Environmental Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the what date is today?

Environmental.

The July 25 meeting for environmental matters committee. And for the record, all the members are present. And I would like is there a motion to approve the agenda as written?

Move approval of the agenda as written.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. And No. Aye.

Then Mr. Chair, I'll move approval of the minutes from the July 23 meeting. Second.

And I'm sorry? Twenty third and tenth?

Oh, I thought we did the tenth previously. But if not, then the tenth.

Okay. Seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. On to legislation, we have o 2025, continuation from our Wednesday meeting. And before we I kick it over to staff, we have pile of amendments. You should have a copy of the ordinance followed by three amendments out of the press. And we're going go through those today in addition to any other questions you may have remaining outstanding. So, any remarks from staff or other guests before we get started?

Steve Rogers must be heard.

All right. And I guess before we get started with the amendments, I did have a couple of questions I was hoping to get answers to. If I could find those. I think one of them was a couple of them regarded the report from MDE. The letter from MDE seemed like they had mentioned a couple of, I guess, deficiencies in the phase two that they wanted corrected.

Have those been made application?

Yeah.

Yep. So there were we got, there were comments, submitted by the MBE. We have provided a first response to comments, closing several of those administrative requests on their part, providing the additional information that they requested with regards to the tables of the phase two. There are two remaining comments. There is one comment regarding the correction of SDAT and we are, in the process of addressing that one.

And then there was a comment with regards to they asked if the city was at in front of in any other regulatory program. There was an out there was an issue with the city with stormwater and the permitting stormwater permitting that's been resolved. We got the letter from EPA region three that closes that out, and we will be submit that actually came the day after we submitted our first response to comments so we'll be providing that and then the SDAT and that should address all comments by MDE.

And within a time frame before federal applications do?

Yeah. Oh, yes. Within a very short timeline, I would say. Great. And

has the city considered MD's suggestions for having separate VCPs for each what's the VC stand for again? The

Voluntary cleanup program. So we have, and we actually walked this the MDE through the intended process because, from the very beginning, we understood that Weems Whalen Field had kind of a different driver behind it. So, we had already discussed that option with MBE in our pre application meeting. So they know that we're going in as one site and that as soon as we have Williams Whelan Field, recorded as its own parcel, that will get its own application and will become its own VCP site. As to whether there's any other subdivision of the site, that would be more of a decision about it doesn't need to be.

It'd be more influenced by whether there's any difference in the development of the two sides whether the West Western portion might be on a different timeline. It is not required. It's a suggestion of the MDE. Honestly, it's probably to make things easier on them and not have to deal with the subdivision later, but it's always an option to subdivide if needed at a later date. So, it's definitely not a requirement that it'd be subdivided. They're just more of a question as to what the eventual development plan is going to be for the site.

Yeah. Well, I mean, it seems like to me that it would make sense to have separate DCP, a voluntary cleanup plan for each side, right, as far as the West side and the East side just because, again, keep our options open because we don't necessarily know what the time frame is going to be for C and I. That gets held up for or potential structure city buildings gets held up for whatever reason, we can ask one of my amendments is to try to if you give us the flexibility. So, if one's moving faster than the other, we might be able to get that one closed out, given back to the city. I just I'd rather I want to be able to give us again the option to get remediation closed out and completed to make sure that they don't get called out.

But I think because I think they're both going to be separate property or separate law anyway, right? Before you answer that, Mr. Chair,

I guess I'd like to know why what difference does it make whether we get it back as a complete project or get it back in increments? I'm not sure I see the desirability of getting it back. Okay. Because it may get developed in increments. And if C and

I gets greenlighted from one side or city building to the other and C and I gets held up, we want to be able to have the right to be able to go in there and develop how we've outlined and get that closed out because remediation is going be with the development. The ones like could be finished and remediated and the other one is still under construction or even still under review in some fashion. It just seems to me it makes sense to be able to have separate plans and set the closeouts rather than having them tied together? Because if there's one piece of lag in it, it could hold up the entire plot from being closed out from me.

Well, I accept that as your answer. I'm not sure I subscribe to it. But I think that goes to a much bigger issue which is I thought I understood from director Jakubiak and from you that the development was the remediate. That as we go in and put, say, structured parking in, we're gonna put a permeable barrier that goes on top of it. Is the Resiliency Authority doing the garage, the structured parking? Well, we don't know what it's

going be yet. My hope that's my point is I'm arguing against remediation being a part of development. I understand the rationale. The point is we don't know what speed each development is going to happen at. We don't know if it's to happen concurrent. We don't know if it's going to happen separately because we don't know what's going to get funded first. We don't know what's going get approved first. This just seems to keep our options open. It doesn't say do remediation first. It's just as

I mean that is the whole catch 22 of us. The major's not in so you can see them. The major's out so you can go in. I mean we don't know what's going to happen. We're signing off on something which I think is very important and could be a tremendous increase in value to the citizens of Annapolis.

But, I'm not sure what if it's being built, who who is doing the bill? I think that's the question. Is there some notion that C and I will be doing some building during remediation? Is there some notion that the city is going to be doing some development as a part of remediation? I can't figure that out.

Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney. Probably don't have a good answer for you because ultimately it sort of depends on how the C and I project unfolds. Because you know that's a whole separate grant application and again we can put in all these applications ideally what we want, but that's not necessarily what's gonna be approved and given back to us. So as to the Resilience Authority will not be doing any development or construction out there. So it would probably be either the city and or PACA with its private developer depending on how the CNI grant proceeds.

Okay. Thank you for that. And that so is there money in the CIP for the city's development of this? I mean we're talking about the construction is the remediation. But as far as I can tell, we have no construction plans. We have no money for construction. I don't see how this works.

That's what we're trying to plan ahead for because we don't have any money lined up for C and I except for 1,000,000 from the city, 1,000,000 from the state. We don't have any money lined up for any city facility improvements, but we have to get the ball rolling if we want to get the federal money and make certain assumptions and intentions. I mean, if it turns out that we don't have any money available for any of this work, presumably, we're not gonna

be able pay advantage of the grant.

We're gonna have to go through an entire another budget season before the CNI grant would go in. So at during those budget discussions, that would be when we determine what money is budgeted where and what we can realistically apply for for the CNI because that won't happen till at least next summer. So we can't budgeting it this year would have been, we could have budgeted in there, we have no use for it for a whole another fiscal year potentially, if not longer.

Over room and half minutes?

I I could offer just from the program perspective of the VCP. There's no significant downside to dividing it with the Western parcel, Eastern parcel, Weans Whelan Field other than there would be another forty five day review period for the new applications, which wouldn't delay anything. And I don't think there would be any negative perception from the EPA Brownfield grant program if it was pretty contiguous or or two contiguous properties. So, I mean, we when we first did it, it was an evolving development plan, so we didn't really have any idea what was gonna be on what parcel, so we kept it as one. So it's not it doesn't prevent it doesn't if we were to subdivide and do it as two and they don't need to be sub they're already legally described.

So it would just be submitting the applications and going through another application process with it. They're already characterized. They already have phase two. They have everything that they need. It there's no downside with the EPA Brownfield program, and it's it's grading in the in the grant program. So if that is a you know, if we want flexibility that way, then there's probably no scenario where we need to couple them back together again later. There's no downside to doing one more application.

Okay. Thank you. Alderman?

You know, I don't have a problem with us dividing the property, especially if it allows us to move more quickly on Williams Way which has been sitting vacant for twelve years, which means our young people have not had access to a field that is city owned. And I think that's an abomination, to be honest with you. So if that will help us in that respect, not that C and I isn't important and we wanna move that ahead, but if we are able to move Williams Whalen, I'm all for it. I guess one of the questions is exactly what remediation is going to be done with the $4,000,000. Is it simply cleaning up the land itself?

Is it giving us and the housing authority the ability to place structures on the property, which means the timeline's all out of whack. Because since no one has plan that's been approved by anyone, I'm not sure how that works. But I think part of the confusion is we don't know what remediation is. I mean, we know what it means, but exactly what is the Resilience Authority going to do with that money? Or well, I'll just ask that.

So the the anticipated remedial options are the soil management plan that would be implemented to address any excavation and disposal of soil that would need to be done to facilitate the redevelopment of the property. So if you put in a building and it needs to take out a certain amount of soil, brownfield money would go towards paying the transportation and disposal costs of that soil which is the biggest single cost associated most probably with the redevelopment of the site. It would also pay for capping of areas so it can be used to the construction of a parking lot. It can be used for the construction of landscaped areas with an appropriate cap to eliminate any risk of reuse of the site. It can also be used to pay for vapor barriers that would be under any slab on grade or any occupied buildings to again eliminate risk associated with them and would if needed it hasn't been determined yet because of we haven't done the ecological risk assessment, but if there was any stream work that also needed to be done it would also go to that which are the private four big buckets of costs associated with the site.

The top title on that list is remediation pipes which doesn't suggest to me that we're actually going to do those things. We might do some of those things. Do we not have a plan that says once we get the money, these are the things that we're going to be doing?

Or If you're getting

or should the title change to steps of remediation of the property?

They could be having happening concurrently depending on what the final development plan looks like. I believe if you're going to have a building on the site you will inevitably need to do soil management plan, you will be doing capping and you would be putting in a vapor barrier. So those are you can expect to use all those remedial options during redevelopment of the site. Does what it's I guess what the you know, what's not said there is that there's no remediation system. There's no active systems.

The site is at a low enough risk where we don't there's no we're not doing a pump and treat system, we're not having to treat groundwater, we're not having to put in a methane collection system or things like this. These are really the only expected remedial actions, remedial corrective actions that would be needed to help the redevelopment to go along with the redevelopment of the site.

So the grant for which we're applying

Mhmm.

The grantors don't care specifically how we're going to use the fund. They just want a general idea of these are the types of things we might be doing.

Correct. So they know that the city intends to redevelop the site in some fashion for some future use. This this site has a certain amount of impacts to it from historical use and is going through the voluntary cleanup program and that when we redevelop the site we are asking for $4,000,000 to mitigate the costs that are associated with the environmental quality of the site during the redevelopment, which is fairly typical for municipalities going to the Brownsville grant program. Like if you're renovating an old mill building or something of that nature that they don't know what the final development plan is but they know that they want to renovate it. And so EPA grants gives the grants to help facilitate that and move along the development of the site.

So, correct, we don't have to have a hard and fast development plan at in November when we apply for the grant.

Well, would guess we've seen a lot of grant requests come before us over the many years. And this seems to be very different in that it's pretty vague which is part of our problem trying to figure out exactly what's going to be done and when. But if the EPA doesn't require any more, and I'm not questioning what you're saying, I'm just saying if the EPA doesn't require any more, then go for it. But it just sounds a little strange to me that they're gonna give us $4,000,000 with the idea that we're gonna do some remediation. Maybe one of these, you listed probably four or five additional to the five that are listed here.

And they're just going to give us the money and it's or maybe it's a municipality to, you know, the Fed's relationship and but we don't know that relationship and the trust factor and they're gonna just give us the money and trust that we're gonna do. And is the money just awarded or is it is there a competition or is it automatically or what?

It's heavy competition. So, yeah, it's a heavy competition. But they're not trusting us to just take $4,000,000 and do whatever. They are going to want regular updates and reports, including final reports about what they wanna do. But I think there's flexibility because in the realm of environmental mediation remediation, the goal is to just get the land clean.

And so they want to be flexible to encourage municipalities to actually undertake these actions. If they make it so hard and fast that you have to have spend all this money to get a development plan and design done, which is a lot of money, and then you apply for the grant and they start fussing with it, it it doesn't encourage it doesn't encourage local governments to try to fix their problem areas if they make it too hard. So they want to give you the money. They want to encourage the remediation. They will be following along to see that the appropriate remediation is done, but they don't wanna lock you in to a specific plan on an application deadline because if that plan doesn't work, then the remediation doesn't happen.

They'd rather give some flexibility so the remediation continues and governments have a little bit of breathing room to sort of pivot, but at the end of the day, you're ending up with clean property versus not getting clean property.

It so it's definitely done as an incentive. And so it it I at the state level, there's also the Brownfield Revitalization Incentive Program. It's a similar approach because they are wanting developers to come in on these. The definition of a brownfield is a site that has enough liability that anybody without an incentive wouldn't really want to redevelop it. So it's different than other grants in that way. Definitely, you're absolutely right that it it doesn't have as strict a front end requirement. It it it's more conceptual, and it wants you to that you have an idea, and at the end of it, the site is cleaner. And so, yeah.

Thank you.

Can I ask alderman Finn's license question again which is what is the Resiliency Authority going to do with the $4,000,000? Are you going to be putting, asphalt in concrete and earth down? Is that what you will do? Or is somebody else doing that? I mean, my my concept is that eventually this is the whole parcel.

It'll have a vapor barrier everywhere and clean dirt where there aren't buildings or roads or things. Who puts the concrete or asphalt in? Is that the resiliency authority or is that the city or the housing? The

developer who is selected would their general contractor who does the construction would just same as they're gonna build the building, they'd be building the at the parking lot and they'd be doing the landscaping all as the general contractor.

We're talking about more than one developer, right? We're talking about a developer for the C and I or the HACA portion and a developer for the city,

right? Not necessarily. Impossible.

So It is possible depending on how the C and I is set up that the same developer because for cost effectiveness and how grant funds need to be reported, splitting it into more and more people makes it much more expensive and much harder for granting purposes. So in theory, the city might not be getting its own developer. It might be working with HACA's developer because from a cost perspective and a grant perspective, having two contractors on there essentially doing the same job and you have to mobilize for two sets of teams, you're just it's not an effective use of money. The better option is I mean, you could do it that way. I'm not saying you can't, but a better option would be for HACA and Citi to get on the same page about a joint plan and to use the same developer contractor resource.

Sure. Yeah.

So both HACA and the city and the resiliency authority all three could be giving money to a contractor or developer?

Potentially, yes. I mean, also with a lot of So I mean, there was you have to understand the resilience authority is not contributing, as far as where, its own money. It's being used to get grant funds and pass them through. So the that's the Resilience Authority's purpose is to get the grant funds, to hold them, and to disperse them as everyone agrees. So that's that's pretty much their role. Their role is not actively in managing contractors or developers or any of that. What is going to have to happen, the resilience will hold the money, but then HACA and the city through the CNI process or other processes are gonna have to figure out how we actually want it developed and then we will work with the resilience authority to disperse the grant funds.

Yeah. But yeah. And that's the so that's the rub those. We don't know. Right. We don't know.

It's like There

are a lot of unknowns and you could have again, you could have the

Well, there's one

note. Well, you

One note we have is, HACA isn't mentioned once in this doc. Not once. There's no reference.

Well, and that's one of the scenarios though because if

Well, yeah. Because if you lock it in, then, I mean, if you put HACA in there, then you're locking Yeah. It

We need to keep our options open because you could have a scenario where the housing authority, CNI completely falls through, yet we may still want to proceed with doing it on our own, putting some housing on our own.

Yeah. C and I falls through and Hacker readjusts their plans to perhaps not include SpA Road, we could still have the grant that the Resilience Authority will be holding and we might want to come up with a different arrangement.

Yeah. That's why I'm trying to push

to keep our options open to No. I understand. Thank you.

But to that point, I want to get clarity on Alderman Finlayson's question on wings whaling. So when your application for the the voluntary cleanup program with MDE, is Weems Whalen is there altogether? The East West And Weems Whalen part of that voluntary

Currently, yes, because Weems Whelan has been recorded as its own parcel yet. And so you cannot apply to the voluntary cleanup program without a full legal description that's recorded. When that is subdivided We'll can we separate application?

We amend that application or it has to be separate?

You would we would amend the current application and submit a new application for Williams Whalen as its own parcel and its own PCP participant.

Okay. And

May may I have a follow-up? So who's responsible for the Williams Whalen piece?

The city.

The city.

Yeah. The city would Okay. Yeah. The city we are not transferring the Williams, Will, and Peace to the Resilience Authority. That is going to stay with the city. So that will be our peace. And just also, sort of off topic, but I know you guys feel rushed. Part of the reason we're feeling rushed is because of the massive recent changes at the federal level. We have been working on this steadily because we've been doing all the phase two. The reason we have to push for it now is because in April, the federal funding for brownfields drastically changed.

And as soon as we found that out, then we started shifting gears to try to come up with a quick solution to meet the November deadline. If we if things had not changed drastically like that, we probably wouldn't be pushing this fast. But because of that change in April at the federal level, it shifts everybody's time. So that I mean, that's the rush is that the federal government drastically changed things just a couple months ago. As soon as we became aware of the change, which, you know, was a little unfounded in the beginning, we had to pivot, like, a full 180 to see if it was even potentially possible to get this through under the current things before the whole brownfield change.

And so I know that's why everyone feels rushed. We feel rushed too because that was not our original timeline. Our original timeline was not to try to push this through this summer. And if we don't make it, then we'll have to rethink it, but we wanted to at least give it a good solid shot to see if we could get the Brownfields money in the current funding setup before it just changed.

May may I add

Matt, could you turn that mic off? I think it's off. Okay. We'll a little bit of feedback.

I from from my perspective, I wanna be clear. I am not in opposition to us transferring. I don't like the idea of the sale, but of us transferring the funding to the authority. I think our my concern is we want to make sure we get it back. We wanna make sure that the work is done in a timely fashion, which is why the amendment changed seven years or less. But we just wanna be clear. Too many times that we pass legislation and miss the unintended consequence. And after the fact, then it comes back to us, well, you all passed it. So we wanna make sure that we understand what we're passing here.

And to that point, the I I guess now Alderman Arnett's amendment. Thank you. The you know, and that's why the language we offered is, you know, our role with the Resilience Authority and and to further compound to add to miss Leonard's comment is it wasn't until, I guess, June do we find out from EPA that we could act as that third party. So that's adding to this timeline. But to to your question and to the language that in the amendment is our role is specific not to the environmental remediation and even more so specific to this grant because we were set up by you guys to help go after funding that the city is outside the balance of the city.

But here is an opportunity. So if if it's done before seven years and we meet the terms and conditions of the grant for the environmental remediation, we're done. We'll certainly you know, I I like this project. I like what the goals here are, and we'll continue to work with the city as we have on other projects to find other sources of funding, provide technical assistance to do what we do well. But we don't have to be the the owner of the property. That's where we really try to hone in on the comments we heard in the subsequent hearings or the where the prior hearings to really hone in on that role is like, this is why we are created. Here's this opportunity. And as soon as we meet terms and conditions, then, you know, our our responsibility for the property owner, that property would then transfer back to the city.

I I didn't have any and I'm trying to find the amendments now. This is the aldom, the, Alderman Arnett's amendments now that were the amendments that you submitted. Where is the original? I guess I did have a few questions but I think you've answered it. Several of the whereas that you add are for historical record.

The don't know which one, one, two, three, four, five, six whereas that speak to the execution of resilience infrastructure, which leads us to, I guess, the C and I project that I guess that's what that's referring to. Right? Even though it's not in name. On I'm on the original resolution amendments. I know. We have several pages in the new one. Yes.

I should have my mic on. You're looking at amendment three. You're looking at

On page Three?

You're you're looking at an old

old version now.

Aren't these the this is from yesterday.

So, well, can we can put

a pin in that

just because one other piece of info just one other thing I want to clarify before we go

Okay, that's fine.

Because, so, I noticed that the application of the MD had a different description of intention than what we were describing than what was given to us on Wednesday. That application was housing on both sides, yet what was discussed on Wednesday was housing on one side and special city facilities on the other. So is that where's why is there a discrepancy between the intent to use and what's being moved forward with with the federal application?

So MDE identifies either residential, restricted, unrestricted, commercial, industrial, and recreation. Those are the four future use scenarios. They always if there is any residential of any type, you need to submit, and it needs to be held that risk level of residential. So since there was going to be some component of residential, we submitted it as a residential unrestricted or restricted residential.

Okay. So if we end up doing more commercial on one side, that's not gonna have implications on that So cleanup? Not

based on the results of the phase two. No. It's gonna be I mean, it it you we would be managing soil and capping even if it was commercial or if it was residential. So we could look at if it was subdivided and just the west side was residential, if anything on the east side falls out of because you would then correlate the results to the MD non residential soil standards. So there may be some areas that some are there are still gonna be exceedances of the nonresidential soil standards on the East Side, so I don't think it's gonna change that you would, like, all of a sudden not need to have soil caps or not need to do any soil management.

But we would potentially look at that if we were to divide it that way. Weems, Whale, and Field, West Side, East Side, Westside being residential, Eastside being commercial, and see if there there is any change as far as commercial soil standards on the Eastside. I wouldn't, you know, off the top of my head, I don't think there's going to be anything that 's gonna save anything significantly. We would still be doing these same remedial options.

I just wanna make sure we're not dying our hands.

No. You're actually providing more options for We can go You can always go down. Yes. Exactly. You can't apply as an industrial site and then all of a sudden say you wanna do mixed use or something like that, which yeah.

Okay. Yep. So moving to the amendments. Let's see. We have amendment.

Can I make a suggestion here? I spent years in rule making in the federal government and you're looking at different versions of the rules and what I found most efficient is to pick one of

the

versions and bring over from the other versions the things that you want to do. I've read the whereas clauses. Actually, I don't see much conflict in either set of whereas clauses from version the Savage of the Arnett. And in fact, I think they're all good. So I think they can all go into one of the other versions. I think the real meat is when we get to the actual coordinates itself, which is the one through six, now one through 10.

Okay. Yeah. That makes sense. Alright. So, yeah.

I'm gonna set just tell me where we are.

I'm gonna set aside the the Mason amendment one for the moment.

Well, I why would we set that aside? So we just make dispatch with that one?

Well, because it well, for a number of reasons. One, to alderman's point is let's deal with the whereat changes potential changes to the whereas clause first.

So we're not dealing with the specific amendment?

Yeah. Well, we wanna be The whereas clauses are meant.

There's amendments. We have amendments one, two, and

I also think that this may get overruled by one of the later amendments, the ones supporting that. I have to look or maybe mine. But in any case, I think we could talk about the intent, but Audra Renaud is proposing we first talk about the whereas clauses, and then we talk about the hereby resolve.

I would prefer we deal with amendment one, two, or three. Pick one. But just to pick pieces out of them, I don't think is very organized, to be honest with you.

Alright.

Well Are we gonna deal with amendments one or two or three? Which one are we dealing with?

Well, I so we we can start with one, but I I think that's addressed

start with one. If you think that that's gonna change

I think it's addressed later. I would I

would prefer to

start with the amendment three, which is the resilience authority. Right. Amendment three, which is net series of amendments. You turn to the might be easiest. Look at the third page. Right. On the on the third page, you'll see three diff sorry, four different, whereas clauses proposed. If we could review those and see

if we have any questions or concerns about those. So can we just take the first oh, there I only see three. Oh, no. You're right. Therefore.

I have no problems. You flip the page,

you might see the blue. Does he have the one with the blue highlighted? Yeah. This

is the one. That's the old.

I want to make sure they're comparable. Mean, these are the ones the Resilience Authority gave us. These are the ones that Alderman Arnett gave us. So you want to dismiss

These are the ones these were revised by Resilience Authority and the Law Office after our conversation Wednesday. These were cleaned up. Cleaned

the one from yesterday or two days ago from the resilience authority, we can dispatch.

At any time, Ben.

Just Yeah.

Yeah. Put that right. Please recycle. I'm sorry. Please recycle it.

Okay. Looking at those four remaining four these four. Okay. See if we are okay with those.

Well, I commented on those yesterday and just say it's historical context.

Yeah. The first one talked about historical use. Second one, preparation of future use. City's fault to investigate impact. That's history like that. Third one, says we just got a phase two assessment. Fourth one is also historic saying that results indicate that remedial actions needed. So are we good with those?

I would move we accept those favor okay.

Do that. Is there on those whereas

That's what I said first. So, yes, I'll second it.

Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. Then moving on to the where to

the page So down at the bottom of the page, I would submit that we, put the I don't wanna I

don't wanna confuse the is

that from mine? Yeah.

That's I don't

wanna I wanna Oh, okay. See we can action on the amendment. Oh, okay. Alright. So you're gonna do the all the way through.

Yeah. Alright. So moving to the

We're on number six.

That's correct.

New number six.

So this does strike existing number six, but that is that deals with the reverter clause, but that is relocated and reworded to number new number eight. So if we start with number six, that just establishes that present authority shall apply for the brownfield grant for the purpose of remediating contamination on the property pursuant to conditions and terms of Mhmm. Any concern with that?

Well, it's it's not repeating it in total. I mean, it's added, I believe

Well, six is six is strictly

Number eight. What do you include?

It Reverter was broken into paragraphs eight and nine. So eight says they took out a year, which is supposed eight says it's gonna revert.

On eight yet.

Okay. But that I'm just saying six got broken into eight

and nine. Just six. Good with six. Okay. You're with six. Number seven is the results authority is successful in sorry. If the results authority is successful in obtaining a grant, that they shall make best effort to complete the remediation, the satisfaction of the grant, or pursuant to grant conditions and agreement.

Good with it.

Any concerns? Excellent. Okay. Number 8. Now, is the new reverter language which says there shall be a reverter clause providing that property shall revert to the city upon acceptance of the remediation activities by the EPA that they were completed pursuant to the terms of the grant. So, basically, we're removing the I don't mean this in a bad way, the arbitrary seven years and just saying when it's remediated, it's going come back. Yep. Are we okay

with that? I'm good with that.

Alright. Number nine, resilience authority if the resilience authority is unable to obtain grant funding for the remediation, it will revert to the city. Praise the Lord. I'm fine with that.

I'm good with that. And the previous one eliminates the need for amendment one, which you referred.

Yep. And then number 10, the city shall be responsible for all the costs associated with the reversion of the property to the city of Annapolis. What does that mean?

Mean Is that transfer cost?

Yeah. Theory, it would be transfer and recordation costs, most of which we don't have to pay as the municipality.

Any other questions on that one?

You know, only in the fiscal impact note, what will it say?

What fiscal impact?

Well, we should have a fiscal impact note.

I mean, I'm probably gonna be drafting the deed, and I will run it around to recordation. And we don't really pay much in the way of transfers that there there wouldn't really be much of an impact, to be honest. It's that time. Would be

that But you could give us a ballpark. I don't

even I don't I don't even know what my hourly rate is. Don't

Well, that's on you. That's not for us.

Probably not for much.

You know?

More than more

than hours

more than hours

of this. Finance could put in, like, two hours of my time, it wouldn't take much.

Well, I think, you know, in our whole interest in putting this in as a requirement is so that staff is not

Yeah. I mean, I I I can talk with finance, and I'm sure they know my hourly rate. I and they can budget for a couple hours of my time, which will be significantly under our private attorney's hourly rate.

I'm sure mister Trudeau could give you a figure to put in there.

Yes. Yeah. I yes. I will I will chat with him. But, mean, to be perfectly honest, it would be, you know, basically just a quick two page deed, getting signatures, and then me walking it around.

That's Or running it around if you

Well, in this case I probably wouldn't need to run. Hopefully, I could just take a leisurely afternoon stroll

Okay. Around Okay.

As long as there is fiscal impact as there should

And number nine does parallel on the original bill?

So I I would have to walk it around twice.

Okay.

This is going faster than I thought.

Alright. So just one side note on fiscal impact note. Think that should get revised because right now the fiscal impact note only mentions the $1. If these amendments pass and the legislation passes, there will be other potential. We and a lot of unknowns, it's always, you know, projected. But there could be costs associated with reversion of the property back to city. Again, probably minimal, it sounds like, or it may not be. But we may wanna at least mention that there could be

Okay. I'll talk to mister Trudeau and get him to budget in some some staff attorney time.

And associated with that with the other potential amendment for which we're not discussing today that may be

Yes. That that one I have not had a chance to review yet.

Alright. So I think we've made it through this amendment entirely. Any other questions on this Arnett Resilience Authority amendment number three?

Mister chair, I do have a question even though it's not on the amendment. Are Are we gonna take a position on the amendments we just approved?

I would like to. Yeah.

Okay. I'll move approval of the Arnett amendment. And then I have a question. Alright. I'll second.

The motion's been seconded. All those in favor of a favorable recommendation for amendment three or no amendment, please say aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you. And then alderwoman from Lisa.

Question is on the whereas, the fourth from the end before the now therefore. And the whereas reads, the city council has determined that the property is no longer needed for public use.

On the legislation itself. We will get to that in

my Yeah. I was gonna say that's an amendment too.

Yeah.

Okay. So that's gonna be addressed.

Good question, but we will address that in a second.

May I ask deputy city manager, Gyle to look at the CIP to determine the funding for the Williams Whaling and the timeline for it, please. Thank you.

Okay. And, alright. So next amendment, let I think I would like to discuss amendment number two, savage amendments, and these are revised. So, flipping to page two. Page two. Wait a sec. I'm sorry. Page three. Mhmm. Please. Page three, and you'll see I wanna make sure everybody's on the same right page. Next one. No. No. Oh, you got

it on

that one.

And that gets inserted.

Yeah. That's the page you're looking at.

A little different. Pretty sure it does.

Or maybe it's this

one. Yeah. Better. Okay.

Trying until you find the right one.

Alright. So looking about halfway down the page, you'll see I posed to insert the word currently, and that has to do with your question on woman about that line. It says the city has determined the property is no longer needed for public use. I'd like to just put in currently because obviously our hope is that it will have any concern from the law office on that? No. Any comments on

the committee?

Well, my question is when the term property refers to what?

In the whole

All three properties.

Yes. Well, mean, not not Weemswilling because that's not going. So not Weemswilling, but the other east and west side is what is is the property.

Okay. How do we know that though?

Because, in going up on that page to the first where I was on that page, it lists all the different tax ID numbers and parcel numbers.

Okay. And so Williams Willen is not part of the parcel that's referred to in the tax map?

Yes. The the Williams Willen will be 935 Spa Road Lot 2, and we only have spot one in here.

Say that again?

So you have listed 932 going to Spa Road with one tax ID as Parcel 62, and then you also have, a sort of a no mailing address, but we kind of know it as 932 as well as Spa Road, but that's parcel number 35 D 358. Those are both on the West Side. Right? Yeah.

I'm not seeing those numbers.

And it's in if you're on the page that Alderman Savage was reading at, you just go up

Page three of five.

Three, the first whereas paragraph.

Right.

That's the the city of Annapolis is the owner of certain real property located at 932 Spa Road, also known as tax Map 51 F Grid 1 Parcel 62.

Okay.

And then semicolon, this next parcel doesn't have a mailing address. It's just Spa Road identified as, Anne Arundel County tax map 51 F Grid 1 Parcel 358, and that one has a different tax ID number. And then you have 935 Spa Road Lot 1, which will be the piece that's right next to Weems Wayland but not including Wayland. So the first two listings are the ones on the other side of the road, and then Lot 1 is on the Weems Whalen side. If we were gonna include Weems Whalen, we would do 935 Spa Road, Lot 2, but we did not include that.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

I know it's a little confusing because they all have overlapping tax ID numbers, which is why we have to put tax ID numbers and parcel ID numbers and mailing addresses to try and really zero in on what we're talking about.

Will we eventually give it a mailing address? I assume

With we the subdivision. Once the subdivision is done, they will all get their own unique identifiers. That's sort of the purpose of the subdivision is to clean up all of that. Alright. Thank you.

Alright. And moving on to the next change, it'd be at the bottom of this page. It adds text to the last whereas, which says city council has determined that it is in the best interest of the city to sell the property to the resilience authority adding to Texas as for the sole purpose of obtaining grants and funds to remediate the contamination on the property under there after having obtained sufficient sufficient funds to conduct remediation of the property.

I support that addition, I think.

Second. Alright. I know it's redundant. Mhmm.

Decision here is the yeah. Want there's there's only right now that we've identified within this ordinance that the Brownsville grants where we have to be the owner where it benefits the city, we can still seek out and acquire funds from other sources where the city is the owner. So let's just offer that as a caution if your goal was to really clearly identify our role specifically for this Brownsville opportunity.

Okay. Yeah. It doesn't limit it as far as like only getting grants for federal government if we're okay.

The limit is for the purpose of doing the transfer, not purpose of getting grants. Right.

Okay. So now

And the word transfer is okay here? Or is it there? Wait a minute.

Transfer is not there.

It's not there. I used it. Okay.

Yeah. Sorry. As as I emailed today

Yeah.

Preference is sale, not transfer. Although I know we're uncomfortable with that. Legally,

I think we're good with that one too Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. And then the next page, page four top, original language says city shall be responsible for all costs associated with subdivision. Oh, wait. That one was a mistake.

I think

there's two ideas. That one was a mistake. So I would like to propose for the record that that change be rejected.

Well, is this an amendment, an official amendment? I mean, you're the maker of the amendment.

Yeah. That was that was a mistake. Well The drafting I mean, I I said the bad the wrong information. My fault. But this, I would just like to strike.

Well, there's two ideas.

No. It was well, there are, but I put it in the wrong spot. Alright.

So you don't want

take it out completely? Alright.

So are we going back to the original language, or we're removing two altogether?

Which is the original language which is the

So remove

in amendment three.

Remove the blue in number two, and then we'll unstrike in number revert to or, basically, no change via this amendment. Pretty makes sense to everybody? Mhmm. Okay. Moving on to number three. Which is a new a new condition. Right? Well, this one, though, law office had a recommendation.

Well, I mean, you can you can do a vote, but then in order to figure it out, you'd have to find meeting minutes that have been approved. We could just have them sign the deed. If they sign the deed if we both sign the deed of transfer, then you're automatically having a legally binding document that says they approved it. But that's up to you.

Yes. For the record number three would say acceptance of the sale as demonstrated by an affirmative vote of the results. So you're saying that's kind of implied with the deed signature so

It well, and it's actually more binding than a vote would If you have the legal authority actually signing the recorded deed that is a legally higher bind like, the binding precedent than just the vote at a meeting.

And, mister Fleming, do you have any thoughts on Yeah. Sure. Okay.

So But aren't we stepping out of city council business and now into resilience?

Yes. So my proposal would be to strike this change from the amendment.

Good. I'm pretty sure

I already put you guys on the deed. I think I think on the draft deed, already had both parties have signature blocks.

That's

fine. I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure it's already there.

Okay. So, going down to the new blue number seven, which says, During remediation, the Resolence Authority shall coordinate with the Annapolis Heritage Commission and secure on-site archaeological consulting during excavation. This is an attempt to respond to the concerns we heard or recommendation we heard from the.

I would like to hear from

Mr. Borden?

I'm sorry. I lost your name. Matt's fine. Matt. I'm sorry, Matt. Are you comfortable with this?

I mean, sir, I think coordinating, being transparent, open, my my guess is under the EPA grant, we'll probably be required to look at doing an NEPA. So there's gonna be that it's gonna be required to begin with in the first place for environmental assessment. The my one concern here is, you know, it it the the miss Leonard's point is, you know, funding for this project, we're acquiring a grant for. So things that aren't covered by funding through the grant, we're going to have difficulty funding ourselves. So I want to make sure that's not implied here that if this is not covered under the grant, that this is ensuring that we're coordinating and communicating and being accountable and etcetera.

I think that's fine. It's just the funding pieces it it would make me nervous on the resilience authority. And then I do think a lot of that does come out as part of the remediation.

Or we can put I mean, right now it just says resilience authority shall coordinate and secure. We could not I'm happy to put in there, you know, funded by the city as needed, something like that. And because I know it's implied in the grant, it's gonna be presumably included in the grant cost. I mean, could we use the grant to pay for these requirement, pay for archaeological services? No. Okay.

No. It had it would have to be remedial in nature to go to EPA Brownfield.

But it's so it's a requirement in the grant, but they don't we can't use the money in the grant report.

Sorry. If EPA determines it's part of the remediation required, then it could be included in the grant. But if the Heritage Commission wants to go above and beyond what EPA is requiring, then you're getting into the realm of who's covering that.

Yeah.

Because EPA has its own standards, and whatever they are will be included as part of the grant and will have to be figured out that way. But the Heritage Commission doesn't necessarily work within the

same guidelines. I want to the intention of this is I want to be able to I know some of it's implied, but I want to be able to make sure that we give respect to our city commission, that we're hearing them, we agree. So, my colleagues, how about if we put at the end of that, say, a comma and to say, with any associated costs being covered by the city as needed.

By the city or by By

the okay. Because it's our board. We and it would it would commit coordinate us with them with the commission. And we could say, and secure as needed.

I like cost covered by the city.

Also, not not to to negotiate against myself, but, there also be sort of the issue of liability. If if we're the ones if the city is the one funding it and saying that we need to go out there, we would probably also have to accept any liability related to it. I don't realistically, we couldn't pass that off to our partners if we're the one directing it.

Can can I speak to that? Because I thought Yeah. We heard at the last meeting that DPW or whoever's managing

this necessarily mean them hazardous. I mean, they go out there and they trip and fall and break a leg, for instance. If we're if we're the ones coordinating with a contractor to go out there and do these things outside the realms of the grant, then we have to make sure that we, you know, mitigate our own liability and risk on our end and not push it off. Yeah. I mean, yes, in theory, we heard that in from a hazardous standpoint, it should be fine. Right. But there's also just your regular, you know, trip fall scenarios.

But does that need to go in here or is that

I I think it probably needs to say that, you know, that at city cost and, you know, I think it probably does because otherwise you're presuming

cost and liability? Is that

If I may? Deputy city manager Jackie Dial. I would suggest here, reading this, it's a little specific. It says on-site archaeological consulting during excavation. I don't know why it has to be that specific. I would say, in secure on-site archaeological consulting as required by the grant, comma, with any additional archaeological assessments and costs associated with them assumed by the city, something to that effect.

Well, let me see.

Cost and liabilities assumed by the city.

Well, let me I'm trying let me okay. Let me read back what I've written and edited. So it would be during remediation, the Brazilians Authority shall coordinate with Annapolis with the Annapolis Heritage Commission and secure any council required on-site archaeological consulting, comma, with any cost covered by the city. That allows that that basically makes it clear that we're not overcommitting at this point, but we're saying we're gonna have to coordinate with the Heritage Commission, but the council is gonna have to make a decision as far as if we wanna spend money on the archaeological.

Thing in addition to what is already required by the grant?

Well

because there there may be archaeological

conditions with

the grant.

With any cost covered by the city that are not already covered in the grant?

Required by the grant.

Not already. So So during remediation, the resilience authority shall coordinate with the commission and secure any council required on-site archaeological consulting, not already required in the grant in a grant. Is that correct?

Not already covered by grant requirements.

Not already covered by grant requirements.

May I ask a question? That sounds like we're adding another level. Does this mean that the Heritage Commission could require additional archaeological work?

Well, that is what it is. It's it's adding the grant could

It's not it's not saying Yeah.

Well, it what it's saying is the option. It's not requiring it. So the grant, as the grant progresses, will require certain things. And depending on what they find, they will require may require certain actions or may not. But that might not be as much as the council would like to be done. So, you know, the the Yeah. The EPA is looking for, like, a certain level. You guys might want to go above and beyond, and I believe Alderman Savage is trying to include an option to go above and beyond, but it would be at city, you know, city assuming cost and liability related to going above and beyond.

If the council agrees at the

top Yes.

With the recommendation.

Yes. So it would be it's an option to add and, yes, another layer.

Okay. Well, my question goes back to mister Fleming. Is that a comfortable addition?

It would be a concern for us.

And then certainly anything activities not covered in making this site ready for the remediation, any of those activities that could be that falls on the grant. Yes.

But aren't there laws like if you did all of a sudden during remediation find burial, doesn't things have to stop by Maryland law if you're finding those kinds of things?

Correct. But that doesn't mean they would necessarily be covered by the grant.

No. I agree. Yeah. I know. I'm just

Yeah. There are extenuating circumstances that would go above and beyond what a Brownsfield grant would cover or envision.

Yeah. I just don't wanna gild the lily too much here. I think Yeah. What we're doing I of course, I wanted to do a resolution to do that. But now on a process question, because I see this as something that can be inserted into amendment three as a new number. And then we'll get to these last two. We'll see how that works out. And then, frankly, I would like to take a break and see amendment three or two, whichever I I think all in one piece.

I think I see where you're going. So, yeah, we could we could just have one giant amendment from the committee. Right. At the end.

I'm sorry.

We could have one giant amendment from the committee. It reflects everything. So,

you're learning to get one at

the end. But let's finish. So if I could reread this language, I mean it is kind of Alright. Building the lily, but So Okay. And I'll I can maybe make a pop before I leave. So during this is number seven. During remediation, the Brazilians Authority shall coordinate with the Annapolis Heritage Commission and secure any counsel required can't read my own handwriting on this. Okay. That's it. Yeah.

So coordinate with the Annapolis Heritage Commission and secure any council required on-site archaeological consulting not already covered by grant requirements, comma, with any liability costs with any costs and liability covered by the city.

I'm okay with that. The only, the only thing we add not to confuse it is during remediation, the resilience of authority shall coordinate with the city and the Annapolis Heritage Commission just so that just so that we know what's going on. Because, I mean, just coordinating with the commission is great, but we probably also wanna loop in city staff.

Okay. So one more time.

Okay. Before you go on, I think the and should be changed to two. Are you talking two different functions here in this sentence? I'm sorry. This is the English teacher. Are we talking one? Are we

talking You are correct, yes. I'll make that a two. Alright. I'm going read it now. So new number seven would be, During remediation, the Resilience Authority shall coordinate with the Annapolis Heritage Commission to secure any council required on-site archaeological consulting not already covered by the grant requirements, comma, with any lie costs and liability covered by the city.

Weren't we gonna add end the city at the beginning?

Did I miss that one?

Missed I didn't want to interrupt your reading.

Coordinate with the heritage commission and the city.

Fair remediation and resilience authority shall coordinate with the city and the Annapolis Heritage Commission to secure any council required on-site archaeological consulting, not already covered by grant requirements, comma, with any cost and liability covered by the city.

Mister chair, what is city what is council requirement? What does that mean?

Council require.

Council.

So we'd have to, like, pass a resolution or something at the time. If the Heritage Commission wanted to give us a recommendation, we'd have to take action.

Okay.

I don't know what it would be. It could be resolution. It could just be getting money put in the budget for $10,000 worth of archaeological consulting with associate whatever the associate project would be. If it's C and I, we have to make sure the money if we decide to go with their recommendation.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you. I think that'll help I think that'll help with the Harris Commission recommendation. Alright. So we are good with that. Which okay. Moving on to the blue number eight.

Do you not think that's covered by eight and nine?

This one, I think we can remove the post changes in blue number eight.

So we're going back to the original language?

Well, yes.

Yes. But you would also be going back to amendment three.

No. We're not going Well, this has seven years.

Correct. So technically eight should for the purposes of his if you're keeping these as separate, you go back to the original language but then amendment three would layer on to that and change it.

Yeah. So what I'm proposing is we don't do this because it's already covered in eight and nine in amendment three.

Correct. Yeah.

So you're suggesting we eliminate number new number eight completely?

Yeah. I'm actually suggesting we eliminate amendment two completely and subsume it into parts of it into amendment three. But in this specific instance, it not do that because it's done, I think, more thoroughly in Amendment three.

Wait a minute. I thought we eliminated Amendment three.

What? He's talking about Amendment three The Arnet Amendment. Number three

on Okay. You're talking about the Arnett amendment.

Right. I'm sorry. Yeah. I misspoke. The Arnett. Now this last one is interest Wait. Hold on. Make sure we're

on the same page before proceeding. You're looking at number

I'm looking at eight and nine in the Arnett amendment.

He transferring the property shall include a reverter. Well, this actually yeah. For number you're looking at blue number eight. Yes. That's already addressed. So I'm I'm good with removing that.

So which one, we're removing eight completely?

Yeah.

Including the original language?

No. Just removing the blue.

Means we're putting seven years back in?

No. It would it would be only the blue is gonna take effect, and so it'll be overruled by amendment or not amendment or it'll be combined.

When we

combine them, it's we're not gonna change that with this particular

Okay. So I wanna be clear. So number eight in your amendment, we're delineate we're deleting all of the new language which will take it back to its original which would include seven years. And that will be addressed in the Arnett amendment?

Correct.

Correct. Okay.

Starting with Arnett amendment number eight. Yeah. Okay. So, alright. So now, this is a juicy

Now, number nine, this is the one. It says, Brazilian's authority shall not pursue or seek development on this property and shall I think I wanted this one to change.

See, but they are doing development on the property, right? I mean, that's part of

So I yeah. So I think this one I would want to bear with me here. If results authority, if we strike Cavna: shall not pursue or seek development on this property, strike that strike the Well, I have a question. And then say As you're

yeah. Michael

talking through this, is the Resilience Authority going to seek be seeking development?

No. They're seeking a grant. They're going to hold the money for us and then wait for our Okay.

Our decision.

So that's a given. That's a given. Me

yeah. You can put it in there, but it is a given.

Okay. But the latter half of this is what you were talking about transferring things as they're complete.

Yeah. But what we first question is, does may you think we should even though it's kinda stated elsewhere, think, do we need to say it again that they shall not pursue or seek development on this property?

Well, as long as it's clear that it's already covered, they are not going to be seeking development.

If it's already covered, we can just write that down, then it'll it'll read the rezonance authority shall transfer the individual lots if remediated individually and eventually the entire property back to the city upon completion of the remediation. It overlaps. It's redundant with some of the other language, it does at least provide for the potentiality of the shell transfer individual lots if remediated individually. If they go ahead and do it collectively at the same time, it's not an issue but this at least gives us the option if it's done individually.

And, again, I ask Mr. Fleming what's your take.

Again, I I I think the no. And again. Thank you. Yeah. I think we we want to be clear that our activities are you know, our ownership of the property are specific to the activities covered under the grant on behalf of the city. So, you know, remediation I mean, I think we heard from the consultant, you know, think it be can could be done with the grant and the associate development. However, something comes up that requires extended remediation, I don't think we wanna continue to hold the property until all that's completed. We wanted to, you know, the transfer immediately as the terms of the condition or the grant, which requires their ownership, that they would transfer immediately back to the city, giving the city the most flexibility how they want to move forward. Does that make sense? Think we covered that in the Arnett.

Yeah. Right. I mean the sense of this to me is if the remediation is done in one place we can go on and do more stuff with it. It'll be turned over. So it'll be turned over piece. And I would suggest in the Arnett amendment that that be inserted between nine and ten, that this line.

Okay. Well,

let's let's

stick with this amendment right now.

I think that not Any concerns about that? With number nine, we just want to be careful that see, number nine doesn't reference the grant at all. So the problem is if it's remediated, you're not saying if remediate it through the grant, you're just saying remediate it. So the problem is if the resilience authority is gonna hold on to it, as soon as the grant is done, it is gonna send it back. This, in theory, could say that we don't get the grant. We remediate it through some other way. And so I think it adds a little too much flexibility in there because we want them tied to that Brownfields ground grant, and we want them to give it back in coordination with that grant.

Okay. How about if we just insert at the beginning and say, if the Brownfield grant is awarded, the results authority shall transfer the individual lots immediately. That connects directly to the Brownfield?

I must think we wanna say, transfer the individual lots if as sort of let's see. Hold on one second.

As defined. Can we just Yeah.

As completed. Because I think you need something like the individual lots as complete you know, remediated as completed in accordance with the grant because we we don't want to open the box for it could be remediated in, like, a zillion different ways. So it's almost like shall transfer

Oh, okay. I see what you're saying.

Ease. Like because, like so I'm trying to match it with other languages that they're transferring it back as soon as the grant is done, and we don't want them to wait for trans. If we add extra funds to do additional remediation, we don't wanna wait till that additional remediation is done. We want them to transfer it back as soon as the grant remediation

is done. So what if we say after remediated the results authority shall transfer the individual lots if remediated as required as

As defined by the grant.

You could say if remediation Percent

of the grant.

You could say if remediation is completed for the grant requirements.

To what Ms. Leonard said, you know, as you were talking about this, you know, development plans evolving and maybe you want to focus on one side first or however that evolves is that what we didn't say earlier is the grant itself will pay for design and engineering. We can do the design and engineering. If there's a phase that's gonna be developed way down the road, that's part of the remediation. If what we can do under the grant can be completed within four years and we don't need to own the property, we wanna be able to turn that over to the city. That's why I think really tying to Ms. Leonard's point, tying it to us meeting the terms of the condition of that grant is where we want to be able to do our job on behalf of the city than to step out.

Okay.

So, Mr. Chair, can we just add at the end of that amendment as defined by the grant? Do we need more specifics than that?

Yeah. I I would say so the

I have idea what the amendment is.

It's a good idea.

The resilience authority shall transfer the individual lots if remediated individually under the grant and eventually the entire property back to the city upon completion. Trying to think. I don't know if I don't know if my brain on a Friday afternoon can work through. I would say if what about if if under the grant individual lots are remediated individually, then the resilience authority shall transfer those individual lots back upon completion of remediation activities under the grant, something like that.

You say the grant.

Let's see if I can remember. Yeah. If under the grant Yeah. Let's see. If under the grant, remediation is done to individual lots, then the resilience authority shall transfer the individual lots back as each is remediated pursuant to the grant agreement.

Something like because we what you're trying to say is if we break it apart under the grant into individual lots, then you want, as each piece comes done, to But I I honestly I don't know if the EPA would allow that or not. If it's all under one grant, they may not allow that to occur as well. Right. I mean, they even if we break it into individual lots, they might make us hold it.

So Are you using lot why

well, I mean, he he he it was the lot in here, but, essentially, it's parcels, I guess. But

we have parcels. Why we say as defined by

the grant?

If I was gonna go with it, I I think I'd rather stick with what we'd agreed to in the Arnett amendments just because, realistically, even if different parcels under the grant go through different processes, I don't think generally, when I look at grants, they generally don't release the whole grant until it's all done. So I don't think we could even release realistically. I don't think you could release them unless we're applying for individual grants for each one.

How about this? If you bear with me, if we go back to our net amendment eight, which says the deed transferring the property shall include reverberate clause providing that the property shall revert to the city of Annapolis upon acceptance by the EPA, the mediation

Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry. I read too I read too far. Sorry. No. The deed transferring property that, yeah, shall include a revert calls providing that the property or properties shall revert to the city blah blah blah. Can we just put or properties in case it is But there's case it is subdivided and

going. You're

Is that

We can we have those

Technically, all of those properties should be capitalized because we define it above as, like, a joint thing. I realistically, from a legal standpoint, if this is we're applying for one brownfield grant, they don't care how the parcels are sped out. They're not gonna release the grant till everything is done, and we won't be able to transfer ownership of any of it back until because that because that would sort of they want they don't look at it as, like, you can just pull pieces out. Granting authorities want the whole thing to stay as it is exactly as you present it to them till it's all done, and they don't want portions of it. Even if those are portions are done, they don't want any of it being pulled out because they're gonna want a final report for all of it. So I don't

We can't

do this.

Yeah. So unless we do individual brownfield grants for each parcel,

which Yeah.

I don't think we're gonna be able to pull any parcels out early just the way grants are naturally set up is that you start with these parcels in, you have to end with all those parcels together, they close out the grant, and then you can do what you want.

Alright. So and that's okay. That's fine. I mean, if that's a federal if that's a problem with the grant, then it's moot point we can just

I mean, that's that's generally how all grants work at all levels.

But I'll say though, I mean, we potentially so we could potentially be in a situation again if C and I falls through and we still want to move forward remediation and or development of Citi, we could we might end up remediating one side and then capping the other, I mean, for the grant.

Yeah. We might again, in those instances, we'd have to probably amend our grant application, and then we could always do a confirmatory deed that, you know, changes what happens here. But I don't at this point, since we wanna put them all in, we wanna put all of our chips in with this grant, I don't

Yeah.

I we can't pull them out yet. That doesn't mean that down the road, depending on how things shake out, we couldn't do a different deed

Okay.

To pull it out. It's just we're presenting this to the EPA as we would like all of these to be fixed. Understood. And that's how we have to sort of keep it.

Okay. So let's okay. That's fine. So let's just strike blue number nine then. Alright?

On which one?

Blue number nine on savage, amendment

two. Okay.

You good?

I'm good.

Alright.

I do have a question, though.

Yes.

With what miss Leonard just described to us, does that mean that work cannot begin on another one of those properties even while we're under the guises of the grant?

No. Not necessarily, but the grant has very strong restrictions about who owns it. So that doesn't mean I mean, it's one of those things we're gonna have to work through with the EPA because this is a living and breathing project. It doesn't mean we couldn't do that, but what it does mean is that they want property ownership for all the parcels that you wanna remediate to stay with that one person all the way through. So it it could limit it. It could not. It just

But couldn't the resiliency authority resilience authority grant us permission to develop on

their I mean, yes. That would be some sort of possibly a lease or, you know, right? You know, we yes. We could come up with some sort of agreement for that. Yes. Alright. And we probably will need a lot more

Mhmm.

Legal agreements to get this all flushed out.

Someone asked me earlier if the, candidates for mayor were invited to our meeting, because they're gonna have They would run away whenever they are. They're gonna have some work. I'll just say.

Alright. So there's one more on this. Yep. That was

And we deleted nine.

Yeah. So going on the same page.

Okay.

Going down to the new, it says section two, and be it further established and ordained by the Napa City Council. Prior to any submission of development plans to the city's Department of Planning and Zoning regarding development and or remediation of these properties, A work session shall be held with the council in concurrence of the development plan sought from the city council via resolution.

I'm all for it.

It's reasonable.

It's me.

We probably need to do it anyway we're if going to have to we're doing like the CNI grant we're going to have to run So that all through you I mean I don't have any concerns with it.

Okay.

Alright. I would argue we approve that and insert it in amendment three.

Alright. So then these are okay. Can we get a motion then on what we discussed for amendments? Only

if you can repeat Actually, them

well, I can repeat them and I was gonna propose

No, no, no, not you.

No, no. No, I was gonna propose it differently. I was gonna propose that we change our net amendment three on page three to add currently in that one whereas Well,

I what I well, what I would like to do is vote on what we, discussed, and then we could just get one Okay. Amendment Alright. Collect them all. Right.

So, mister chair, I will move approval of the minute on

Men.

To the savage Amendments? Amendments. What did I say? The minutes. Yes. The amendments. I was hesitating because we've made changes

Well, yeah.

To those amendments as they were written. But my motion is that we approve the amendments, the savage amendment as discussed?

No. And I'll tell you why I don't think so. That when we go to the council, if we have all of this stuff that we're having so much trouble tracking here, I would really like to go to the council with one amendment that includes Yeah. That's that's that's the

next step.

Yeah. That's the next step. I wanna approve these individually and have them reflected in one committee amendment. Okay. One kind of omnibus amendment.

Mister Kerr, that was my I think we're going to the same place, so I'll Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we can approve the savage amendments, and then we go back. We cross reference the savage amendment and the Arnett amendment and come up with one set of

Joint nasty committee amendment. I

don't know why we're doing that, but I'm

not gonna argue. It's the same thing you're saying. You wanna group in our net amendment. And

then vote down amendments one and two and have amendments can't

be yours. It's it because it's a committee action, it's gonna be amended by the committee.

Yes.

Okay. So it Yeah. It doesn't matter to me if you want to

be in our the environmental. No. No.

It could be in our name.

No. I don't

want my name on any of this.

Alright. There was a motion to recommend, I believe both amendments.

The savage amendment.

Savage amendment. Okay. All amendment is amended. It was seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And for the for staff, we would like both amendments two and three as modified by the committee to be reflected in one committee amendment. And at the council meeting Monday, I'm just gonna remove one amendment or hopefully.

Well, mister chair, we should do that now. So I would propose that we discuss amendment three, which would be the committee amendment.

Yeah. Okay. The committee amendment that has the following changes to it as it exists now, which is the pages here aren't numbered, but it's the third page.

I I don't think we need to go through that now. I will give these notes to staff, and and they can review the record to make sure the joint amendment reflects everything that's discussed.

Mister chairman, I'm not clear on that as a process then because we don't have an amendment brief from the committee. And just giving staff these notes doesn't mean a thing.

I think we