't remember which of my colleagues said it, but doing an order that has to go in an order every single time.

So I I don't like that, but I have no problem.

Um if we want to do what Councilmember Fulton suggested, that's helpful if everybody agrees.

Yeah, I'll just note I I think we can let people go first each time.

I think that's fair.

Um, I will note that there's some people who like to listen first before, and I want to respect people's learning styles.

And and some people immediately talk and some people are analytical.

So we have to be mindful of the way different brains work and which makes us a very diverse and strong group.

Council Member Shaw.

Um, just to follow up with your point, um that that's uh that's something that I I also want to be mindful of.

Um yeah, some some of our colleagues may want to just uh listen to the conversation and process a little bit and then be able to to engage.

Um and I think being put on the spot uh may um just I think it I just want to be considerate of the different ways in which we all um participate.

I I just wonder if we might as a body try this uh versus putting it in resolution that feels binding right away.

I don't know, I just wanted to throw it out there uh with the idea of what the the process that uh council member Fulton But it's not necessarily binding, but we're gonna try this approach and see how it goes.

And I I agree and support the comment of my colleague that there are different learning styles and different communication styles that we should be mindful of.

And some people don't want to necessarily put on the spot right away, or have to say, I don't want to go first.

So I just I want to be I want to be respectful of the different personalities and thinkers here.

Okay.

So I think I heard, I want to make sure I want to watch for the heads on this.

There's this word does get tricky for me, mayor.

I do the best I can.

So we're gonna rotate, but it's just uh a member, a different member goes first, depending on the agenda item, and then it goes from there, and that's it.

Stops there.

Wrote not gonna rotate in any particular order, it's just new agenda item, a new council member gets a start.

After that, it's gonna be organic.

So everybody agree with that.

Council member uh I saw something.

Oh, I was just gonna say that I know I I don't know, I don't agree with the rotation, but I'm just gonna.

So you can I ask my colleagues just quickly go down the line of um, are you willing to try this without putting in a resolution, or do you want a resolution given that we do have some people who are uncomfortable with being put on the spot to go first, just to be fair to our colleagues and consider it.

Councilmember Fulton.

I thought we were going to lie.

Um I'm I'm in favor of it being in the resolution, and I'll explain why.

Um I agree that nobody should be put on the spot and have to go first.

I also think that we should put in something in place that makes sure that there's equitable ability to uh address the comments and concerns we've heard from the community on different topics as they come up.

That's where it's coming from, because it hasn't been said out loud.

Like the opportunity for everyone to have the chance to to you know there's only so many questions or comments that really there are on any given topic.

And if they're all asked before you have a chance, it might look, it might appear to residents that you don't care.

So that this is why I think it's important that we give the equitable opportunity to rotate.

And I think if we're gonna make a resolution, we might as well keep it in a resolution.

That's my take.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm okay with uh kind of a hybrid approach where if we can if you um I'm sympathetic to wanting to try something new before putting it in writing, but I would like also to have like a firm comeback date, be it three or six months from now where we discuss whether we're gonna do a resolution or not to meet.

I'm okay with doing a resolution right now, but I'm okay with folks who want to kind of experiment.

So I think if you want to try it with a hard deadline to readdress this or come back in front of us, I think would uh perhaps meet both sides.

That's all.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, and thank you for your comments.

We are, I think the body said they were interested in a resolution versus ordinance.

Uh and then uh just to also clarify, I'm hearing from you, and please correct me that you are interested in the rotation being a practice trial versus put into the resolution in the next draft, and that we revisit that comment in the future, just as respect for some colleagues who have different participation styles.

Is that what I is that correct?

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

Okay, all right.

Uh Mr.

McHaleck, and then I saw two colleagues' hands.

I did you want to say something?

Okay.

Councilmember Van Grak, Councilmember Jackson, the council.

I would just like to know where the mayor and council.

Anything that we put in this resolution, we can change tomorrow.

So if we're gonna actually do something, put it in the resolution.

If we don't like it, we can change it.

So if we're gonna do something in practice, this is the practice resolution.

So if we're gonna do something, let's put it in here.

And if it doesn't work or we don't like it, then we just at that exact meeting say we're gonna remove that from the resolution.

I think it's that simple.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jackson and then Councilmember Shaw.

Thank you, uh Mayor.

I just wanted to associate myself with uh Dr.

Miles' uh comments.

I think uh it is the right approach.

Councilmember Shaw Um maybe this question would come later.

Um, but I just wanted to put it out there.

Um, with trying this rotation, um, in advance, if a council member may not want to go first and it's already in the agenda, would they before the meeting be able to give the heads up and it can I will just say as presiding officer, I would support that, but I wanted to see what the city manager has to say.

What I've seen in practice, and you're right, Mayor it's it's your decision how you want to do it, is um I've seen mayors call the council members and just say, hey, just so you know you're gonna get agenda item one, Barry's gonna get two, Marcia's gonna get three, so everybody's prepared.

But someone could say, I don't want to go first, and then she just goes next on her list and so on.

I've seen that as a matter of practice.

I've also seen mayors say, instead of me going last, because some mayors have said, you know, the leader goes last, type of thing.

This issue is particularly important to me.

I want to leave the discussion on this one.

And I've never seen a body say to a mayor, and a mayor's never abused it either, right?

And that won't happen here, we know that.

But I've seen the council members saying, you know what, mayor, that's absolutely we know that's an issue important to you.

Yes, please leave the discussion, so on.

So it does need to be a little bit of flexibility there.

But typically, to answer it more directly, the presiding officer calls the council members in advance of the meeting and says, You're gonna get one, you're gonna get two, you're gonna get three.

I will just say that there's an opportunity for this to become like proclamations where everyone wants to switch their items.

And I that's I'm just saying that's messy.

I don't think we should do that.

Okay.

I but I I do think if someone wants to come forth and say, I don't feel comfortable on this, please don't call on me first.

That's fair.

Um, but I just that you don't you may not see behind the scenes how much proclamation change.

I've heard the stories.

I want to just be mindful of that.

And okay.

Councilmember Shaw.

So I just wanted to confirm my question.

Um, because I understand that practice during the meeting, but my question was um around but before the before the meeting.

Um it's not written in the code how it will work.

That's really gonna be a practice.

Yeah, I think if a council member says I don't want to go first, I will respect that, and any presiding officers should.

I hope so.

Yeah.

Mayor if I have two more things of clarification if it's okay.

And I'm not to blair it.

I'm sorry.

Can I ask a question?

Of course.

So I heard uh councilmember Fulton would like this to be in resolution.

Councilman Van Grack would like this to be in resolution.

Um councilmember Jackson agree with Dr.

Miles, Councilmember Shaw agree with Dr.

Miles.

I agree with Dr.

Miles.

I haven't heard Councilmember.

You were a resolution or I was I think I was the first person to ask for it.

Yes, I would prefer it to be a resolution.

Not resolution versus not, but whether this practice of res of rotating must go into resolution.

I'm agnostic on it.

Okay.

Council Mr.

Fulton.

To that point, I want to, I'm sorry, I just wanted to ask a question.

Dr.

Miles, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I heard you say you are fine with doing literally you are fine with doing a resolution today, but if we need to sort of thread a needle middle ground, that that was what you were putting forward.

That's correct.

I wanted to uh allow other voices, other approaches to this.

I think we all trying to get at the same point to the same outcome that is.

Um maybe a little apprehensive right now uh about codifying it.

And I'm okay with that too.

Got it.

Um so that I just I was just providing a way for us to to all kind of it would get what we want.

That's all.

Let me add as add a clarification to the clarification.

When I clarified before, we were all putting all this in resolution versus code.

That's clear.

You had shared, I I interpreted you, Shared.

Let me just clarify that.

I interpreted you, Shared, that you wanted to give some time for this to be in practice and then potentially put it into resolution, particularly on the rotating order to be respectful of some people's comments on this.

Can you just clarify that?

You want this rotating order to be in resolution the next time this comes, or are you wanting to put it in practice and then adjust the resolution?

Because I think Councilman Van Grak then had a follow-up comment to that.

Yeah, I think I mean I take his point as well.

Um I'm personally okay with I'll be clear.

So I'm okay with doing everything tonight with the exception of the rotating order, which I'm willing to be flexible on.

Um I'm I'm okay with codifying everything and then leaving the rotating order to to some of the we group we revisit three to six months um as a way to be mindful and sensitive to the to the point you you articulated earlier.

That it was just it was just a compromise.

Um I've lost many of uh proposals in the past and come on losing it.

That's okay too.

I'm just trying to figure out a way for us all to um get there.

But I I do take um Councilmember Van Greck's point as well.

It makes sense.

I mean we can always revise it in the future.

But I'm personally okay with coming back from that point on the rotating point at some point in the future.

Mr.

City Manager.

You guys may just like may not like this.

Um I think we have to write it a certain way just so there's clarity.

Um I think it would beho behoove us to write it as a resolution, bring it forward to you guys as a resolution, and you guys can make that decision at the meeting whether you want to adopt a resolution or just say we're gonna not gonna adopt this resolution, we're gonna adopt these as our procedures and make that call at the meeting.

That's what I'd recommend because there's a certain way to write it.

Councilmember Fulton has a compromise.

What I don't think is efficient is coming back with one resolution and then maybe three months later coming back with the change to that resolution.

So if there is agreement that we want to give this a go before we codify it in any way, why wouldn't we call that a three-month, we'll do that in three months and come back with one resolution that covers everything?

And so not do any resolution until we've waited three months to see what's working.

Does it make sense to do one and then another?

So we write something and then adopt it later.

Are you is that what you're saying?

Try it out.

I'm suggesting here's and we're we're all having trouble being clear at this point in time.

My suggestion is um that we it's gonna take a minute for this to come back on the agenda anyway, right?

So we put it back on the agenda in two or three months.

Including uh the initial one-time rotation in the in in the interim, we try it out without any real rules around it and decide whether to leave it in or not.

But there's only one time we're adopting a resolution.

Uh thank you.

I um appreciate that.

I Dr.

Miles has a comment.

I'll just say I'm I'm open to I would like everything to come back in resolution.

I'm not sold on we have to be prescriptive about the rotating order.

Uh that's my feedback.

Um, based on I'm trying to balance different perspectives up here.

Um I'm happy to lose on that point.

It doesn't matter if the majority wants to go in that direction, but I was hearing a sense of angst, and I was trying to be respectful of that.

So um Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Yes, I I could support this strategy as outlined by Councilmember Bo Fulton regarding just try it out.

It'll come back to us in its entire form in three months at that time make the call on final language.

Uh I think that seems reasonable.

And it it meets the point that I was trying to be sensitive towards previously.

Thank you.

Councilman Shaw, did you want to weigh in on this?

I know this is one of the points that you raised, so I want to be respectful of your feedback on this too.

I will say I appreciate this very organic conversation.

Maybe we can perfect it and find some ways that may suit all members of the body.

Thank you.

And I will just say in practice, try to even do more rotations.

But I also think it means that some of us may not just have the quick hand, but just say has someone else.

This is going to take all of us to do.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I noticed that it's almost 8 30.

So I think that you were right, Jeff, but you're gonna go over.

Um I think uh councilmember Fulton has a good point.

And uh I would support uh you know doing a resolution uh coming back to us in three months and then and trying it out.

Um I'm kind of agnostic on uh uh the the calling of um uh council members uh you know a certain order or not, I'm a Gnostic, but I'm willing to try it.

Um that that's all right.

Thank you.

Councilman Valerie.

Madam Mayor, I don't quite know at this point, even though I've been staring at Robert's rules.

Um I did want to ask my colleagues about the point um that I proposed about the challenge for some of us in question versus commentary slash opinion.

Um I I reiterate that for for those of us that learn differently, it will be um an extreme challenge, Mrs.

City Manager.

Yeah, that that was the next thing I was gonna ask.

So thank you, Councilmember Vlad bringing that up.

I I do need direction from you guys.

Do you want to keep questions separate from debate?

Two separate things or not?

Because I heard lots of different opinions on that.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just need clarity.

Thank you.

Can I uh just go back to the to close out the last one?

I think we heard opinions from all of us um, and there's a I I hear a majority direction on um trying it out as until we hear the resolution see the resolution come back again, and then we can have trial it out and see if it's working and you're gonna come back with it in the draft.

I will just note that the notion of the presiding officer always goes last.

I think the presiding officer should be a part of the stack as everyone else.

So um I would I would request that.

Is anyone okay?

Is anyone have a challenge with that?

Okay, because it's not in Robert's rule of order as noted in the agenda book.

Okay, back to your question.

Um this is the separation of questions versus uh weighing in.

Can I ask you a clarifying question before that?

Sometimes staff sets us up in that way because you do work sessions and you are specific about questions, and that's the next thing that we're going through.

So are you gonna change that?

We we always entertain questions first before we guys ask you guys questions for direction.

We always ask you guys if you have questions first.

But sometimes the questions in a work session are very specific in terms of a direction.

Like what is your opinion on these things?

And so the body does feel when that slide is up, um, that we must respond to said questions.

And sometimes we go other, but we that's kind of how it's been structured in some cases.

So I wanted to just see are you planning to adjust that approach?

I am not.

I think that's working really well.

Okay, so there's not necessarily a separation of weighing in versus questions, because some of those agenda items do you call for weighing in on the specific questions?

I'm gonna make sure we're on the same plane on this one.

So whether it's a work session or an action item, staff makes the presentation and we pause and then we say um what questions you guys have.

You guys ask for questions.

You're right.

Then if it's a work session and we need broad direction on whether or not to move forward with an initiative or different levels, then we'll say, in addition to the other guidance and additional feedback, at a minimum, we need answers to these questions.

You guys have been really good about doing that.

I don't plan on making any changes to that.

Okay, so then I think yeah, one thing we'll do is just make sure that we're asking broad questions before we're moving to weighing in on that, the specific work session questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Fulton?

You good?

Okay.

Last question, Mary, and I appreciate this.

It is helpful is do we want to limit the number of questions to three per person before we move on to the next person or not limit those at all?

Colleagues.

So no define some.

So I've heard I've heard a variety of comments here.

So councilmember Larry, this is the question that you just raised on terms of oh, then no, you raised the question about splitting questions versus uh weighing in.

But you also earlier asked the question about limiting to three, and I think that was something that you had a question.

So you want to weigh in on that?

Yeah, no.

Um I again um due to kind of the organic nature of things, and I think it was actually Councilmember Jackson too.

Um that that raised it.

So that's an answer to a question may elicit another question.

So does that count against your question total, or is it the three initial questions?

Like I I can see it getting um a little complicated, but um my my first point is probably at least personally um a lot more um weighty to me.

I'm wondering, are you planning to do a must versus that was some questions about a general guidance, like trying to be respectful to your colleagues and not take 15 minutes, hit a few highlights.

I I think that's kind of what you were trying to get to, but I wanted to ask.

That's the overall goal.

And I've seen different bodies actually limit, put time limits on conversations, time limits on testimony from residents and it's and I just I will say I've seen that be very, very inefficient and also um can have a chilling effect on people either testifying here at a meeting or the council members feeling like they're being cut off to some of the points that have been raised here.

Some people ask their questions very tight, they're in, they're out, two minutes, right?

Others like wind up a little bit, kind of talk through their question, and the question comes out, it takes a little bit longer.

Great.

That's it doesn't matter, so it shouldn't be so prescriptive where it's five minutes, etc.

But the but the idea is simply this, because I've heard you guys say this to me.

My gosh, they asked seven questions by the kind of got to me there were crumbs left.

That's exactly what I've heard.

So all I'm saying is if you guys want to limit to three questions, now if someone goes, Oh, I have another question, yes, you can ask the question, we just gotta wait for it to come around to you again.

That's all.

And I've seen it in practice, it works pretty well.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh since uh Councilmember Valeri uh mentioned my my name, I just want to clarify.

Um, you know, I think that the the mayor can use discretion in determining uh you know if somebody's going over.

Point of fact, I do like the limiting of questions uh to three or whatever we decide, uh, and going you know, of person to person uh asking them and then going around uh the the second time.

But as um council member Rolerie was uh referencing, um, when sometimes you have questions, sometimes there's a follow-up because maybe it wasn't clear, or so I mean, yes, we don't need to be so prescriptive to say three and that's it, but the mayor has the discretion to say, no, you know, we're gonna move on now, or yeah, that's a follow-up, you know, you can ask it.

That that's what I was uh actually talking about.

Thank you, Councilman Van Greg.

And I would say, Councilmember Jackson, that supports putting something in there.

So let's put something in there that has some type of rubric.

And if someone goes way beyond, then the mayor can have the discretion.

But if someone, if if we say three questions and someone has two quick follow-ups, I don't think anybody's gonna have a point of order.

But if we get to 27 questions, then the mayor can say we've got a rules of procedure.

Let's hold to it.

So I see other people weighing in before Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I actually am okay with the three question limit, and then folks and you know, after they've asked their first three and come back around.

Um kind of just dip these pie.

That's all.

Thank you.

I'll say I support the three questions.

However, I don't think it should be a must only to it's more of a respectful should be considerate.

Um and I also think that if someone has a direct follow-up to something staff just said that that should be allowed as long as it's not abused.

Okay.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

It was my understanding.

Um, and I agree in principle.

I think you know we all I would imagine are okay with quick follow-up question on the same point for clarity.

Because my understanding that three question limit didn't limit any one person three questions.

Um, but as I think the city manager stated, like if you have seven questions, you do your first three.

Then everybody else could abide it there when they come back around, which I think is okay.

Um and that's that's that's what I support.

So it's it doesn't limit the total number of questions asked, it just allows all voices to be heard if they so chose or if they so choose.

Councilmember Fulton.

Clarifying question that maybe just dunned on me and may solve some of this.

Since I since we're taking it out of the code, right?

So it's not like violation, there is a code violation, and it's now a resolution.

This ability to that council member Van Greg was talking about, and like there's a follow-up, like it we can put the rule in there, but since it's just a resolution now, there's no code violation if we allow a follow-up or if right, like it's a reference.

It takes a little bit of the pressure off, but it still leaves the guidelines in place.

Am I understanding that right?

That's correct.

Thank you.

And I think some in in the current guidelines, there's some discretion to either, you know, if not stated, follow robber's review or make a change on the day of if something like the zoning one is rewrite sometimes.

There's like a document that is like a 200 pages.

Sometimes there's like so many little things, and that's necessarily three questions.

It's a quick hit.

So there may be things that we can say, guys, for this meeting, we need a little more flexibility.

And I think the body can do that.

That's all the clarification I needed, Mayor.

So I'm gonna bring back, we're gonna write it as a resolution.

We're gonna present it as a resolution, and you guys are gonna decide the meeting.

I think I've this is what I gathered to either try it and then come back and adopt the resolution or adopt the resolution on its face, try it and then maybe make adjustments later on.

So this was really, really helpful.

And I know this was a tricky conversation, so I appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

And can I clarify?

You're gonna add in the public hearing and the two other items you're working on so we get to see a nice package.

It's gonna get a little longer because we're gonna have more definitions.

We're gonna um a couple of you had really good ideas about word choice will be really thoughtful.

And I also don't expect, I want to see if my colleagues throw something at me.

It should come back within the next three months.

I don't see it going longer than that.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Colleagues, any other comments?

I think we've really gone through.

Uh, Mr.

Dawson, is there anything you want to share?

Okay, all right.

May the force be with you.

Is this me before?

It's not May the fourth, but I said it anyway.

All right, thank you very much.

I think we'll conclude this agenda item.

Um, I know that this is an important document, and you're combining multiple floating documents.

So thank you for that.

We will see this back in three months.

We're now moving on to our next agenda item.

Mayor and council budget priorities discussion.

I'd like to welcome Stacey Webster and Kim Francisco.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

This work session is intended to help staff understand mayor and council priorities, emphasis, areas, and sequencing as we continue development of the FY2027 proposed budget.

This builds on the guiding principles that were adopted in May 2024, public input received to date, and the key initiatives that were reviewed and refined at the September 2025 retreat.

This slide frames the core question for tonight.

What additional priorities, themes, or points of emphasis should guide our FY2027 budget?

Staff is looking for confirmation of previously stated priorities, any shifts in emphasis and guidance on trade-offs or sequencing.

This input will inform how department requests are reviewed and refined before the proposed budget is introduced.

Here we show how public input, internal planning, and council direction intersect throughout the budget process.

We are at a point where council guidance is impactful, especially before internal balancing occurs, and the proposed budget is released.

These include pedestrian safety and crossings, traffic calming and speed reduction, neighborhood connectivity and walkability, lighting and visibility improvements, park trail and open space enhancements, and signage and beautification.

The mayor and council received the full listing of all of these proposed project items with the November 10th meeting, and those materials are included there.

These submissions highlight community identified needs and help inform our planning for the years ahead.

In addition, as of December 5th, 2025, 192 community members responded to the FY2027 community budget priority survey.

The top priorities to date include quality neighborhoods, active living, infrastructure maintenance, community safety, and economic development.

These are themes that also closely align with the mayor and council's guiding principles.

We'll continue to provide you guys with updates and more interim reports as the survey will be open for a bit longer.

So on April 13th is when our budget survey will close.

Anyone who's watching and following along can scan the QR code that's on the screen to find the survey.

It can also be accessed at www.rockville md.gov slash budget.

Residents, in addition to proposed a project, submissions and survey completion can also provide written and oral testimony at any of the upcoming March budget public hearings.

So this budget and every budget seeks to be responsive to community input while also achieving stated mayor and council goals and implementing policy direction.

The FY2027 budget is anchored in the guiding principles and the 85 key initiatives, which were reviewed and refined at the September retreat.

Those initiatives combined form a multi-year policy roadmap.

So the guiding principles serve as the lens for evaluating all budget requests.

They connect the funding decisions to outcomes, performance measures, and council values.

This ensures transparency and strategic alignment within our budget and within departmental work plans.

The 85 key initiatives include operating and capital priorities across departments.

This is a robust listing.

Understanding prioritization and sequencing can be helpful as revenue projections are refined and budget capacity is fine-tuned.

Council input helps staff determine where to focus resources, and we could also include considerations for using reserves.

Staff is seeking direction on priority areas and points of emphasis for the FY2027 budget.

This guidance will inform the evaluation of department requests, internal balancing, and the contents of the proposed budget, which is scheduled to be presented in the early part of March.

At this point, I'll turn the conversation over to you, Meta Mayor.

Thank you.

I want to thank uh the city manager and your team for the work that you're doing on the budget.

It is robust and inclusive.

I also want to thank the community who's submitted comments thus far.

I will just see if my colleagues have any questions to start before I ask me.

Okay.

Um I did submit some questions ahead of time, and the city manager shared them with all of my colleagues.

Um I really value the feedback of residents, and one of the things I'm always interested in is how we're tracking the comments that resonate from year to year and have energy behind them.

Uh, because I do think it's important that we look at the capital improvement projects and and the surveys to make it meaningful.

Um, that data came after we did our strategic priorities discussion.

So I just wanted to see from the staff's perspective: is there anything that really came up from you know that that you think is um has a lot of energy behind it for you?

I've heard some things, particularly on Vision Zero and repeats, uh, but I just wanted to pause there and see if you could give some insights.

Sure.

So um I think those themes really uh came through in that one slide where we talked about um lighting and trail improvements, parks and open space ideas, walkability, connectivity, um, those were some of the themes, beautification and signage, those were some of those major themes that we saw coming across all of those 65 different proposal projects that came in.

So those those were the high-level themes, um, but specific um projects did really vary.

I mean, um, walkability as a theme, yes.

Um safety, yes, but people would cite different intersections, right?

Very specific intersections that you know, maybe about their neighborhoods and they're you know really interested in.

So the specifics varied, but the themes um there were some pretty consistent themes across those submissions.

Councilmember Fulton.

You made me think of a question.

Um I know we talked about this at one point, but how do we line up the community feedback with the budget formulation?

Um, because and I think I think the mayor asked the right question about like what came in last year, like because I don't know that this timing always works that we have the full ability to see what the community is asking for while the budget's being formulated, but maybe using what we came in last year could help.

How do we make sure that we're making the best use of the community engagement but still having enough time to put a budget together?

Yeah, and that that is always the trick.

Um, and I've talked to our team about this too.

It's like we we take I like mixed opinions on this.

We take community input on budget all the way up until you guys adopt it, right?

Part of me is like, of course, I get it.

Why wouldn't we take comments all the way up to but or and when we get a comment that you guys might wow, that's a great comment.

We've never thought about that, and it's a couple of million dollars worth, then the three of us are over here scratching our heads, right?

So it gets really tricky really fast.

So what we do is we track those comments, we categorize them.

I think Kimberly and Stacey do a nice job with that.

So as we're presenting the different elements of the budget in work sessions, and we're really methodical about that, and you guys ask a lot of really good questions.

We will say, hey, we've made a recommended adjustment to the CIP in this area because we've heard a lot of feedback, and here's all it's et cetera, and so on.

The same thing with new initiatives.

We heard from our residents, we've seen a lot of comments on it.

Now, as Kimberly mentioned, if it's a one-off on one little intersection, we might have a different conversation with that person about doing a traffic study or visit or something like that.

It doesn't mean it's gonna end up in the budget.

So I hope there's some clarity there.

We don't treat every single comment the same candidly.

Councilmember Valerie.

I am always intrigued during the proposed project portion of the budget, which um can been following for a very long time because it's always felt like 90 to 95 percent fall under um the vision zero uh slash pedestrian master plan.

Um so I hope that that um can be reflected.

Maybe we're not doing enough.

Some of these things are not gonna necessarily fall under a capital improvement project.

Um so just being super clear, I think during our meetings would be helpful um to that extent.

And it I know it came through on the proposed project, I believe, um, or it was part of the feedback from uh community associationslash HOAs, and that is the um pedestrian crossing and Maryland 28 um that would connect East Rockville and Twinbrook, as well as um creating pedestrian improvements to Redgate.

Now that we've um designated Redgate as a park, I think the pedestrian improvements make a lot of sense.

But um this particular crossing has I think this is the second, if not third year of the East Rockville Civic Association requesting this, and I believe this is maybe the first year, but don't quote me on that of the Twinburg Community Association asking for it.

Um and I suspect, especially with pedestrian accessibility to Redgate that that would probably be expanded as well.

Um so I I would like to I would like to see um that um be uh explored, if not put uh in for consideration.

Um I do believe it falls under um several of our um strategic overarching situated strategic priority list.

Um, but I I put that forward to my colleagues for consideration.

Thank you, Councilmember Van Krak.

Um, I know I've brought this up in years past, but I'm just gonna bring it up again.

I noticed that in the details in the agenda when we're talking about the budget survey, um, we again have between four and in past years eight percent outside the city limits.

Is there a way for us to exclude those from outside the city limits in the actual data that we're looking at?

We absolutely could.

Um we only currently we only exclude it in the um area where we look at the population because we want to figure out geographically is our responses, are our responses representative of the community?

And so we do exclude them in that area, but if we wanted to exclude all of their comments and all of their state of priorities, we could do that if that's the will of the mayor and council.

That that would be my I mean, obviously I can't speak for my colleagues, but uh I think that if you're a city resident, I'd much significantly more value your feedback on our survey and what we do with the tax dollars than outside.

I'm not saying we have no influence, but right now they're being treated as equal as anybody inside the city.

Uh and I don't think that's uh fair or gives us the best representation of our residents.

Thank you.

I asked this question as well.

Um, you know, how can we tell the difference?

I don't necessarily say that we shouldn't see it at all, but I would like to see it separate.

Uh and there are some things that we can learn from people who visit our city and they contribute to programs, and they may have started businesses, they may be helping on wrecking parks, but they don't live in the city.

But I do think that we should be dealing with understanding what our residents we are requesting versus outside.

Um, so if there's a way to segment it out, I I would prefer that.

Um, I think that when it's meshed in, we can't really tell what's coming from a resident specifically versus not.

Councilman Fulton, I saw it.

That's just Councilman Felton said thumbs up.

Colleagues, how do you feel about this?

Thumbs up.

Got it.

Okay.

Councilman Basha.

Um I I definitely agree.

Um, and I don't know if this is um too detailed, but I would like to understand uh their connection to the city, you know, if they do own a business, um, just to have that additional information if that's possible.

And we recognize adding more questions would be more in next year, right?

Councilman Shaw.

Okay, please.

I saw your face, so I just wanted to make sure I was responding.

I'm looking for hands, uh, Councilman Valerie.

And just see if there's someone else.

I want to see the other people who have not had a chance to ask questions, have questions.

I have a few, and then I'll pause.

Is that fair, Councilmember Larry?

You got it.

Okay.

Um I did receive the feedback from the East Rockfell Twinborg community and shared it.

I know that you looked at it and said, some of these are great.

I don't have a sense of how much these things cost.

And so it's hard to weigh in.

Uh, but I definitely I've heard it for years and years about this need to increase um the safety and pedestrian crossing connectivity to the neighborhoods.

I've also biked and walked it myself, and it can be scary.

So uh, Mr.

Mahilek, I saw that you were potentially willing to weigh in.

Yeah, I thought I provided you guys with a pretty not extremely detailed, but at least some comments on it.

Um I remember those, it's kind of a suite of of suggestions, like a half dozen or so.

I'll just say I know for a fact that some are easier to do than others, and some are much more expensive than others.

Um let me resend that to you.

Um, and I think that's good food for thought as we get into capital.

And if one or more of you guys say, look, we know this is expensive, but what would it really take to get this done?

Then we can have a conversation of whether it goes in the CIP and more importantly, where, right?

Is an is it an out-year project?

Is it near one, two, three, four, or five?

I think that's the appropriate time to have that conversation because as a collective, they're great projects.

We all agree to that stuff, fully agrees with it.

It's just how do you prioritize them?

I I agree.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

And I wonder has the East Rockville Twinburg community received that list that you've shared with us, because I think maybe that would also be helpful and instructive for us to get feedback on their response on that.

Uh understood.

I um we'll do what we can, and I'm also very comfortable with you guys sharing the information I sent to you.

Okay to your folks.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And I will just uh share that I think it is important to hear from people because their lived experience is different than someone driving through the area.

Um, so I I appreciate that.

Um thank you for answering my comments on the pavilion.

They're just I I'm also just interested in the the pros plan and how we're moving forward on that and making sure there's equity in terms of the projects we're bringing across the city.

So that's something that I would like to see.

If are there areas in the city that are not getting something or have not been invested in that we can look at?

So that's just not necessarily specific project, but just a broad overview as an approach that we might take budget wise.

Understood.

Okay.

Um the Rockville Pike plan.

I was trying to be creative here.

Um I recognize that we have limited resources, and um, you know, that the Rockville Pike is such a big part of our economic development and potential housing potential.

And so I just shared the idea.

I know that was like, do we have to redo the whole plan?

Could we modify it?

I continue to have interest in this area and the members of the body have as well.

Yeah, maybe if it's okay.

Well, I'm not broadening it just because you and I had some a couple different conversations on this.

So the concept is multiple things.

One, do we have to really start from scratch with the Rockville Pike plan and make it a two or three year process?

My my initial reaction to that right away was no, it does not need to be that way.

Two, we have to decide what data we already have.

That we haven't done that research just yet, but we have to see what data we have.

If we think we have uh a fair amount of data, then that's gonna save a ton of time.

Um the other thing I can say confidently right now, unless the body objects is we can push out an RFP a little bit quicker.

So then that way we could um hit the ground running when the new fiscal year starts.

It's just I want you guys to make sure eyes wide open, whether you're saying it or not right now, you are kind of prioritizing it, like putting it to the to the head of maybe not the top of the pile, but you're saying we're gonna work on this.

The good news is I I'm confident we can put on an RP a little bit quicker.

And as I talked to the team um very recently, Mayor, is that we think we can do a lot of this work in-house, which made me feel happy.

It's just where we need a little bit of help with is the data collection and also the graphics.

If we can do those things, then we can push out that plan a little bit faster.

Thank you.

I can't give you hard dates.

Understood.

And I also know that we're looking the East Rockville plan is 20 years old, and that is not as new and that needs more community input.

So I just wanted to recognize that as well.

Agreed.

Okay.

Councilman Fulton.

So to that point, I I I did want to mention I am very supportive of getting the Rockville Pike plan done as soon as we can.

Absolutely.

I am also very supportive of getting the East Rockville neighborhood plan done as soon as we can.

When we talk about responding to community uh input and what they're asking for, they're asking for that.

So I I don't want to de-prioritize that one to get the Rockville Pike plan done.

And they may be parallel tracks but different levels because one is so old that it needs to be fully refreshed.

Another one based on the fact that you've had very specific feedback from the council during the zoning grounds we write in other processes and get a sense of where we are, um, could maybe update the pipe plan.

So maybe they're parallel, but some require more work than others.

I agree with those characterizations.

Okay.

I'll pause on my questions.

Uh is there anyone else who has questions who hasn't had a chance to speak yet?

Okay.

Councilmember Valeri.

Yes.

I don't know, maybe we need to go around the horn.

Um, I just realized because I was pulling up um the other uh item that I wanted to discuss, but I realized that in the presentation, um the guiding principles.

So we had focus area and core commitments, and which makes sense, and we've all we haven't deviated from this, but we also had actual guiding principles, and that's where um the idea of uh uh Jedi focus of um I think it was on uh youth programming.

There were I know I'm missing something, but um I just wanted to kind of note that um these are actually our focus areas and not guiding principles.

Um so we might need uh an update on that one, or we have a discussion.

Because I recall from I don't even know what number strategic uh planning discussion that we had that we kind of saw it as like principles versus focus areas, um, because the principles would kind of be infused throughout the focus areas.

Um can Mr.

Manager weigh in on the do you have any comments on because I know we actually have a really handy dandy chart that kind of shows all four of those and next time when we have a budget work session, we'll throw it back up just to make sure we're all on the same page.

I I think that would be helpful because the thing that I noted um in the key operating initiative is that we do explicitly have um our Jedi work laid out, but aside from child care, which is a very small segment, we have nothing in here as it relates to youth programming.

Um and I know that um I know that it had been discussed.

I know that there was a memo from our wreck and parks department, um, but having it be um at some somewhere in here, even if it does live in its existing um it it probably should be within that department, of course, but I did not see anything explicitly there beside uh child care, which again is kind of different.

Um I did have one suggestion, um, and it it is very funny because uh both of the wonderful people from our finance department um have remembered me being at City Hall and doing this, but um is there possibly a way that we could explicitly pull out um CIP updates?

Like I know that there's that line on the actual project itself, but you know, having what is that line from the previously adopted budget, and then what is that update line from the currently proposed budget so that you could easily compare the two?

And maybe there's context that needs to be given on to why there's a difference, but I know it's just it's a little tricky to unless you've got two big budget books that you're looking at.

Council member, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Are you are you asking for there to be greater clarity and transparency about how capital projects have changed from one year to the next?

Correct, yeah.

And usually it is like um there's this there's usually a section for that where we talk about made significant changes.

Um it's kind of it's that, but in addition to significant changes, it's also um where in the process it is.

So if one I'm I'm thinking of the one that comes to mind is like the Twinburg pedestrian bridge.

So here's what was um the goal was for the last fiscal year, this was what hopefully would happen, and then for the proposed budget, this is the current status of that project.

You just have to sit there and compare each page for each project.

And I'm just wondering, and I looked to Mr.

City Manager as well, there would be an easy way to have that so that we can uh determine, you know, okay, maybe this one needs a little bit more time, or you know, where there is uh a possible delay or is going faster.

Um, I just want to get a better sense of this kind of things.

I would just share that when we're producing a budget document, it's really just where is this project at this moment in time, right?

And so things can change from year to year.

Um, sometimes these are um things that we discuss with you when we're talking about budget amendments, or even when we're going through budget work sessions, we're able to provide some updates about the status of projects.

And I know you all also meet with the city manager on a regular basis.

Um, I would I would just share with you all that um our budget document for this year is going to look very different from our budget last year.

Um it is going to be uh an interactive digital budget book with interactive graphs and charts, and so um page flipping from one book to last won't work.

I don't maybe it didn't before, but it certainly won't work now because the document is gonna take a whole new form.

So we have been working really hard to stand that up for you guys and to get that ready.

And um, I just I'm just mentioning that because you're talking about page flipping between different versions, and this will look completely new.

So I cautionary, please please brace yourselves.

Yeah, I I appreciate the heads up, but um I I I heart wholeheartedly support any uh improvements.

No, and I know that this is something that I spoke to Mr.

City Manager about as well, just trying to get a sense of you know, we're sometimes our goals are aspirational in one fiscal year, and then something occurs, and then it's like a whole new goal.

And so um, I just want to get a kind of a better sense on some of these projects that have been kind of hanging out there, or maybe are going faster.

So that's that's just my suggestion on this one, but thank you.

Councilman Michael.

Um, can you explain a little bit more about the budget equity tool and rolling that out and what kind of data you're using?

Sure.

Um the city has a budget equity toolkit.

We introduced that several years ago um when we um we did a number of things to refresh our our process and the way we evaluate um budget proposals operating and capital budget proposals that included a number of new scoring indices to include um scoring for capital projects in particular for equity and climate considerations.

So we have a budget equity toolkit that was again um rolled out a few years ago, and each year we review and refresh that in um coordination with our Jedi uh division, and that is used internally by staff to help guide them and how they consider and approach intended and unintended uh impacts to the Rockville community as they you know do their day-to-day work and consider potential um new programs or um new initiatives to undertake?

What are what are those consequences and and how might we um promote equity as we pursue those goals?

It's an internal document, so it's not something that um someone can find on our public facing website.

So are you using disaggregated data to um to project the consequences when it's available?

We use whatever data is available, and that might vary that that's the that's the part that I was I was really interested in, the type of data you're using and um like in all of on all of the departments or in all of the topic areas.

I think to the extent that we have data available, then and it's and to the extent that it's provided to our office with the submission, then we absolutely review and consider that and and we'll ask questions if we think that what we're seeing um could be put together in a more robust way.

So if it's to the extent of it's being submitted, is that question asked up front from the department so that it can be submitted?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Looking around.

I have I'll ask a few questions and I'm watching for hands if anyone else wants to come in.

Um the America at 250.

I know this came during the last budget season, and some of this will straddle FY26 versus FY27.

I just wanted to note some of that will cost money, and so I just want to see how we're getting that work done.

Mayor, I think you were traveling.

I sent you guys an update today.

I got it.

Oh, okay.

I got it, yeah.

Yeah, but I just want to say for the budget, that obviously costs money.

So I mean, that's in our plan.

We've asked the department heads to build that into their budget proposal when you guys see it.

If you think we're spending too much on it, I'm sure you'll provide that feedback to us.

All right, sounds great.

Um, this is new, but I wanted to note that um for Latino Heritage Month and also Caribbean Heritage Month.

I've heard from folks that there hasn't been something for that community.

Um, and we do celebrate other community events during Latino Heritage Month, and it feels like a whole is missing.

Um I just there is a growing Latino population in the city of Rockville, growing Caribbean population.

I just wanted to note this is something that we can look at.

Um maybe there's an event opportunity.

Um I know the senior center does something for seniors, it's not widely shared even with mayor and council.

Um, but I just that's something that I wanted from an equity perspective and thinking about how we represent our communities.

I they haven't felt fully represented in that way, and I wanted to call it out.

Let me talk to the team and we'll put something um that we can share with you during the work sessions.

Council Larry, did you want to say something about that?

Yes.

Um, no, and thank you for for raising that.

I had raised um something similar previously.

We're um a wonderful city that loves our food festivals.

Um, and I I swear that um in my time left in this term, we will have a papusa festival.

Um not just because I love them, but um, but no, like there is um just a big missing gap, and I think it's something that um the Latino community in in Rockville has been noting for some time.

Thank you.

Um the other is uh we have some plans that are coming forward, and so I'm just hoping I know that some of these plans are gonna come out after the budget.

Um so I just we may need some contingency thinking about that.

So I just want to raise the call of the flag that's uh the Jedi plan as well as the economic development plan may need some some level of whether that's in the city manager's contingency budget is something that we set aside so that we're not just waiting a whole nother year to do anything on those plans.

Um the other thing I wanted to note was um I think we talked about investing in looking at inspections and procurement, so I that's already happening, but I don't know if there's anything needed budget-wise, but I fully support the city manager's efforts on that and just wanted to note it.

Um there are a couple of things that I thought uh the time hat line has stretched a little bit, and I wanted to flag, I'm hopeful that we can get some things finished in 26 and also uh come back to Mayor and Council.

Um, and the city manager did respond to my questions on this, but I just wanted to say redgate design is something that is kind of from the last council uh wanting to get to that point to see where we are.

Um, and then the solar has also stretched in terms of timeline.

So I just wanted to note I'm excited about what we're gonna do this fiscal year and want to see that done.

The reason why I say that as well is because we do hear that rates are gonna be going up, and I also think it's a cost-saving measure for the city.

Um so I wanted to flag that um item.

Uh Mrs.

City Manager, I think the Talbot and Elwitz Smith, you guys have plans for design.

Um are you already planning to address those in some level of implementation, or do you need any feedback or thoughts from us on what we do for FY27 on that?

Not at not at this time.

We almost always do one year of design and the second year construction, and that when we'll plan on doing it that way.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, some of the comments from the residents, we have I've been seeing year to year, not necessarily a city project.

Uh so I'm wondering if there's something we can do to talk to the county about.

It's this connectivity between uh Tower Oaks and Park Potomac, it comes up every year.

It's not necessarily our bridge to build, but I wonder, are we having conversations with the county so they at least know that there's an interest and desire in that?

I'll have to look into that one.

Okay.

Summer youth employment came up in the surveys.

I do know that we have some level of hiring, but in general, I know that we've talked about like you know, you're trying to roll out the internship program and summer youth employment, but I I see that coming up year to year, and I wanted to flag that as well.

Um the last two things I wanted to raise are um in terms of projects and approaches.

Um the survey is great.

Um I'm I am in, and I'll say this.

Last year I was out handing out tons of flyers.

I haven't had as much time to do that this year.

I saw our numbers are down, um, but I I I want to see, you know, are we can is there anything we can do to just make sure that we're getting more equity and participation?

So I just wanted to flag that um as an area of need because I I do love what we're hearing here, um, but I want to hear from people we don't necessarily always hear from uh as well as the people we do hear from.

What I can share is that each year that we've rolled out the survey, we've put together an engagement plan in conjunction with CCE.

Um this year is no different.

Um this year employs all of the same tactics and strategies as last year and adds on to that.

Um we take the information from the prior year survey, we look for areas that are underrepresented, like we see um an underrepresentation of lower to moderate income individuals, we see an underrepresentation of renters, we see an underrepresentation of people of color.

Um so ways that we try to reach out to them specifically.

Um, every person who came through our uh holiday drive, I think that was over 500 families.

All of them received a budget survey flyer.

Um in addition, we do direct outreach to a number of low-income communities and rental communities in the neighborhood.

Oftentimes I try myself personally to take them there, and I try to align those with where we see geographical disparities.

Last year, that rock Rockville Pike corridor was underrepresented.

This year it's not.

So we try to reach out and check as many boxes as we can with um direct community outreach, um, including other things such as um getting flyers to people who participate in the city's um English as a second language programs.

So those are all different avenues we have taken and continue to take.

Um we don't see as much participation in this survey, and madam mayor, it may just be you.

It just may be that you don't have as many flyers working on our street team, but our council's gonna change that.

But but in all seriousness, we're doing all the same things we've done in years past and more because we're always trying to close as many gaps as as we can, and some continue to be difficult gaps to close, but we don't stop trying.

I appreciate that.

Councilmember Shaw.

So I do appreciate all the effort in in outreach.

Um, and I do appreciate that.

Um last year you added uh the renters.

I don't think they were added previous in previous years.

And so, and I I saw that there was 15%, which I think is pretty pretty high.

Um, I think the important thing is to make sure that we're listening to what the people are saying they need.

Um, and just so that we can continue to keep people engaged.

Um, but I I do appreciate that you added uh that that home ownership section there.

Um and then also I think as in past years, um most, and I think this happens with most uh public surveys, usually the underrepresented groups usually respond a little bit later um within within the time frame of the survey.

Um just because there's there's a number of different engagement barriers uh that that happen.

Um so um I look forward to see how we can um continue to our outreach with the survey.

Thank you.

I will also note you often ask us the question are we looking at a tax increase and fees?

I don't think we have the budget just yet to see where we land.

Um, but generally speaking, I do know that cost of living is going up for folks, so I'm not necessarily in that.

Let's raise everything uh opinion.

I think that we have to be very conscious of of what people are paying.

Um so I wanted to say don't support an increase in that way at this time.

I do believe that you guys were going to be looking at like fee studies more broadly um just to kind of see how we stack, and that was something from last year.

I'm assuming we'll get either information on that this year, so that we can make an informed decision.

We are anticipating the draft report from the city's comprehensive fee study in the next week or two, and then we will be working rigorously to fold in those recommendations to the proposed budget.

Okay, thank you.

Um, in the survey we heard about the Rockville Civic Ballet uh needing some some support at that location.

Are you guys taking a look at that?

Is there what do we need to know about um the Rockcrest Ballet Center?

Well, if a follow-up on it.

I know it's smaller than a full big center, but it's um my daughter took classes there, and I've been in it is quite small, but it hasn't been updated in some time.

I don't know if there's any safety issues that we need to be thinking about.

Um and then thank you for responding to my question on the outdoor exercise stations.

I think fitness is important, health is important.

Um, and I I appreciate that the community's feedback and desire to have an exercise station at Dogwood, and I would just note that I support that.

That that particular park feeds into a number of uh lower income communities, uh diverse townhomes, mixed, you know, missing middle home.

So I think to the extent that we can provide opportunities for people to have uh more amenities there, I would support.

So I just wanted to note that.

Okay, Mr.

City Manager, is there anything else you need from us on this?

No, this is very helpful, thank you.

Colleagues, any other comments or questions?

Councilmember Fulton.

I won't miss an opportunity to fan girl the finance department.

I love this presentation.

I thought it was so clear, it captured everything that we talked about in the strategic planning and tied into things.

So thank you.

That's all thank you.

And I I know this goes without saying, but I know we're all watching impact of the federal transitions, and that will be a big part of our discussion so we can forecast as best we can how we're balancing it all.

Um sometimes increased social needs when there's less revenue is something we have to also look at.

Okay, councilmember Shaw.

So I know we're gonna expect the housing assessment.

Um so I think that would be an area where we can evaluate uh some of our priority areas, correct?

Yes.

Okay, all right, thank you.

There's also the human needs assessment since you raised it.

Okay.

Thank you, team.

A lot of strategic planning and work, and I'll just say again, thank you for keeping us on firm financial footing uh so that we are prioritizing projects and living within our means, but also being very supportive of the community.

Thank you.

Okay, colleagues.

Uh, we now have uh our mock agenda.

I know that the LPT leadership planning meeting happened this morning.

Um appreciate the notes on that.

Any other comments?

Seeing none.

Old new business.

Councilmember Valeri.

I'm sorry, I don't want to jump.

I don't want to jump ahead of someone else.

Um I recently um in the last uh two weeks heard from a resident about um greater ADA accessibility in the chamber, um, in particular a technology um that would work with um someone's existing technology, whether it's uh uh hearing aid or um honestly like AirPods or anything that would um allow for real-time um amplification of what is occurring at the dais, but would also allow for real-time translation or slightly delayed um translation services, and um as someone who does have moderate hearing loss in one ear, I completely support it, but I think it's just good policy as well for both from the um hearing accessibility perspective, but also um for language accessibility.

So I'm not asking my colleagues to vote on anything.

Please don't mistake me.

I just want to put a pin in this, and maybe it's something that during the budget process we can um look at if it raises rises to that level.

Thank you.

Um to your point, I'll just add um I think I shared this about a year ago.

Some jurisdictions have a rising lowering uh podium.

Uh sometimes it's awkward if someone's in the wheelchair.

Um it's not an overly expensive thing.

I know some jurisdiction that just did it and can share.

Um, but I just want to to add to your comment of just being more inclusive.

Uh, on the language piece, MCPS, some of the schools are trialing, it's um uh a handheld tool, they're using it for parent teacher conferences, and I had a chance to to try it out.

Uh not not that expensive, and maybe that's something to explore, but just wanted to raise I support I support exploring it.

It's not something that we're gonna make a decision on now, but just so that we can have more information.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

City Manager's looking for for interest.

I'm seeing his eyes scan the dais.

Can you please clarify?

No, I'm just I'm just looking to count to six.

I'm happy to do the work.

I just want to make sure it's gonna take us a little bit to study this.

We need six as part of the budget.

So you're wanting to just have that.

I I think it might come up as part of the budget discussion, which would not require us to have six votes, but it it's something to share community feedback.

This person did not email.

This is a personal meeting.

I just want both the resident and anyone else that it impacts to know that council member heard the person and would like to share this with colleagues, and maybe along the course of the budget conversation, it may arise again.

So, Mr.

City Manager, what I'm hearing is that we're not taking a poll or vote today.

This is not direction to you.

I would ask Councilmember Lurry to send an email on this.

I am happy to do that come up under the budget exploration.

Super helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

I was watching your eyes.

Yeah, no, I thought it was, I thought it was go do a research project, which again we're happy to do, but uh thank you.

That helps a lot.

Um, we heard today um on uh just some comments on election.

I just wanted to note that it's my understanding something's coming back May and June.

I will send an email on this and some of the questions I previously had, but just wanted to note this is tremendously important to the body.

And the other thing that came up during uh community forum was the issue on CRAB, and I sent questions, which the city manager did respond to.

I really appreciate that.

One new thought that I had that I just wanted to flag, uh, because I know we have time limitations on this issue, is um we have meters on Stone Street that business owners are not using.

Do we need those meters?

Uh I just I don't know if you've how what staff is actually doing on some of the issues where business owners and customers are going into neighborhoods versus using the meters that are there.

So I just it's just a question.

Um, as you guys are and I know staff is already looking at mitigation opportunities that don't involve focus on permitting that there are other potential measures, and I also thought that businesses are required to be able to have a certain amount of support on site.

So I just wanted to raise those two things in support of the community.

Councilmember Leary.

Just quickly as in connection to that.

Um, as I offered by email to um my colleagues, um, as liaison to the the Transportation Mobility Commission.

I was privy to a lot of their discussion and debate, and if anybody would like to talk to me further about it, I'm happy to do so.

Um it was a very robust conversation.

Excellent.

I'm not seeing any other hands for old new business.

Um, so we are now moving on to potential adjournment.

Uh does anyone have a motion to adjourn?

Or do you want to hang out here for the new year?

Councilmember Fulton, would you like to make a hang out?

All right, I need a motion to adjourn, guys.

Councilman Van Greg.

Madam Mayor, I would like to make a motion to adjourn.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

It is unanimous.

Thank you to our staff, thank you to our community, and I'll just say really nice job on coming together for end of your support.

Appreciate you.