Economic Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

The Department of Emergency Management is to proactively reduce these disaster risk and reliably manage consequences through collaborative work with Maryland's communities and partners. In Maryland, emergency management is a system of systems. We cannot do it alone. We are the counties and the local jurisdictions, coupled with the state, working with our state agencies and partners, and with our private sector partners. We cannot do it alone. No one can, and it's only through that system of systems that we do it. The Annapolis City Dock Hazard Mitigation Project is an excellent example of this type of work, of everyone coming together. So the investment today comes as a result of years of partnership and collaboration with the residents, business owners, and governments at every level. And I have to say, we've been talking about it. It started in 2019. I started in state emergency management in 2004. This was a discussion then. It was a discussion of flooding back into the 1700s for Ellicott City, and when it comes time for a model, this will not only be a model, but there's another really, really good model in Frederick City that started with Agnes. And it took 20 years to build, and about three or four years ago, there was a flooding event, and it worked. It worked. So we know that this funding will bring a significant return on investment for every dollar invested, as I mentioned, we'll save six in disaster recovery. And while the dollars matter, what really matters is our community and our survivors. That's where our focus is. So the hazard mitigation efforts on this scale mean more days that residents and visitors can enjoy Maryland's state capitol and the beautiful waterfront, more days that local businesses have to grow and thrive, and fewer days spent mucking out livelihoods and homes or wondering if the next storm or king tide will be worse than the last one. So this project is proof that together we can do things which shape a more resilient Maryland where communities thrive and where no one is left behind. So from the emergency management community to all of you, one, congratulations. Two, thank you. And number three, we're not leaving. We are not leaving until it's done. And we'll be here for another 20 years to make sure it works so we can right that dam. All right? Thank you very, very much.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Team Maryland. Before we take questions, I do want to acknowledge a few other folks. And Sarah mentioned my former partner and colleague, Ben Cardin. He was also tenacious about this project. And we work very closely together. And just like Congresswoman Elfrith picked up the baton from John Sarbanes in the House, Angela Ulster Brooks has helped pick up that baton in the United States Senate. So I just want to thank her. She could not be here. So let's give them both a round of applause. So we're happy to answer any questions. And if not, we do have a check. Cash it fast. Any questions?

Yeah.

Can you respond to the letter that you sent to the Trump administration regarding the Legionella?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.

Can you respond to the letter you sent to the Trump administration relative to the Legionella letter?

Oh, can we talk to you after about... I'm happy to do one-on-one or... Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Time for the real thing. Check. All right. Should we all...

Senator, can I mention one other person I forgot to mention?

Yes, of course. I also want to call out Lieutenant General, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, Mike Bork-Schulte, who was incredibly helpful, and I just want to acknowledge his efforts as well. Why don't you get in the middle here?

All right.

Yeehaw.

Hola, soy el Capitan Zapata del Cuerpo de Bomberos aquí de la Ciudad de Nápoles. En esta semana estamos hablando de prevención de incendios en la cocina. La causa principal de incendios en casa proviene del uso de la cocina. La causa principal de incendios en la cocina es falta de supervisión. Punto número uno. Cuando esté cocinando, use un reloj alarma automático. Punto número dos. Siempre mantenga una tapa cerca o a la mano cuando esté cocinando. Si está cocinando con aceite o manteca y toma fuego, ponga la tapa sobre el sartén y espere que se enfríe. Point number three, make sure to keep an area clean and organized when you're cooking. And point number four, be sure to keep a free area for children of at least three feet or one meter. Por si acaso hay un incendio que está fuera de su control, llame al 911 inmediatamente. Acuérdese de probar sus detectores de humo mensualmente. Haga un plan de escape también y practiquelo. Mantente seguro, Annapolis. Muchísimas gracias.

Hi, I'm Megan. I'm here at City Hall to talk to you about the Golden Pass. If you're 55 and older, the Golden Pass is a great opportunity for you. For just $20 a month, you can park for up to two hours a day on Maryland Avenue, Main Street, or the Mills Home and Garage without using a promo code, the pay machine, or even an app. Just park and walk away all week this week, May 11th through the 15th from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. I'm here if you have any questions, if you want to sign up in person, or if you just need a hand. Stop by, park at the Mills Home and Garage. We'll validate your parking and we'll connect in person. Thanks.

There's a little place across Spa Creek. You get there when you shuffle down Compromise Street, cross the bridge or paddle through the harbor. It's the opposite side of Annapolis proper. Then when you get there, you leave your worries behind and get that laid back feeling that only you'll find in Eastport on the Bay. They're a laid-back crew there in old Eastport. They go to work all summer long in deck shoes and shorts. And if you want a millionaire's elbow to rub, he's got the shabbiest deck shoes down at Marmaduke's Pub. Or go around the corner to Leon's Barber Shop and have the mayor himself take a little off the top in Eastport on the bay. So let me get across, Mr. Bridgetender, and leave it up for good for all that I care. The crab pot's steamin', we can pick us a few, and I'll shuck the oysters if you make us do. Crabbin' and sailin' with characters galore, it's a land of pleasant livin' surrounded by shore. Yuppies with puppies walkin' side by side, and things ain't a-changin' except for the tide. So come on over, leave your worries behind, and get that laid-back feelin' that only you'll find in Eastport on the bay.

Hey, hey, hey! Get out of there! Get out of the garbage! Oh, we're going to have to clean all this up again. And since we're here, I'll take the opportunity to do a training on how we're going to place the garbage properly. First, we lift everything. and we put it inside the trash bag then we tie it and we put it inside the trash container we cover it since we are we take advantage and we also look at the recycling this bag does not have to be in the recycling and we empty all this again we place the cover so we are going to ask our monster to return from the garbage And let's see what it has to see if it can be recycled or not. This metal thing down here cannot be recycled. All this fine plastic from the garbage bags does not go into recycling either. This metal knife either. Please take into account that when you take out your garbage, these are the ways to do it to be able to avoid being warned or fined.

Hear them geese? They're flying high through this crystal shimmer of that October sky. Just like them, I'm flying away down the muddy waters of the Chesapeake Bay. So come on, Captain, raise that mane. Can't wait to get back again to Annapolis on the Bay. I can see the domes and spires of my little town rise from the horizon like the jewels on a crown in Annapolis on the Bay. So meet me at the city dock and give us a hug. Then we'll shuffle off to Middleton's and have us some fun. Crab pots steaming, we can pick us a few. I'll shuck the oysters if you make the stew. So come on, captain, don't make me wait. There's no ill wind that blows us away to Annapolis on the bay.

Hey Annapolis, it's go time. On-demand transit that takes you where you want to go. It's fast, it's easy, and it's an affordable way to get around Annapolis. Going to the doctor? It's go time. Going shopping? It's go time. Exploring Annapolis? It's go time. It's easy to schedule your ride. Use the app or call Transportation Dispatch at 410-263-7964. Set your pickup and your destination and we'll be right there. Simply track the bus on the app so you'll know exactly when we'll be there to pick you up. Pay once you're on the bus, just $2 per ride and only $1 for seniors. Or you can use your daily, weekly, monthly, or annual bus pass. Getting around Annapolis is easy with Annapolis Go Time. On-demand transit. See you on board.

Hey, hey, hey! Get out of there! Get out of the trash! Oh, we're going to have to clean all this up again. And since we're here, I'll take the opportunity to do a training on how we're going to place the trash properly. First, we lift everything and place it inside the trash bag. Then we tie it up and place it inside the trash can. We cover it. Since we are here, we take advantage and also look at the recycling. This bag does not have to be in the recycling. And we empty all this. Again we place the cover. So we are going to ask our garbage monster to return. And we are going to look at what it has to see if it can be recycled or not. This metal down here cannot be recycled. All this fine plastic from the garbage bags does not go into recycling either. This metal knife either. Please take into account that when you take out your garbage, these are the ways to do it to avoid being notified or being fined.

Hello, I'm Ken White with the Annapolis Fire Department. This week's theme for Fire Prevention Week is Serve Up Safety in the Kitchen. So this holiday season, here's some tips from the Annapolis Fire Department that can help you serve up safety in the kitchen. Tip one, when frying, boiling, or simmering, stay in the kitchen, never leave the home, and always use a timer. Tip two, if a grease fire starts, never try to extinguish with water. Use a lid to cover over the pot, turn the burner off, and wait till the pan cools down. Tip three, always keep your cleaning and cooking surfaces free of any clutter. And tip four, remember to always keep a three foot distance around the cooking area, a three feet kid zone, as I like to call it. And remember, if you're unable to control the fire, get out of your house and dial 911 immediately. And never forget every month to test your smoke alarms, have an escape plan and practice your escape plan. Unattended cooking is a leading cause of home fires and home fire injuries. For more information on tips on how you can serve up safety in the kitchen, visit www.firepreventionweek.org. Stay safe Annapolis.

Hear them geese? They're flying high through this crystal shimmer of that October sky. Just like them, I'm flying away down the muddy waters of the Chesapeake Bay. So come on, Captain, raise that mane. Can't wait to get back again to Annapolis on the Bay. I can see the domes and spires of my little town rise from the horizon like the jewels on a crown in Annapolis on the Bay. So meet me at the city dock and give us a hug. Then we'll shuffle off to Middleton's and have us some fun. Crab pots steaming, we can pick us a few. I'll shuck the oysters if you make the stew. So come on, Captain, don't make me wait. There's no ill wind that blows us away to Annapolis on the bay. ¶¶ ¶¶

do

We are here in Annapolis today celebrating the boy who harnessed the wind. A guy who overcame adversity. A young brown boy from projects.

And I'm celebrating for not just me, for many others that have came out of situations of adversity.

This is where it all started.

This is where I used to work. Maybe 10 years ago, this was my station. They helped me out with every single thing I did.

Braiding and teaching me how to mold. Teaching me how to scale.

You've got to be the work all the time. All of them, this is where I all ended up. Being raised with a culture of women of hairdressers that I looked up to growing up, I was heavily equipped. I used to sit in hair salons and watch the ladies work, and I really learned a lot about being a hairstylist through my mentors in front of me. I mean, I have clients like Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Kelly Rowland, Yara Shahidi. I like glamorous hair. I like confident hair. I like hair that's been slept on and lived in and ruffled up. I told myself that I could dream and I told myself that I could in a situation where I wasn't supposed to. And so me standing here today is a huge honor because when I started my journey, I had no idea that this could be. But I kept going and I kept doing. Here we are today. I'm getting the keys to the city.

On behalf of the city of Annapolis, we present you with the keys to the city.

I honestly want to say thank you so much. Listen, I be working really, really hard and I love what I do. I love Annapolis. I want to be able to create space for younger individuals to be empowered, to be uplifted, to find mentorship and to really strategize ways to really uplift. And so I am going to start a nonprofit here in Annapolis. Pair up with all of my mentors and we are going to come up with something spectacular. It means more to me than the accolade. It's really about the honor for me. I'm really honored and grateful. And that's what it means to me. I have a lot of humility for what my ancestors paid the way for me.

Music Music Music Thank you.

The City Council for Thursday, July 16th, 2026 will be called to order at 4.30 p.m. At this time, would everyone willing and able please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'm on the agenda.

The first item on the agenda is ID 14426, Maryland Citizens Health Initiative.

Thank you. We have Dr. Andrew York and Vincent DeMarco. Please come on up. We're happy to have you join us today.

Dr. Julius Slyko. Dr. Julius Slyko. Hold on.

Have a seat and make sure you speak into the microphone and then resay what you just said.

All right. Sorry.

And the mics are always on. You don't need to press anything. Just talk into the mic.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Vinnie DeMarco. I'm the president of the Maryland Healthcare for All Coalition. Dr. Andrew York, who's the executive director of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board, is walking into the building right now. He should be here in a second. And with me also is Dr. Julia Schleicho, who's a member of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board.

thank you we have an hour set aside for the whole presentation we like to divide it in half hopefully this is not news to you where you have a half hour to present whatever you want to present and then we have a half hour for the council to ask questions then we have another presentation starting at 5 30. well thank you and we probably won't need all that time we appreciate this very very much i just want to make sure am i working this how do i you know oh they left up i thought you were asking about the mic hello mr tower Are you having trouble with the laptop?

Yeah, I'm just wondering how do I move to another? Ah, there you go. Okay, I think I can handle it. Well, thank you all very, very much. Again, I'm Vinnie DiMarco. I'm the president of Maryland Healthcare for All Coalition. And we work on making quality, affordable health care affordable for everyone. We've been around since 1999. This is not my first time before this council. We've been here before talking about all sorts of issues and making requests for support, which and there's there's Dr. Andrew York. Request for support, which the Council has always given us, and we've made a lot of progress in Maryland. I also want to recognize my good friend John Tower, your Chief of Historic Preservation, who also did a 30-mile bike ride with me at 5 a.m. this morning, and we're still alive to talk about it. Thank you again for having us. One of our major accomplishments was in 2019 when we got enacted the first in the nation Prescription Drug Affordability Board. And we built a powerful, broad coalition to get that done because it wasn't easy and there was a reason no other state had done it. Big Pharma opposed it big time and basically put a stranglehold on the whole country to do something about it. However, we were able to overcome that and thanks in part to people like yourselves because the City Council of Annapolis endorsed it and many other local jurisdictions. Your wonderful County Executive Stuart Pittman was one of our strong supporters. And one of our most effective advertisements was a TV ad with Stuart Pittman and Barry Glassman of Harford County, a bipartisan approach showing how this is important. So I want to first start by thanking you all and everybody in Maryland for making this happen. To step back a little, Drugs don't work if people can't afford them. And we all know that the problem of high-cost drugs is very, very serious. And 43% of people just can't afford the drugs they desperately need. Either they're uninsured or their copays are so high, and for many reasons, they leave the drugs on the table or have to make decisions to cut other things they need, their rent, school for their kids. We've heard stories that are just heartbreaking of this problem. Also, we all suffer because 25 percent, maybe a third of our health insurance premiums are because of high-cost drugs. So even if you have a plan that covers your drugs completely, you're paying for these high-cost drugs through your higher insurance premiums because of them. local governments and state governments are really strapped because of these high-cost drugs. Stuart Pittman who I talk about this all over the country, says that in Anne Arundel County, you all spend twice as much on the cost of drugs for local employees than on libraries. It's just ridiculous, the amount of money. That does not have to be that way. And forever, it's not been that way in other nations. In other nations, France, Britain, everywhere else, Canada, When the drug companies say, I'm just making these numbers up, I want to charge you $100,000 for this drug, they say, that's nice, you can charge that, but we're only paying $20,000. That's the way it's worked in other countries, but not here. until Maryland's Prescription Drug Affordability Board and the National Inflation Reduction Act under President Biden, until those two laws, we did not do that. We just let them charge whatever they want. And I will never forget one of my heroes, Elijah Cummings, when he was chair of the House Oversight Committee, had a hearing of top drug executives. And he was grilling them on, why are you charging so much? And one of them had just raised a drug by 5,000 percent that was desperately needed for people. And he said, why did you do that? And his answer to Congressman Cummings was, because I can. And that's what has been the way they've been thinking. Well, luckily now in Maryland and nationally for Medicare, that's not the case anymore. And what we wanna do today is give you an update on where we are with the Prescription Drug Affordability Board. And I'll give a broad order overview and Dr. York can give you a lot more details and then answer your questions about it. The public always supports the Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Overwhelmingly, Democrats, Republicans, all over the state, people understand the need for this legislation. This is just who the board is. This is... The board today, with the chair being Van Mitchell, former delegate from Charles County, former health secretary of Maryland, a terrific man who did a great job setting the board up. He is resigning, and there's going to be a new board chair soon. But he's been there since 2019. One of his best decisions was hiring Dr. York, who we'll talk about in a second. He's great. And then we have Dr. Georges Benjamin, who's the head of the American Public Health Association, Dr. Gerry Anderson, a prominent Hopkins professor, knows everything about drug pricing, Dr. Julia Slyko from the University of Maryland, and Dr. Steven Rockhour. So those are the members of the board. Dr. York is their executive director. There have been challenges and obstacles, and one of the challenges has been that our former governor basically slow walked things and vetoed a critical bill to provide funding for the board. And I mention these things because our opponents are saying, this board's been around since 2019 and hasn't done anything yet. Well, a lot of that fault lies at the foot of Larry Hogan, who just really slow walked it, vetoed the critical funding measure, which the legislature overturned, but that delayed things tremendously. As soon as Governor Westmore took over, he said, I'm going to make the PDAB work. put money there where it was needed, made sure they had everything they needed. So thanks to the leadership and commitment of Governor Westmore, the board has now been able to make progress.

When was that started? When was that of? When is that of or when the board was able to start making progress?

Well, 2023, when the governor came in, he injected a million additional dollars to make up

All right. Well, welcome, everybody. We're gathered here in a great American city, the great city of Annapolis, the sailing capital of the world, an historic city where George Washington resigned his military commission, symbolizing the transfer and peaceful transfer of power and making it clear that in America we have no kings, a city that's not afraid to tell all of its past, including its role in the slave trade. In Annapolis, people learn from our past. They don't try to whitewash and hide their past. A city that is the home, the proud home of the Naval Academy, a city where millions of people...

But we hope that we can get back to a sound footing where our department is advising and making recommendations to a citizen body to select art. We do a pretty good job at that. We've been complimented on the level of analysis in our recommendations. We go very deep. previous board was very supportive of the work the staff was doing so we we function best in that capacity as advisors to citizens so we hopefully the board the council can get through this process and get us back on that sound footing

Thank you, Director Young. We would never want to put you in a position where you are leading and charging not by choice, more so by force. So we appreciate that feedback. I mean, I think that really should help guide us to doing what is best, and that is ensuring that the Art in Public Places Commission has its authority as it was designed originally in the code.

What a fantastic idea for a city to have. It's incredible. And it was really functioning pretty well there. We had some issues with members on the board not always working well together, but we were heading in the right direction, and I hope we can get back on that sound footing and maybe even improve upon that. And I've reviewed a lot of the amendments and the ordinance that's in front of you, so I'll be here this evening. If you have questions, I can... practical resource for you, or at least share our real world experience with the commission.

Well, thank you for that. And I would say the arts community probably really appreciates what you're saying tonight. And so thanks. We'll call on you if there are any questions by myself or a fellow Alderman Thorpe. Please. So let's jump in. Before we do, Alderman Thorpe, do you have anything you'd like to share, express, or anything of that nature? Okay. I will start by sharing that I and alongside the mayor, members of the art, some of the members of the arts community, Cynthia, thank you so much, for hours, days, weeks, months, have been working to Bring a unified voice and update to this code according to what I know the mayor is looking to provide and an update to what is currently there alongside our vendors, Alderman Savage, Alderman Huntley and Alderman O'Neill. And so. I am going to ask. First, if Alderman Savage, you'd like to share any of your thoughts or not necessarily as it as it regards to the amendment, but any thoughts before I jump into what I'm going to ask a motion or I'll make the motion for a substitute amendment and we can go through amendment 11 together so that everyone's educated in the know of what's included in this.

Thank you for the offer, Mr. Mr. chair, but I don't have anything to add. I'm looking forward to going through the. Amendment.

Great, thank you. All right, so I am going to ask a motion, put forth one, that there be a substitute motion on the floor or substitute amendment to all of these amendments, Amendment 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and Amendment 11 be a committee amendment presented to the Council. Did you have a question, a thought?

How can we go about that? Could you maybe just sort of recommend that Amendments 1 through 10 be withdrawn and then proceed on decision-making for Amendment 11, if that's what the goal is?

Yes, so I will move that, and thank you, because that's what I was looking for. Looking for, okay, so move that Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 be withdrawn and Amendment 11 be put forth for a favorable recommendation. I also will request that Amendment 11 will not have only my name upon, oh, is that okay?

Yeah, I think it should have your name because we haven't voted on as a committee yet. So I want to make sure I'm very comfortable with it being your. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. So that's the motion on the floor. May I have a second for that motion for conversation or at least discussion?

So, uh, is the.

This is a request that we're going to withdraw.

That's right. So my point is, is I don't think we can withdraw the amendment.

I think I think what we're asking to do is recommend withdrawal.

Right. Recommend. All right. So how about this? Well, I'm going to go over the amendment and then and then we'll make that so that because I want to make sure that everyone even knows what's in this amendment before we even discuss any withdrawals or anything like that, because maybe we'll say, well, this amendment ain't nothing. And let's just vote on the other amendments instead. Is that OK? That way, that way. we get an overview of that. Okay, perfect. Amendment 11. So the summary, and I'm not going to go through every single bit, but the summary is the art fund relocated, its definitions, authority shift, membership, new funding source, new oversight mechanism, and also a section streamlined. So that's 2.48.750. The motion is to repeal and reenact sections, I'm not even going to go through all those, but the ones that are not going to be included in the code are sections 2.48.710, section 2.48.760, and section 2.48.770. repealing the following portion of the city code of the city of annapolis 2026 edition section 2.48.710 and section 2.48.730 and enacted them with amendments to section 6.30.010 art fund i'm going to request that cynthia or maybe the law office can share why are some of the sections crossed out and and why are some added in the repealing or enacting section just for clarification purposes

Hi, Cynthia Reuter, Legislative and Policy Analyst in the Office of Law. So the Arts in Public Places law is in one chapter, and the chapter that makes up the entire law is in several sections. Some of the sections are being changed. A couple of these sections are being repealed, just stricken out entirely. And one of them is moving to another section, that is the art fund creation. The section that establishes the art fund, that fund would be going to title,

six which is the finance section uh finance title and then go goes under the special funds section thank you if there are no questions on that we're going to get to the meat of it so the majority of the legislation in the whereas clauses remain the only addition or additions that are included is instead of the word deficiencies it was added areas needing updating And also, instead of set forth, it is outlined. So the reason why areas needing updating was there, one, because the word deficiencies didn't really rub, it wasn't the best use of word. And it's consistent with the next whereas, which says the city council has determined that updating the definitions, duties, and responsibilities. So that's the reason why areas needing updating and outline wasn't included in that whereas clause there. Moving forward, in the definition section, art activation remained the same. Number two, art fund means the fund is established pursuant to, so it wasn't changed substance, the substance wasn't changed, it just said pursuant to, so that people can be directed to where to go in the code. Number three, All of that remains the same. Four, it was added that it would be practices in the visual, literary, musical, performing, or other arts. This is to be more inclusive of the different types of artists who may be out there. the remaining of that piece stayed the same. Commission stayed the same for number five. Number six, we added planning and zoning director or their designee, saying that the director may not always, as heard tonight, be the sole person interested or leading this process. And so they may provide a designee in this process to help lead that. Number seven remains the same. Number eight, the only addition is or other mediums so that we can encompass other forms of art. Again, to be more inclusive, nine remains the same, 10 remains the same, 11 the same, 12, we just added other mediums and we use the more commonly spelling of frescoes. So number 12, that's the only additions there. 13, we added or presentation, so it means any creation or presentation of visual art or performing art, saying that artists may not only create art, but they may also present, such as dancing, for example. The remaining of 13 stayed the same. Next, section 6.30.010 is being re-titled due to it moving to a new section in the title, Revenue and Finance. So that's why we titled that differently. Fund establish all remains the same. Going down, the change for number one is 1D. It says practice or present art in public places. For E, it's develop, display, or support versus just support of art in public places. Two, all monies in the art fund shall be appropriated by the city council for art in public places. The commission may instruct the director to use the funds for expenses related to the administration of this article. This piece here was again shifting that authority away from the director as mentioned tonight was requested and giving that authority back to the commission. Okay, are there any questions thus far from my fellow aldermen? Okay, going forward, we have C is the next change. It says here an addition of may apply for and receive monies from the art fund and the reporting on the use of funds and work with the law office as well as other members. We felt that this was a great addition because it's important to know where the money is going and have proper reporting processes. Moving forward, nothing changes until five. So one, two, three, four stays the same. Five, the addition, ensuring timely payments of funds to artists and arts organizations. It was shared by members of the arts community that they do not often receive the funds in time. Nor do the arts organizations receive their monies in time. And so in working with the office as well, we figured that adding this piece here, it may not necessarily always take place, but it's setting in the code that this is what we're going to strive to do. Okay, moving forward to funding sources. Alderman Savage's amendment, which was the dedicated hotel tax revenue, was incorporated into this piece here, and it highlighted that the extent of the hotel tax revenue to that extent that it's dedicated to the commission it was encouraged by the law office that there may be a time we you know god forbid there may be a time that the state will no longer provide these monies to go to the hotel tax revenue for the arts and public places commission and so we added to the extent and the remainder of that is the same we are highlighting that according to the code and upon receipt by the City, it must be deposited into the Art Fund and held and accounted for by the Finance Director as part of the Art Fund, ensuring that the money is only used for arts purposes. We added revenue deposited under this paragraph may not be used for any purpose other than to carry out this article. and is subject to the same use distribution and decision making provisions that apply to other art fund monies and so this is just ensuring just like we saw with education fund that the monies are only used for what they are dedicated for oftentimes as you all know cities will take money and spend it elsewhere but we want to show that no this money is only for the arts community or this commission The next is nothing has changed in section duties and responsibilities in that portion until later where we get to A1, city property. We incorporated here, determine the acquisition, commissioning, placement, relocation, maintenance, removal, so all these are the same, and disposition of art and public places on city-owned property and establish the method for the competitive selection of art to be displayed in public places. The director may provide recommendations. So we added this piece here that the director may provide recommendations to the commission on these matters. Just again to highlight the partnership between the director and the commission, not necessarily the directorship of the director to the commission. So next we have here procedure development. We added instead of recommend, we said develop, seeing that the Commission will now have that authority to do so. And then we have three, funding allocation versus recommendations, because the power for the monies to be used towards costs related to seeking and receiving art funding grants should still remain in the authority of the Arts Commission. We also added intergovernmental coordination, coordinate with city agencies, boards, committees, and commissions as appropriate to fulfill its duties and reporting requirements. Number five, we added the word the, consistent with the adopted commission procedures and available resources. Are there any questions or thoughts thus far?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. In A2, Procedure development, it says develop procedures for section 248 710, but there is no longer a 248 710. so that just needs to, I believe, say 630.

010 absolutely so, um, thank you for that. So, if you don't mind. We could make a. Make a request or an amendment to this to to strike out section 2.48.710. And incorporate the new. Section 6.30.010 are fun.

Is that what you're saying? Yep. And then building on that, Mr. Chairman, that line, develop procedures as specified in that section for the ART fund, and I'm trying to figure out where that refers to in 248.710 or 630.010.

So for clarification, if you don't mind, Cynthia, is... is what's being stated, section 2.48.710. Was that properly titled in number two? So A2, was that properly titled? Should it be section 2.48.710 or should it be the other? I'm sorry, I'm not- We're on page, yeah, we're on page eight. Page eight. Yeah, 8A2, procedure development.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think, and Cynthia, I think that might apply to paragraph C, distribution of funds, which it's titled distribution of funds, but then it says commission shall establish procedures for apply for and receive monies, which is why distribution of funds. So I think that's where it applies to a C. So I think we're okay. My question is, who is the approval authority under the legislation for the procedures? In other words, A2 says that the Commission shall develop, it changes it from recommend to develop procedures as specified. A point of clarification, when we go from recommend to develop, are we, again, the magic word that was used in the last conversation, which I'm really uncomfortable with as we write legislation, are we implying that the Commission approve their procedures, or is there an oversight by the Director or the City Council or whoever, who approves those procedures?

Okay, yes, please, Alderman Savage.

I'll take a stab at this looking at assistant city attorney, but the council, I don't know, four or five years ago did pass legislation that has a rules creation procedure. And I believe the city attorney recently was saying that if it's called for in the legislation, again, assuming that gets typically developed by city manager or at least approved internally, And then they don't come back, they come back to the council to the rules of government, not necessarily for approval, but just for review.

I believe that's the procedure, but- Yeah, that legislation needs work though. There's a lot of issues with it, and Alderman Smith-Brown and I have talked about it in the past, probably need to renew that conversation. But I wouldn't rely on that provision to shape your decision making here, because that law might change. I just don't get your hopes up, I guess, because there's some cleanup language certainly that needs to be done with that legislation. It's a little wacky.

What would you recommend for this particular instance? What happens with the way it's currently worded? What would happen? Would that be developed by the Office of Law, the procedures?

well i mean the way that this is written is that the commission would be developing the procedures i think the question that alderman thorpe had was who would be sort of approving those procedures and i think the question becomes does someone need to approve those procedures or an entity need to approve those procedures or should it be in connection with planning and zoning directors you know what just a quick question what does that what happens with like the

The Planning Commission or Building Board of Appeals or Board of Appeals, they all have their own internal procedures. I mean, maybe this is a side question. I'm not sure who approved those. Does that typically go through all?

The boards themselves approve them. So what they'll do is they will have their rules of procedure. They will add it to the agenda. It's all publicized. They will take public comment, presumably. I don't know if every single board and commission do that. And then the boards themselves vote to approve those procedures.

you like to share something director yes so the previous board to its credit developed some very good procedures in coordination with our department and with the Anne Arundel County Arts Council that has a long history of being real experts in this area we met in open sessions we met here on a Saturday and they develop procedures for selecting art for balancing interests and these are These are procedures that all reflect what public arts commissions around the country do. So they're very specialized and they're not rules of procedure so much like with boards that deal with planning and development, but there were procedures about how to select art, how to balance it, how to make sure that it was represented and broadly of the community. So I think the... To the word, and I heard someone here say the same thing I was thinking, is it's not so much develop or prove or recommend. It's essentially they have the authority to establish those procedures. And just the kudos go to the person in the back of the room who I overheard say that. Because essentially that's what we did and that's what we imagine the next commission would do.

That's exactly, that sounds right to me, and it's crystal clear. They establish them. Exactly.

I love that, and I would be more than willing, because that was the original language from the community, but I'd be more than willing to update that developed word to establish if that could be done. Could I suggest language for it? Yes.

Pursuant to section 630.010, the commission shall establish Procedures for the Art Fund.

Mr. Chairman, can I just ask the folks who have spoken up, are you good with established?

Is that? Okay so make a note that I would am accepting that recommendation to this amendment without vote I mean I would like that to be the case so pursuant to this establish so that's I mean keeping in mind that's what number two will technically be in the new presentation to the council. So number three, oh, to the other point that Alderman Thorpe made about section 2.48.710, that was all fine? There wasn't any questions or?

No, Alderman Thorpe made a very good point and this fixes that.

Okay, and is that according to 3 as well with the funding allocation? Pursuant to that was, it's fine that that number is also okay. Yep. Okay, great. So we have funding allocation. So allocate the art funds for cost related to seeking and receiving art funding grants was the only addition. Then we went to intergovernmental coordination. Coordinating with city agencies, boards, committees and commissions as appropriate to fill its duties and reporting requirements. And for public engagement, we added the word the so that's chairman. Yes.

What is the intent of deleting historic preservation commission? Does this. Substantively change anything with their ability to weigh in on.

Art in the historic district, it does not. And in working with the law office, we actually went a little bit had a little conversation about that and mentioned. It's not required to include any specific committee, seeing that the historic preservation commit commission or commission is automatically usually involved in the conversation. And so, including city agencies, boards, committees and commissions. It includes the historic preservation commission, because this commission automatically works with the historic preservation commission commission now for clarification. I do want to make sure that was correct. That was in conversation with myself. I mean, actually, so I do want to make and Cynthia, so I want to make sure that that.

I don't know specifics because Ashley didn't tell me, but I would say that because the language in there that's added says coordinating with the city agencies, boards, committees, and commissions as appropriate, that that contemplates those situations inclusive of Historic Preservation Commission and other commissions or boards.

Hey, moving forward to page 9, we have membership and terms instead of membership appointment in terms. So it's membership in terms membership. The commission shall and this is an incorporation of a few of the amendments or a couple or so that were included from Alderman O'Neill. And I believe Alderman Savage also talked about the membership here. So we have the commission shall consist of nine members who shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council with the goal of representing the diversity of Annapolis within the commission. A preference shall be given to appointing one member from each ward and one member at large who has professional art expertise or knowledge of a broad range of art disciplines. C, additional at large members may be allowed pursuant to subsection C, which we'll get to shortly. Terms, member terms shall be three years commencing- Sure, Chair. This is, yes.

just yes pardon the interruption but just a question on the membership part uh just wanted to point out there was some discussion in the breakout group we had as far as whether or not a requirement should be put in here as far as some of the members having art background and i see that that is included for the at large but did you give consideration to giving that having some kind of requirement for the

majority or a portion of the general members oh yeah this is encompassing all of the members now if that doesn't clearly isn't clearly written i think we should maybe adjust the language but this is to say that all the members should have professional art expertise or knowledge that's the recommendation of a broad range of art disciplines so it's the goal of representing the diversity preference shall be given to one member from ward and one member at large who has Okay, so I think that language isn't as clear there. If we can maybe clarify that. Yes, please.

You changed the word has to have. It becomes everybody. This is all everybody, which I think is what I'm Alderman Savage. I almost called you Admiral Savage. Alderman Savage is trying to go.

so i am accepting that as um thank you i know you're not on the committee but i'm absolutely um if we can't update that word has to be have instead is that is that what the intent of the working group was um may i yes there that can that that sentiment was certainly relayed i don't know if there was

I would venture to say that most of the people testifying were clear on that, but I don't think there was consensus established necessarily from those who were there, but Mr. Pfeiffer may have a different assessment than that, but I wasn't, because I know the mayor wants flexibility, and I think he was worried that might tie his hands a little too much. But I think this is, The way this is worded would be, even if you substitute the have, would be professional art experience or knowledge in a broad range. I think that's general enough that... I think we just want to make sure we don't have people who don't have any kind of interest or focus on art.

And I think the earlier words, preference shall be given. In other words, there's not a... shall have nine years of experience or whatever so preference so if if the mayor was to think that we needed a finance person as part or i made that up but okay help make sure they stay in budget um okay so have yeah so have that's that will be have instead of has

Um, and we have here terms a member term shall be 3 years commencing on the date indicated during confirmation. That was emphasized by the law office to make sure that we know that as soon as they are confirmed, not appointed, which is part of the former language at some point. that it be confirmation. B, the confirmation shall designate the term of each commission member so that the terms of not more than three commission members shall expire in a year. That's Alderman Huntley, I believe, had an amendment similar to this. And so that's where the incorporation of that amendment is. Uh, vacant positions we have, if a word specific position on the commission is vacant for 3 months or more of the mayor and council shall no longer be required to adhere to the award requirement pursuant to subsection B. I know this was of positive response in our meeting that we had with the members in the mayor. The position may then be filled by a city resident living in any ward who shall be considered an at-large member. That's why in membership C it says additional at-large members may be allowed pursuant to subsection C. So that's where subsection C is in the vacant positions where another at-large member may be considered. And then we have the new at-large member shall serve for the remaining term and when this at-large position is vacated it shall return to being ward specific. Now Some of that just came to mind in that moment of this. When we say is vacated, let's say the at-large position is vacated before the term has expired. Would it then return, based off of this, it would return to being ward-specific. So should we incorporate language that... If I said it's after the remaining of that term, and then it would be ward specific? Because I think that's what the point of this one was, is that in the vacancy era, it can be any of the person, because we want to make sure that we have membership serving. But after that term expires, then we want to go back to that ward specific. So just maybe a recommendation from the law office, if you don't mind. Would that make more sense, or leaving it as is, you think?

Yeah, you would probably, instead of saying vacated, you would probably want to say at the expiration of that term or something along those lines.

Right.

So when this at-large position is... Is vacated after the expiration of the term. It shall return to being more specific.

Okay. Yes. Yes. I think yes, because technically it will automatically be vacated because the term is ended and they need to appoint a new member to that position. So I think that would make the most sense.

So the way it's worded now, it seems to me that if somebody leaves before their term is over or leaves when their term is over or just when their term is over, that it should the way it's worded now then it would go back to being word specific so if if the way it's worded now if we didn't have somebody from word nine filling it and we picked in that large person at the end of their term if they're actually if they're not if they're re-nominated it's never vacated so you would you know so it depends what the intent of the group was um Because the way it's worded now, it's not vacated and they can be re-nominated over and over and it's never vacated.

Is it technically vacated after?

So that's why I said at the expiration of the term, because to Alderman Thorpe's point, if it's an at-large member, if the intent is to not allow for the at-large member to continue to be reappointed, essentially, then you want to be specific and say at the end of the term. You don't want to say anything about vacated, because that can lead to the situation that Alderman Thorpe was just describing.

Okay, so instead of when this at-large position is vacated, just at the expiration of this term? So just cross that whole piece out.

Or at the expiration of the remaining term.

Okay. At the expiration of the remaining term, it shall return to being ward-specific. Or at the expiration of the return of the at-large position?

Yeah, you do want to keep that at-large position reference in there.

At the end of the remaining term, of the at-large position on page nine, it shall return to being ward specific.

Say temporary at-large position?

Right.

Instead of the new at-large member? They have to change other language like prior to that to make it clear and flow. In like number two, Cynthia, where it says considered an at-large member, you'd say considered a temporary at-large member, and then in three and four, put temporary before at-large.

So what the inclusion here is then is considered a temporary at large member three, the temporary at large members just serve for the main term for at the. Expiration or something at the end of expiration of the term. of the at large the temporary at large position it shall return to being more specific you got that you'll you'll phrase that properly that's what we have for those three okay thank you and thank you so we have d um It's just the letter change and we added a four, which is the commission. And this is for the security of those members who may not meet the requirements. And in participation, I know a lot of boards and commissions have had some concerns surrounding this. And I know the mayor, as well as some other members, wanted to ensure that if necessary, the mayor would have the right to dismiss those members. And so it says here, for the commission in consultation with the director shall establish participation requirements and any commission member who fails to meet such requirements may be recommended to the mayor for dismissal prior to the end of their term pursuant to chapter 2.48. Boards, commissions and committees, yes.

There's a question for Assistant City Attorney. I think we already have some language in here regarding That applies to all the boards and commissions as far as membership. Like, do we need something extra in here? Does this conflict?

there is something in the code you're testing my knowledge here and i don't like it off the top of my head there's something in the code um i believe it's attendance only where if if a board or commission member misses a certain period a certain amount of meetings within a 12-month period the chair is required to to write a letter to the mayor and then a decision can be made as to whether that person should continue serving on the board or commission so if if there's anything sort of i guess in addition to that baseline that's already in the code then this would be slightly different i don't know entirely what is meant by participation requirements other than pure attendance but it could depending on what the intent is here could technically be different but to answer your question yes there is something that's already in the code whether or not that covers what's intended here i can't speak to that

i guess my question is you can say i i'm a little hesitant to make a not just duplicative but a additional requirement it may make it a little difficult in the future i just think having consistency among boards and how we treat the membership elsewhere is important i thought there might have been something having to do with i don't know like an ethical

for the council i oh okay i think it's the council being the um having the ability to to remove another council member for certain i can look i mean i'll look into it no okay please i think we may want to ask mr i think you've got a good point i think we may want to ask mr pfeiffer i i believe it's the mayor's intent

to clarify the participation rules for our boards and commissions in the code. And if so, I think Alderman Savage is actually anticipating something that, I mean, we could put it in here as is and just appeal it if we did that, or we could just not address it here.

Yes, there is a modernization of the Boards and Commissions draft bill that's starting to work through the process of approval, so, and it would have some of those language in there, I think, but it is obviously not, hasn't been introduced, let alone passed by the Council yet, so it's a little impregnable.

Well, if you keep it in and just, I think Alderman Savage's point is we'll take it, we keep it in and appeal it later, And in case we don't address it later, or that's what I would recommend.

Okay. Yeah, literally, I'm taking all recommendations. This is about all of us making sure we get something to move forward. So if you would recommend that, then let's move forward with it. Thank you. So we have E, of course we're changing that, F, reporting requirements. This is number one, the finance director shall submit the financial status of funds granted by each funding source for the previous year to the commission by October 1. This is in accordance with the November 1 deadline that the state code requires. And so it says for number two, in accordance with Maryland Code Annotation LC 2603, on or before November 1, of each year, the Commission shall submit a report to those listed in paragraph 3 concerning its A, use of hotel tax revenue during the preceding year, and B, activities during the preceding year regarding the use of funds granted by the Commission. Three, the report shall be provided to the, and this is also in the state code, Annapolis Mayor and City Council, Maryland Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, Maryland House Committee on Ways and Means, and members of the Maryland General Assembly representing the City of Annapolis. So this was in partnership with the law office to ensure that we resembled exactly what the code says and to be clear on the reporting requirements. G, the only updates. R and C, define a competitive selection process for versus prescribe a method for the competitive selection of. D, outline the process for instead of prescribe procedures for the selection. E, establish how money will be awarded from instead of prescribed procedures for awarding monies from. And F, we added to address other matters appropriate to the administration of this article, we added including procedures for timely responses to and processing of applications and reporting requirements. That's just for consistency earlier on in this code update. For two, it was added in parentheses the title of, you didn't have it. So, in parentheses, and with quotes, we have the regulations promulgation and posting on city's website that's pulled directly from this chapter here. And I believe that was added by Cynthia to make sure that this was clearly stated where to find it in the code. I'm moving forward if there are no questions. Um, we're no changes to the remainder of section 2.4, 8.7, 4 of art selection. That was okay until we reach a selection process. Um, all of that has been struck stricken out. And in addition, we have. the Commission shall establish and publish the criteria by which applications and requests for proposals for art in public places will be assessed. The Commission, in coordination with the Director, shall review and update the criteria as necessary. The Commission shall publish findings for all art selection and funding decisions, including the procedures followed in the decision-making process. B, Selection. Added 1. The Commission shall inform the Director in a timely manner of its decision on the selection of art to be displayed in the City. Reason for constantly, consistently adding Directors, we want to be clear that this is in coordination, a partnership with the Director. We added the commission shall consider any recommendations made by the director before making art selection or funding decisions. C, large expenditures and appeals review process. In asking the law office from members of the arts community, they felt more comfortable with the $50,000 or more. The office said there was no reason for it to just be $40,000 and the range of $40,000 to $50,000 was acceptable. So we incorporated large expenditures that the rules and city government committee in collaboration with the city's office of law finance department and city manager shall create a procedure to review projects costing $50,000 or more. This shall be a timely review process by the rules and city government committee completed solely to assess whether the commission has followed appropriate procedures and to determine what, if any further procedural steps may be needed. The Rules and City Government Committee shall not consider or address any artistic criteria in its deliberations. The Rules and City Government Committee shall provide a final recommendation to the City Council and Commission based on its review. The appeals process is the exact same except for the financial piece of the $50,000 or more. In conversation with the Law Office, And members of the arts, as well as in that meeting, we had with Alderman Savage present, we discussed their possibly being. Going through the process of a committee or forming some type of committee with the department's office of law finance department city manager. And we discussed the Finance Committee. We discussed the Rules of the City Government Committee. Seeing that this is focused on rules, we figured, at least after that meeting, we figured that the Rules of the City Government Committee made sense. At least that was agreed upon by a few persons. And we also wanted to be sure that we are not Dictating or going beyond what's allowed by the rules and city government committee of making any deliberative decisions to reverse decisions made by the commission. It's only a recommendation seeing that the council, the full council is the only body that could do that. So we would recommend to the council and the commission that, hey, after review, we felt and. coordination with the office of law finance department city manager that you missed these steps and you need to consider these steps um and that's for the expenditures and the appeals and then oh yes come on yeah please come on let's do it this is the this was actually the most um i think yeah i think this this needs to be looked at a little bit closer i have a few concerns um both the large expenditures and the appeals but the appeals process i'll start with that i'm

I don't know how to word this. I'm not sure what the goal is here in terms of Usually when people appeal a decision that's made by a board or commission, there's some sort of attached right, like it's a property right, whether it's, you know, a peer at the end of their, you know, they want to redo their peer at the end of their bulkhead, or it's an employment right because they're appealing a disciplinary action going to the Civil Service Board. Here, I'm not sure, what would someone be appealing? The fact that they didn't get awarded grant money? There's no, like, inherent right to... money being awarded a grant. And so how would that look is sort of question number one. And then it doesn't really have like finality to it. It says that the rules in city government would make a recommendation to the city council and the commission based on its review but the council doesn't have that oversight over the commission any border commission's decision makings usually if someone appeals a decision by the board a border commission a quasi-judicial border commission it's a petition for judicial review which goes to circuit court so this sets up a totally different process than what other appeal processes are in our code and i'm not suggesting that there be petitions for judicial review on a award or lack thereof of grant money for art. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. But I think that that just goes to show that there probably isn't a method for appealing these types of situations. There can be other ways where you can accomplish like if the goal is to make sure that the commission is following procedures it could be through the reporting that they have to provide and making sure that they're following those procedures as intended versus allowing someone who feels a grief to appeal that decision of the commission and alderman savage if you're okay with me calling the member first

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

My main concern on this in incorporating the Rules and City Government Committee into the appeals and approval process is it adds politics to a quasi-judicial board, specifically a quasi-judicial board that is in charge of a lot of money. That of the last board that we had to disband. When you incorporate elected officials, we start coming in with our own views of what is and is not art. And even though we have the you shall not consider or address any artistic criteria and its deliberations, we're going to. Not us specifically, that is the royal we. We need to take the politicians out of these judicial boards as much as possible. I really think adding us into this process is going to just make the process even more dysfunctional.

If I can also simplify what Alderman Chandemeyer just said, there's a whole reason why there's separation of powers in government. And so another way to put what he's saying is that there's the potential for the legislative branch to infringe on the executive branch, which is not something that is legal.

So if literally this is a canvas, I know this is talking about this is this is a canvas right here. So are we suggesting that we just take out or if this would be possible to just take out the rules of city government committee and all these pieces and just have the city's office of law finance department and city manager be the persons just across the board in this section.

So for the large expenditures, I think, yes, that's a little easier than the appeals section because I think appeals, you still have to, what is someone appealing and why? And what does that put other people, what kind of position does that put other people in? Let's say there is a grant that's awarded to an artist and then someone who didn't get awarded that grant wants to appeal it. What does that mean for the person who had the grant awarded to them? So I think appeals is probably something you want to consider strongly whether to even have an appeals process and figure out conceptually what you want that to look like before you legislate it but with the expenditures um i think that you know not maybe maybe not so much the office of law to be honest with you but um finance and city manager usually in other areas of the code the city manager is the authority to make those decisions if it's something like emergency procurement or the city manager can make the decisions and transfer funds up to 25 000 so that authority already rests with the city manager solely So that is something to consider as well. But like, in consultation with the finance director is certainly reasonable as well.

Okay. Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so thank you. I think the appeal process is kind of something I was proposing, but I think it's, I think it's. it was worded poorly in the sense that my original intention anyway wasn't to have an actual appeal process, which is what you may be thinking of, more just a public review as far as, because some of these, I think the concern with the grant approvals of over $40,000 or $50,000 was just that's a lot of money, we want a little more oversight. and the idea that i was thinking is like well because i think at one point it was proposed to go over those amounts the approval would go to the director i think the sponsors of this amendment is saying well let's keep that approval with the commission and so then i was thinking well how do we provide some oversight and that's where i had the idea well okay for those high dollar grant approvals If somebody had a concern about anything regarding it, they could then at least come to the, not for formal approval, but they could come to a committee and then the committee would review just the process to say, well, look, they followed the process, they followed the code, there's nothing to see here, we're confident with, but they couldn't opine on the actual content of as far as appropriate art or inappropriate art. We don't like how that looks. It was more just a, I'm not 100% sold, committed to that idea, but that's kind of what I was going for.

Is it something that could be accomplished through like the reporting mechanism? Because the reporting, if that's publicly posted and that allows any member of the public in seeing that to sort of raise concerns that they may have and that can be raised to... whomever without going through like this process as outlined. I do appreciate you saying you didn't really mean an appeals process, because I was truly baffled as to what that would look like. But I think that there's a way that you can probably accomplish what you're looking for through the reporting mechanism.

Or the procedures mechanisms perhaps, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'd be fine with I think either or both of those.

Striking number two, yes.

I guess my question, and it's a hard question, is should there be an appeals process um in other words again trying to cover like possible scenarios if we're entrusting the commission to make decisions of what art should be uh installed or used what this money's been used for but if there is an outcry from the residents that the art is not consistent with uh the intent of the you know i don't want to give examples because it's so hard but look at you know the challenge of statues across the country is a good one um Are we saying that there is an appeals process, but it also states that it doesn't, shall not consider or address any artistic criteria, which is also a tough thing to define. It actually is one of those things, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it, not to quote the Supreme Court. But this is a hard one, and I think we need to make sure that we get this right, that we protect the artistic rights of specifically the commission, I guess, really, while also ensuring that we represent the citizens so is this a tough one um and i don't think we i don't i don't know if one if keeping this in or deleting it addresses it i mean i i think the conversation the city council is going to have to be where where are we on this um i mean i you know, whether it's statues or whether it's art at Kennedy Center. I mean, it's clearly a tough issue as to how to move forward. Chair Chair.

Alderman Savage, please, thank you.

So, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just after listening to you and Assistant City Attorney, I think it would, I would, personally, I think it would be best just to remove that section two i think it does open up a little too much just can of worms and a little and plus i was just sitting here thinking too it's it'd be a little too unique because no other body no other border commission has it and i don't think it's worth creating a brand new process for arts commission

The new members will consider something like that and they could in their own procedures.

So I think that's a better place to do it. I guess is my point.

Yeah, well, we will strike this out of this amendment.

Could I also comment on if you're done with that or the previous section, the number 1, the large expenditures on D. you mentioned well the first question is your colleague was was talking about well maybe uh this this shouldn't really be coming to a committee uh or in particular rules and we did talk about economic matters um some of us anyway so that could be a possibility if it's determined it's worthwhile to bring to the committee but in any case on d my concern is that you have uh see rules of government should provide a final recommendation to the city council but you don't state what the recommendation's for. The council gets the recommendation, what do we do? Is it for our approval? Unless I'm missing it in here, it's not stated anywhere why we're even getting a recommendation, because we don't have any power or control over this process other than what we're doing here, if you understand what I'm saying.

Yeah, and to sort of piggyback on that, that's why I was suggesting if you were going to eliminate any committee, that it should be the city manager's decision after consultation with the finance director, as opposed to bringing in a standing committee and then also making recommendations to the city council, because to the alderman's point, the city council doesn't make that ultimate decision as to the expenditure of the funds, at least as written, it doesn't either.

Yes, so let's go.

I think we need to talk about that. So I think there's a couple things that are involved in this conversation. The first one, easy. Yeah, easiest one first. I think timely is in the eyes of the beholder, and maybe we want to put a number of days on that. Right, timely... 60 days, 30 days? Wouldn't it make more sense to put a... To this piece here? Yeah.

Just to offer a suggestion, I know not on the committee, I'm trying to stay in my, but... You are today. Propose... If somebody wanted to propose perhaps, I would suggest maybe striking B through D, just keeping A, but also removing the rules in city government committee. So it would just say something akin to the city's office of law, finance department city manager so create a procedure to review pro projects costing fifty thousand dollars or more reviewing doesn't mean approval they would just review for the things we're talking about make sure it's a sound decision and following procedures i think that would still accomplish at least i think partially what we're trying to do with this language

Do you think that would be in alignment with what we're talking about? Because really B, C, and D is there because it's really going through the committee process. But if we just want to cut off literally from B all the way down to the second D, we could do all of that because we already did two. So would you recommend that being the case?

So we're moving B all the way down to the second B?

Yeah, I said second D because two had a D. So I was saying the second D. Oh, got you.

So now I'm tracking.

That was a little bit different. Oh yeah, so if you are recommending that this would be okay, I don't see it being a problem at all with us just updating this to be. The City's Office of Law, Finance Department, and yes, I think the City Manager is fine to keep there, shall create a procedure to review projects cost-effective. Now, they're creating a procedure, but it doesn't say they're going to review it. Shall create a procedure and review projects?

The procedure, presumably, because it's reviewing projects, would also encompass who would be reviewing the projects if it came to it. they would they can say correct and i think you know generally the suggestion or the recommendation at least coming from me maybe i don't want to speak on behalf of my entire office but the city manager is going to be like the head honcho in that regard right so the city manager hopefully she's not listening and realizing that we're trying to throw more work at her but um there's going to be she's stuck around maybe she could defend herself a little bit um but i said she could leave i That would be, you know, that would be included in that procedure, who would be reviewing the projects. We put the action around on that?

Okay.

I mean, the fact of the matter is the rules in city government is really not going to create the people, the office of law. So should it say the city's office of law, finance department, and city manager shall create a procedure to review projects costing $50,000 or more and... and present the rules or whatever, bring the rules to the rules committee to review. And we don't have approval authority, but that also gives it public transparency.

Could that be included, provide a report or provide an update on its review to the Rules of the City Government Committee? Would that be appropriate or in contradiction?

So again, that could probably fall under the reporting mechanism that I think is located elsewhere in this legislation, that that could fall under that category, that there's some sort of summary data, however it should look, that's reported to the appropriate entity. based on you know whether it's how many projects were over 50 grand to be honest with you i don't know how common it's gonna this is gonna come up um i don't know that it's gonna come up at all but um that sort of has a listing at minimum of those projects that that cost fifty thousand dollars more and what went into to the procedure surrounding them

So, I believe that is stressing is that in the instances that that does happen so that we don't have to wait for the reporting to come about because how often will they give us these reports or the annual? I know we have annual reports, but I think what is being said is in the instance that a 50,000 project or more comes about. And they have to create those procedures to review it following their review. They should come to the city council committee rules, the city government, and at least share what they did in a public form. Is that I believe that so would that be. Okay, to include here.

I think if you if you want to add tack on sort of that, like. Publication element to it, you certainly can do so.

So, let's think of yes. Oh, yes.

Once you finish the wording part, I just want to ask how we went from 40,000 to 50,000 and it's not that I disagree with that. I just don't know the criteria, but it actually wasn't.

So after asking, it was that a 40 to 50,000 dollar range was. would be feasible and members from some of the members of the arts community felt that fifty thousand dollars for them um was a little bit more realistic or sound because most projects are beneath that and so they should have the full authority usually to just grant those projects but that that's what um the reasoning for going from 40 to 50 was there was i mean

Again, don't read into my questions any disagreement or whatever, but is 40 to 50 a sweet spot that there's a lot of them? I mean, does the number increase when you go from 40 to 50 from 23 projects to one?

No, to be realistic, it was, or to be honest, of course, it was, it doesn't make any difference if it's 40 to 50. So we said, okay, well, 50 should be okay. But it wasn't any major or any reasons to call out, oh, that will increase the amount or decrease the amount. um but for language purposes uh if we can maybe think of what language could be added because we already are agreeing that b through d is now stricken out um and number two is already stricken out fully um so perhaps you can do something simple like as a c1b each large expenditure shall be presented to the city council in a report or something like that within 60 days of the expenditure or something along those lines Okay, so for expenditures costing $50,000 more is what you're saying? For expenditures costing $50,000 or more, the Duff's Law of Finance Department of State Managers shall present or present

Ian has some great language he wants to suggest.

Come on, come on, give us the language. Let's go, thank you.

I would just say, you could say something to the effect of, at the conclusion of the review project described in A, a report will be delivered to the council in X amount of days, you know, that you pick.

All right, so the council in all is, okay, let's do that. If that's okay to incorporate that way, everyone can see it at the same time. I'm especially... So thank you, Cynthia. Looking forward. We are on page 15 now for page 14. we're striking out. Oh, no, everything was already stricken out. So number 1 stricken all that up and we're adding the commission and the director shall ensure that the city or commission has a written agreement with the artists before taking artists or artists before taking any actions described in this section. What are the actions? Well, 2, we're crossing that out. Moving it and doing artworks selected, displayed, or performed pursuant to this article may be located or performed in, on, or near any publicly accessible space owned by the City. Alternatively, with a written agreement from the non-City owner, these artworks may also be located or performed in publicly accessible spaces on private property or other non-City government property. 3 visual art owned by the city may also be loaned for exhibition in a publicly accessible space on non city property upon such terms and conditions as recommended by the commission and approved by the director and with written agreement with the owner of that property. So that's where. And 1, where we need permission from the artist, because oftentimes the art can be moved without the artist knowing. And since it's their arch, I know members of the arts community was saying they would feel more welcoming if at least they were notified before their art was just moved from place to place. I'm 4 crossed out. Remove strike stricken through of the commission shall advise the director of. So I'm seeing here that it's so if we can remove the it's it's recommendation regarding the design, execution, placement or performance of a work of art or art activation in connection with this article. Are there any thoughts or feedback or anything like that? I have a question.

Yes, please. Just going up a little bit, because there's two number threes, and then it looks like the first three, starting with city officials and employees, that's struck, and then it's replaced by visual art, and then there's a second three that has the same language that was struck in the first three.

Is that a copy? Is that just a copy and it needed to be stricken? Is that a word?

I believe it's a miscount and I think that the intention was just to move three down below visual art owned by the city.

So three, second three is supposed to be four. Okay. I just wanted clarification on that since it was struck before if it was intended to be renumbered or struck again.

So that three would be removed, that extra three?

So the second three would become four, four becomes five, and there is no other five. The original five was struck.

So what's being said, though, is that the number three, underneath we have the update, but under that, it's the same number three. So is that same number three needing to be stricken out and removed?

She's saying that it just needs to be renumbered to four.

Okay, that's renumbered. The intention was to move that language below four.

yes if you just remove the first number the number actual numeric number three it appears that the first block of blue that starts artwork selected displayed is actually a part of the visual art owned by the city see what i'm saying so that both those blues are number two because it's talked it's about um public access owned spaces, maybe loan for, was he intent to put those two together?

No, I think it was, they were saying it was a format where that should be number two, this should be number three, that should be number four, that'll be number five. Okay, got it.

Chair?

Yes, please.

Just a question, I don't understand the number four, I guess it should be number five, but since the commission shall advise the director of its recommendation regarding the design, execution, placement, or performance of a work of art or art activation in connection with this article. This puts the control of where it's located in the director's hands, but then up higher on number, The two, I guess, gives control when it's city-owned property or if it's non-city owner. Yeah, number two kind of puts it in the place of control in .

So to answer that though, that's the original code. So maybe we need to update the word advise. And have it be notify or something of that nature, because that's the original code. Number 4 is the original code. And we're just putting back from the original code. What was there, but maybe we need to change with the original code said, but what's your. what's your intent that you're looking for there is have that be in the control of the commission still has that right it's just they're going to they're going to share with the director hey this is our recommendation whether they want to get feedback or whether the director gave feedback but it's really sharing the update as if any other coordination piece of this is done want to change that language if we have suggestions i say we we can do that i just

the original code that was placed back i just i guess i'm i'm not quite clear in my own head at the moment as far as who who has the approval to determine where they are exactly where it should go and i'm just thinking you know

Maybe we can ask the director. Are we seeking to have the director give recommendation?

Because I could see some instances where it might not make sense, and the city might be like, no, we really don't want it located here. But I feel like it's not too clear.

Director, could you be ahead?

If I can jump in real quick. Sure. Before, while Chris is walking up, you do have under... I'm just going to tell you page eight of 17, where it has a commission shall have the following duties and responsibilities, at least for city property. The commission determines acquisition commissioning and placement of art and public places on city owned property. So, at least as it relates to city owned property, the earlier in the legislation, the commission is the one that decides where. at least at a minimum, the placement and what else did I say? I've already forgotten. Acquisition, commissioning, placement, relocation, maintenance, removal, and disposition of art in public places. So to Alderman Savage's point, there's a little bit of a conflict there, at least as it relates to the city-owned property.

And Director Jakubiak, what has that process been like in the past if you don't mind sharing for this specifically when it comes to the design execution placement has the commission just shared hey this is where it's going to go and you prove that or you know did they ask is this is this okay if we do this like what has that been

First of all, are we talking about the installation of, say, paintings and photographs in City Hall? Is that what we're referring to, or are we talking about art selection? Art selection. Okay, so those decisions are made at time of selection of the art. or the selection of the candidate for a grant. In effect, the Commission will review a recommendation from the Department of Planning and make a recommendation. So it's immediately known to us. There's no formal advising the director. The director knows. The director is an ex-officio member of the Commission. There is some redundancy, I think, as the assistant city attorney said. There's a section on page 13 of 17 at the bottom that says the commission shall inform the director in a timely way of its decision on the selection of art to be displayed in the city. Right? And then on page 15, where we are, it kind of says the same thing.

What was the first page you mentioned?

13. Yes. The bottom, under selection.

Right. Doesn't include the design execution or performance piece, but... Right.

The commission's really not making recommendations on those things so much. If they are, they're placing them as conditions on a grant. We will approve your grant provided that you execute it a different way, for instance.

Okay, so what I'm hearing that maybe is for selection one be one, we are taking four or now five really and maybe just adding the the terms regarding that is so it'd be the commission shot for the director a timely manner of its decision on or regarding the design execution placement or performance of a work of art or art activation in connection with this article would that combine those two and be more clear So we would take one, leave it as it is, and adjust it just a little by taking five, the commission shall advise the director of its recommendations and the piece that says regarding the design, execution, placement, performance, we would add that piece to one so that it's the commission shall inform the director in a timely manner of its decision regarding the design, execution, placement, or performance of a work of art or art activation in connection with this article.

I think it depends on if you want to combine the selection and the display process, which are currently separated out. So I think really what you're looking at is just changing.

Oh, yeah. I wasn't looking at 14 for the moment. That's fine.

I think what you're looking at is changing the word recommendation on page 15 to decision so that it conforms to what's earlier in the code. I can't even remember what page it was. I think what I pointed out on page 15. It's all blending together at this point. Yeah, so on page 8, where it outlines the Commission's duties and responsibilities, which says that they have those duties and responsibilities. So to conform with that, just changing recommendation to decision on page 15.

Great, so we would do the Commission shall advise the Director of its decision. Okay, thank you. We've reached almost the end. The only major update in the end of the section was for clarification surrounding the appointments of members for the staggering of them. So it says notwithstanding section 2.48.720B2A for the initial appointments made after adoption of this ordinance, the mayor shall stagger the members' terms so that approximately one-third of the initial terms expire in each of the first three years, consistent with Section 2.48.720 . Upon the expiration of each initial staggered term, all subsequent terms for that seat shall be for the three-year term required by Section 2.48.720 . And this ordinance shall take effect upon passage. So this was the piece, I believe Oldham and Hundley mentioned about the staggering of terms. And we just had to clarify, seeing that most of the members may be appointed at once in the beginning. And so if the law office, maybe you can provide some, I think this was the last edition, probably today. I think this was the last one that needed to be updated because we realized that earlier on the code, we said the staggered terms, but there was no, how do you stagger terms when you have five or more members being appointed at the same time?

So I think that number one and two should probably be under the terms. It's kind of unusual to have language like that under a section two in legislation. So since there's already that term area provision, I think if you just move it over there.

So in terms, we will take one and two. Okay, so terms, we only have an A and a B, so maybe making it, C or D or making it a one, two, and then however the formatting purposes, Cynthia, we could do that. And then we can just go back to what it said originally, which is this ordinance shall take effect upon passage. That could just stay all the same. All you all, this was, okay. That's all of the amendments.

is there any thoughts comments feedback suggestions recommendation anything on this yes i just wanted to say i think commend you on consolidating all these amendments i thought you did a very good job of of um responding to and um summarizing the concerns that we heard at the breakout session. I know it's difficult to do this, but that's why we have committees. So thanks for getting it done.

Thank you, actually, and the artists, people in the community, the family, everyone. Alderman Shannon and I, did you have any thoughts or anything? Still digesting.

I commend you for the effort and the process. These take time and it's worth taking the time to get it right. Thank you very much.

I know that we're inching up on the deadline for this, where the Mayor will have to appoint members. He is most comfortable appointing members following an action by the Council saying that the Law Office had recommended we do so.

So, Mr chair, because I came back in due to another appointment came back in a little bit late and I'm playing a little bit of catch up on this. I am personally going to abstain, but because I hate voting on things that I am. not entirely sure what's going on for it's be reckless of me but what i would recommend the committee do due to the sense of urgency around this process is either give a positive recommendation on the amendment or no recommendation on the amendment and then move forward with the legislation as a whole

Thank you for that. My fellow council member and committee member, are you comfortable with that, us making a motion to either do a favorable or no recommendation?

I am comfortable making a favorable recommendation to move forward with the legislation.

Okay, I will second that. And all in favor?

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Oh, yes, please. Probably for Kaitlin's sanity, but on my own, when you're saying moving forward with the legislation, are you talking about Amendment 11 only? Yes, Amendment 11. Are you making any sort of recommendation as it relates to amendments 1 through 10? Because you started to earlier, then you decided to table it once you went through amendment 11 and you were going to revisit it. So you may want to parse that out a little bit. So it's clear.

So we are recommending that amendments 1 to 10 is withdrawn and a favorable recommendation for amendment 11. Was that proper to the language of earlier today when we had the conversation?

Yeah, sure. Yeah, I think that's what I said.

Okay, are you okay with that? So moved. Okay, I will second that. All in favor? Aye. And thank you, Alderman Shannon Meyer, for that transparency and all. I shall abstain. Okay, we have one abstention as well. So, we have reached it. Wait. Oh.

Do you want to recommend the legislation as amended now with Amendment 11? Yes, we do. See, I got you, Kaitlin. I got you.

Is there a motion to recommend this legislation as amended to the full Council in our next meeting?

So moved.

Okay, I will second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Abstention. I'm in one abstention. Hey, we have reached officially the end of our agenda. I know we've extended the time. We are so appreciative of all the work. Of course, we're here for the people. I will ask for motion to adjourn this meeting.

So moved.

All right. Second. Okay. There are no objections. Meeting is adjourned.