Housing and Human Welfare Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright.

Mister Joe, you are live live.

Awesome. We are calling to order the housing human welfare committee meeting. The time is 06:33PM. It's July 21. We'll start with the call to order. Alderman Schandelmeier? Present. Alderman Huntley?

Present.

And myself, Alderman Gay. Is there a motion to, amend the agenda?

Mister chair, I would like to amend the agenda by removing o fourteen twenty five and removing o twenty nine twenty five.

Is there a second on that? Second. And the understanding for the general public is that o 14 is has o 14 been to, the planning commission?

Believe it has. It just has not, received public hearing. Same with o 29.

Okay. So, both, should be in the coming, city council full city council meeting. And then we'll have them come to the committees after. Is is is that correct? Can, one of our attorneys or director just confirm that? Awesome. Thank you. Miss Zaire, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is approval of amendments. Can we of amendments. Can we have approval of the housing human welfare minutes from 05/2925 and 06/3025?

So moved.

Aye. See it. Second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye. Awesome.

We're going to move on to the next portion of the agenda legislative items starting with o 2025, sale of city owned property at 932932 Spy Road and 935 Spy Road. And I'll turn it over to, the lead on this, to give background and intro, and then we'll just take questions from the committee. Is anybody

I can give us a really brief, Allison. Just give the high overview. I'll hand it to you. This is Matt Flinner, director of central services. And what we're here discussing today is a transfer of the Spa Road property from the city to the Resilience Authority. And it's, the type of project where a lot of departments have a hand in this one. So Allison has been doing a lot of reporting out along with Ashley, Chris, and myself. Oh, and Christina is here from the Resilience Authority to answer questions on their behalf as well. So we kinda have the whole committee here for you all today. And in that, Allison, with that, do you wanna give a overview to the group?

Sure. Allison DiMaggio, state of Annapolis Public Works engineer. In general, we're asking for the property transfer so that we can apply for a Brownfields grant. The Brownfields grant gives us a potential to secure up to $4,000,000 for cleanup of the Spa Road property. The city is considered the the contaminator of the site, so we don't we can't apply for the brownfields grant.

So in order to do that, we're asking to switch to a responsible party that can apply for the grant. This is gonna be our last opportunity for the grant without having to match. And the grant is due in November. So this process is happening quickly because the property transfer will need to take place prior to the November application.

Thank you very, much for that. Any questions from the committee? I know some of you may have had this at previous hearings.

I'm ready to go. I feel like I've had so many, heard this presentation many times, and, I'm grateful for, miss Demetayo and and everybody to describe it to us in so much detail.

Thank you so much, Alderman Huntley. Alderman Schandelmeier?

Thank you, mister chair. I I've been in pretty similar sentiments to with Alderman Huntley. This is, my third time hearing, this presentation. I think our staff has done a fantastic work showcasing what is at stake with this. I I think the main thing to stress here is that if we miss this boat, there are not other boats.

Or to use my example today, if we miss this bus, there are not other buses. So we really cannot delay on this regardless of what we want to do with the property, whether we want to use it for city office spaces, use it as part of the C and I, or use it to sell to another affordable housing developer per the original resolution we did for the Spa Road site. We need to do some type of remediation on this, so it's a pretty good deal. One question that I had had during the economic matters hearing, and I didn't get an answer there, but I'm wondering if staff has been able to find an answer on this, Was I know we're not allowed to sell this for or the resiliency authority is not allowed to sell this back for a profit. But were we able to determine if costs put into the remediation project could be recuperated in the selling back to the city of Annapolis itself.

So let's say we get the $4,000,000 grant and then the resiliency authority spends another $2,000,000 on remediation. Is the resiliency authority to recoup its losses allowed to spend sell it back to us for 2,000,000? They haven't made a profit, but we had to bake up that difference. Do we have an answer for that now?

Sure. I can address that.

Thank

you. Christina Alexander, director of operations for the Resilience Authority. So what I should have said at the previous meeting, was, to bring up the Reverter Clause, which is, going to resolve any question of whether or not the property needs to be sold back to the city. It's not going to need to be sold back to the city because the reverter clause is going to take care of transferring the property back to the city without the need for a sale. So, you know, whether or not in the time being we, you know, resolve the issue of costs, to hold the property in the meantime, you know, that's not going to be factored into a sale back to the city.

That would be some other, you agreement between the city and the Resilience Authority to cover those costs. I hope that answers your question, but I'm happy to take additional questions.

So for my clarification, the Reverter Clause would mean that the property would just transfer back to the city with no additional need for us to pay more money to get the property back. Correct?

Correct. Not even the $1 that we would pay to get the property in the first place.

That seems like a very good deal. No further questions.

Sounds like we're making a dollar on this. My goodness.

You're making a whole dollar. We could buy half a soda with some current inflation prices.

Thank you, Alderman Schandermeyer, and Ms. Alexander. I appreciate you asking those questions as well. I just have like two quick, follow ups off of that. It's noted here that so I'm assuming that the, staff report or the fiscal note is no longer accurate that, you know, the city will have to pay for a closing cost. You're saying that that's inaccurate?

I'll refer to, Ms. Leonard.

I see. Yeah. City attorney Leonard. Sorry.

No. We are we're still having to pay the closing costs. But given that we're a governmental organization, closing costs are fairly low because we don't have to pay for recordation or things of those nature. They're all waived for us. So closing costs wouldn't be substantial.

Okay. I I appreciate that clarification. And then just lastly, our 1721, which obviously notes the c and I and then r 2022 are, are noted, and and added in this, you know, prepared package for the legislation. What does that mean? Is the resilience authority in agreement with the city that at some point this will be affordable, housing?

Do they even care once they turn it, back over to, the city? What strings are attached, I guess, so that in the long run affordable housing can be developed there. And I and I also appreciate the, extensive, reports that were, done by Haley and Aldridge with history there. That was, was, you know, very, very nice.

Certainly, we're supportive of, remediating the site to the point that affordable housing or any housing can be placed on the site. And we're willing to work with the city to make sure that that remediation occurs and to try and seek the funding in order to obtain that remediation. But I will, defer to, the city if you have any additional comments.

So I I just from, just I see the city attorney again. I'm sorry.

No. Alderman, I was just gonna say the Resilience Authority is assisting us in a legal loophole in order to get funding, but they don't actually have and they and they want to accomplish remediation, which is consistent with their purposes. But and Christina can correct me if I'm misspeaking, but they otherwise don't really have sort of an interest or, in what the end result of the property usage is. Their their purpose is to assist the city and the county, with environmental issues, and that is what they're stepping in for their role to do. But then beyond that, how we actually end up using the property is more of a conversation for the city and other interested parties to discuss.

Okay. And after the mediation, it will be set to the standards so that something could be developed in nonetheless. And and and I I I appreciate that. The city attorney has previously said that resolutions aren't legally binding. And so are we relying on the city council, in seven years to, in fact, you know, in good faith say, hey.

They passed in 2021 and 2022 legislation asking for affordable housing to to be developed at this site. Or or is there something else need to be accompanying, o 2020, '5 so that ultimately, once this is transferred back to the city, there will be affordable housing projects developed there?

So I I I don't think we do need anything accompanying this, but there will need to be other legal paperwork. We that we will need to enter into legal agreements with potentially HACA and the Resilience Authority and others. If we apply for a C and I grant, that will, come with legal agreements. So, yes, your the resolution showed the intent now, but I would say that if we're going to continue moving this project forward in the next year or so, we're gonna have to enter other legally binding agreements with all of the interested parties, including, like, the EPA and HUD that would set what the project is.

Okay. I I appreciate that. I and I've realized that, you know, there are lot there is a lot of work to be done. I'm not gonna hold it up tonight because, regardless, we do need, something to happen there. I see that there's also an amendment there. Does anybody wanna speak to the Finlayson amendment, which just essentially is a technical amendment. Aldo Woman Finlayson.

I'll I'll be glad to. Thank you, mister chair. One of the questions and we had many questions, about this transaction, but the year seven, raised an eyebrow because we didn't know why seven. And our amendment speaks to up to up to seven years. So it's a a minor amendment, but we wanted to be able to, get this property back not having to wait the full seven years.

And maybe Ms. Alexander can speak to why the year seven was, or Ms. Leonard, why, seven years was chosen as the number.

Yes, I believe the, seven year time frame was chosen in order to accommodate applying for and then obtaining the grant and then, accommodating a five year period of performance, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone from the city. But the amendment was, added so that if the remediation is completed prior to that time, that the property would go ahead and revert back to the city, and we wouldn't need to continue to hold onto it for the full seven years.

Correct. That is the intent of the amendment. Miss Leonard, anything to add?

Nope. Nope. You guys got it.

I'd simply like to add that there's going to be a joint meeting of rules and environmental matters on Wednesday. So if there's still questions, that would be an opportunity to, get some more answers.

I appreciate that, very much, Aldwoman Finlayson. And, I mean, obviously, appropriate forum to discuss housing needs would be the Housing Human Welfare Committee. But, again, we're on a tight timeline. So, with that I appreciate all the, efforts that the staff has put into this. I'm looking forward to, the remediation taking place. Alderman Huntley, see your hand up before I was about to call for a vote. I will tar turn over to you.

Yeah. I don't wanna hold it up either, but I did just have one other question that Alderman Chattelbaher reminded me of from whatever, some other committee. We were talking about this. My question the other night was we had a testimony asking for an archaeological study, and I said I thought that that would be included as part of the brownfield funding. Has anybody been able to look into that and verify?

I think, the deputy city manager.

I'm sorry. My apologies. Deputy city manager Gyle.

Yes. Hello. I'm Jackie Gyle, deputy city manager for resilience and sustainability. Yes. I double checked the EPA brownfield grant, and it does require, if there's historical, is it there's it's suspected there may be some historical value to the site or historical, objects that such an evaluation be done as part of the remedial action plan.

Thanks for

You're welcome. And I think you were at the last meeting, miss Alderman Huntley, when I mentioned that I'd already spoken to John Tower and that he had done just preliminary assessment, on the ground, but just, you know, background from what we've put together so far and from mister Worden's presentation and that he thinks, he would it's worth pursuing, and he needs further information, though, before he gets started with that.

Great. Thank you, guys. I I figured that that would be part of it, and I just, you know, given the smart concerns for mister Wharton, I wanted to make sure that we just double check that. So thank you very much.

Mister chair? I don't know whether I'm frozen or you are.

I can hear you all the room so nicely. I think it might be you.

Oh, okay. Mister chair, we had a discussion about what this legislation was really about,

and

we decided to separate out the housing piece. It's really not about the housing. It's about whether to give the land, the property over to the resilience authority. The C and I is a totally different discussion, so it wasn't like we were intruding on the housing discussion. This is just about our passing or selling the land to the authority so that it can be remediated regardless of what's to be done on that property after the fact. Yeah.

I accept that, completely, and and I just thought that, you know, maybe there could be a way that, you know, how how probably I'll be added to that, but I accept that. Alder, Minn Schandelmeier.

Thank you, mister chair. Quick question on the, or I guess more comment on, the Brownfield Fund and Archaeological Development before we, move on or make a motion. Safety and, for archaeological study, the issue of safety due to the contamination was brought up. Although I'm sure that will be dealt with as part of the remediation and just the general keeping it clean because we don't wanna send people into unsafe toxic conditions, but, it is good to know that that was confirmed. So unless there is any further commentary on this from my colleagues, Mr. Chair, if you'll indulge me, could I make a favorable recommendation on this legislation?

Of course. I'll just add one quick thing.

Yep.

Sure. Were in Sweden. We've seen very, affordable and efficient remediation done on sites, that they allowed us to tour. Some of them had preschools on them. Some of them were in the process of being developed. And so I just would hope that we would, you know, not have this drag out as American projects tend to for seven years. And so I appreciate everybody's work on this, and I'll entertain your motion, Alderman Schandelmeier.

Motion for a favorable recommendation.

Alderman Schandelmeier, could you redo your Oh, I'm sorry.

Motion for a favorable recommendation, as amended.

Is is there a second on that?

Yep. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Opposed, none. Thank you very much to the staff, for taking the time to put this together and seeing this through. I believe it'll be on the agenda on the twenty eighth if all goes well Wednesday.

That's correct.

K. Next item on the agenda will be excuse me. One minute. Next item on our agenda is 02125 Annapolis Harbor Line at 423 Chester Avenue on Back Creek. And if there is staff here to speak to that, deputy city manager DOP?

Tim Jacobs is the acting deputy. Harbor Master is here to speak to it.

Just needs to

be raised to a panelist.

He's here there. I see mister Jacobs on the screen.

Can you hear me alright?

Absolutely. And I'll turn it over to you to, give a brief background on the legislation. And then if any of the members of the, committee have questions, we'll take questions.

Sure. Hopefully, everyone's had a chance to see our staff report. But the background is that, Safe Harbor was looking to extend the harbor line, further into, channel word. If you're looking at the chart that was, requested, it might look like a small change. However, if you get the chance to watch the maritime the last maritime advisory board and or read our staff report, there is no such thing as a a small change in that corner of the Back where it really is a bit of a choke point at that turn.

Some of our comments include the ability to safely navigate Back Creek. And then some things I learned from the maritime advisory board, which I think are important, is historically when Mears was built prior to it changing hands to safe harbor, The harbor line was allowed to be one third of the way across the harbor. Since then, it's been reduced to 25. My assumption has been reduced to 25% was to keep the, channels navigable. So, safe harbor has already extended out quite a bit, and the proposed, extension would reduce the distance between, the channels from 213 to a 156 feet.

That's a difference of 57 feet in an area where most of the large boats that operate in Annapolis, including all the tour boats, are making turns and getting fuel. So our recommendation was to, of course, consider those things, prior to making any decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. I see Alderman Schandelmeyer's hand is raised for a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, less a question and more just picking backing off of what Mr. Jacobs said and, more of me sharing my opinion on this legislation itself. Had a conversation with someone who shared their concerns that this legislation can set a precedent to continuing to gobble up the right of way and of gobbling up space into the public right of way into the creek of already somewhat limited space.

And based on what mister Jacob said of how busy that area is, which I did not know until he shared that information. So I do appreciate him adding on to that. I do think that while this legislation was submitted with the best of intentions, it can cause some very unintended consequences that we don't want to cause. So, I am personally going to be voting no on this.

Colin Huntley?

So we're giving up part of our public harbor to a private entity. There that's what the legislation would do. Are we getting anything in return?

So my understanding is this was supposed to be or their quest from to extend the harbor line was the idea was quid pro quo and that we are changing the street end, and they are and will probably lose some access to some of their slips. However, the request to extend the harbor line also includes a reconfiguration of the marina that will expand the size of the vessels that are there considerably, which, of course, adds to the congestion. So in that case, I don't think it's a you know, it's certainly not filling the hole that we're potentially creating by improving a street end. Hope that answers your question.

I think so. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is, it's maybe we're getting something, that we already had. Right? And to the extent we're giving up something, it's bigger than whatever we ever got.

But we're Yeah. We're just we're using our riparian rights. Now they did have some great recommendations to to maybe change the the the layout of what we're doing at that street end to better accommodate the the marina that came out of maritime advisory board. And certainly think that should get come into consideration. Easy things like changing the, the, access for, the ramp that goes down to the the water. So there are some great recommendations, but, you know, certainly not a need to change the entire harbor line.

And in regards to the previous the project that I think it's at the end of 6th Street that we're talking about, How certain are we that what we are what the city is doing there is fully in compliance with the law that we don't have any legal jeopardy, how sure are we that we're allowed to do what we wanna do there?

I would, I might give it a minute here because I would have to probably defer that to to the project managers of the street, and I'm not involved in the construction of that.

Sure. Alderman Huntley, I would say that, you know, we we designed this to be in compliance with the code and with the law, and we otherwise would not be eligible for the permits we need for that. We certainly are very careful at all times because people on esport are always watching. And we do of course, we always wanna be in compliance with our code, but we're not we make sure we don't double check all of that.

Okay. That, I think that satisfies me. But, yeah, I just kinda wanna know as much as possible that if we move forward without this legislation on the 6th Street Park, we're not going to end up with a big fat bill later.

Thank you, elder Mel Huntley. And, I have three brief questions. So, for the 6th Street project, for clarity, for everyone on board, we'll go on with or without this. We've, clarified that. We would if this passed, so they would pick up seven slips. I think it's in the, staff report. The city That's correct. Would get, I'm assuming, not a significant, boost in revenue from, from that at all, if any. Because it's private, they aren't paying the okay.

Correct.

And the and the marinas, property rate would not increase, so we wouldn't be getting any, any funding there. My last question is just on the at the point that you made, that the, the harbor line had extended further out previously. It had been reduced. How far out had it gone beyond the blue line that, is proposed now?

I don't have it up. But their original harbor line that was approved at Mears, was approved when you could basically go, you know, one third of the way across the creek or and and to compare apples to apples, 33%. So after that, the city changed the policy to 25% for the intent of protecting navigable waters. So Mears was, you know, obviously, a pretty historic marina in the area, has the advantage of already being one of the marinas that takes up a fair amount of the fairway.

Okay. Thank you so much, mister Jacobs. Are there any other questions from the committee? I I think we are not feeling any particular way for this. And so, there is no direct benefit, and it seems to, be a hazard to public navigation of the waters. Is there a motion, on this?

Mister chair, I would like to make an unfavorable recommendation on this legislation.

Is there a second on that?

So move.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you so much, Mr. Jacobs, as well as you, Ms. Gao, for, the work on this, and appreciate the, recommendations on behalf of the city. Thank you. Next item on the agenda. Well, actually concludes the legislative portion of the agenda. We'll, at this time move on to, are there any questions before we move on to, general discussion?

Any questions from the, committee? I just before we move, forward, I'm assuming that in September, we'll have two of our committee meetings to make up because in August, we're off. And so we have to make up for, the legislation that'll be coming off of public hearing. And then there is still legislation in that is waiting for a planning commission recommendations or whatever. And so, we'll figure it out. But I I think to handle the influx of legislation, we'll we'll have to have two meetings if that's fine with everybody.

If that's what it takes, mister chair, I accept.

Alright. Next, I'm on the agenda. General discussion ID 12525 Woodside Garden tenants lease update. I think we have, some guests on joining us if we could have them brought up.

Yes. Hello. How how is everyone? My name is Todd Bowling, VP of operations for Fairstead management. Would like to thank you for extending the invitation for us to attend your meeting. Also have on the call a couple of my colleagues. I have, Kenneth Hart, senior regional manager overseeing, Woodside Gardens, and then, the community senior community manager as well, Shanay Whitfield, on the on the call in the meeting as well.

Fantastic. Thank you very much. And and we greatly appreciate, you all committing this time to us this afternoon. The reason that I, brought for, or extended the invitation, and Aldovan Finlace and made sure that you all were here this afternoon. We got, messages to the committee, and and to myself as individual, as it relates to four applicants that had been approved. And and, again, this is all alleged with the tenants or or, prospective tenants have stated that they've been approved, and they were, prepared to sign lease and move into properties.

Okay.

And then a change within property management happened. And the essentially, they were denied once the new, management came in. And so, obviously, you know, that we deal with property management change, and, I'm sure things could have been, communicated, you know, better, but, the end goal was for us to find a resolution for the residents. Absolutely. Alderman Finlayson, did you wanna speak to anything, or did you just wanna allow, our guest to just jump right in?

No. I think they are the the experts on dealing with the property, so I prefer to hear from, Fairstead staff. They can answer the questions, I think, better.

Thank you.

Okay. Well, I can tell you that if we have applicants who applied I mean, our intention, obviously, if we process your application, you're approved. You know, we have a wait list. So if you if you if you're patient enough to stay on our wait list and your name happens to come up, on the wait list and we process your application for approval, the the objective and goal is to get you moved into your new home. I mean, that's that's what we wanna do. So I I would, be interested in knowing if you happen to know who the applicants who the applicants are, and then we can we can look into the matter further and then work to resolve the matter.

Yeah. I'd be more than happy to send over, the names. I won't share that publicly, yeah, in the meetings. For but I I just wanna share, for example, in one case, she's saying that they got an application and they were approved to move in on April 11 in Building 712. When they later came to, move back into, the unit, the they said that the property manager, got fired, and the new, management told her that she couldn't move that the unit was no longer available. Mhmm. So in an instance like that, what what then happens to an application, where she was scheduled to move in April 11, which is now July 21?

Right.

Are units is the property to capacity? Or

It's it's not to capacity. We do have vacant, apartments, available. And I will tell you that if, You know, we have an applicant, we process an application, which typically happens is we we assign that application that tenant to an apartment. Right? If we schedule a move in, it's usually due to the fact that we have an apartment available if we move into schedule. We did have a staffing change, but that, you know, in most cases would not have, hampered the process of moving a resident into an apartment if the application had been approved.

So for the sake of not disclosing the the, obviously, the applicant's public information, particularly in in the remaining few that I see here, if we forward the information to, to you and I'll cc, obviously, the my committee members here, and the older woman on, that thread, can we be assured, you know, barring any, you know, drastic, you know, violations that would prevent them from, being moved in, that these situations would be handled? I just was confused why it it would even negate to the fact that they would have to get the older people involved in something that was for April.

Yeah. No. I absolutely agree. And I I can tell you that once we're provided the names of the applicants, we will definitely investigate it, look into it. And if in fact, the applicants were approved to move in, right, then we will we will work to to maintain that that that track for sure. You know, from, we're looking at April 11 until now is quite some time. So, you know, if if a if an apartment was vacant at that that time, chances are it's it's not vacant now. And that's why it's gonna be important to really look into it and determine, kind of the series of events that led up to where we are right now.

Completely agree. And and, and particularly in some cases, they they have children and that and that also troubles me. Oh, shoot. And and the members of this committee are, you know, well aware of the the housing crisis that's taking place in Annapolis and, the shortage of, of housing. And I obviously understand vacancy go quick, but I I just would hope these, could be rectified. Alderman Finlayson are members of the committee. Is it are there any questions for our guests tonight? Alderman Schandelmeier?

Thank you, mister chair. Sir, what do you know off the top of your head what your approximate vacancy rate is? Like, if something comes up and a tenant needs to move units, what what is your ability to accommodate that?

Well, we great question. We we do have a waiting list. The waiting list could be up to two years. Okay? In terms of our current, occupancy percentage, I will I'll defer that to Kenneth Hart or Shanay Whitfield who actually oversee the wait list.

Kenneth, are you

there, Shanay? I'm here, Shanay. Don't know what our current stop I don't know what the current vacancy rate is. It's, like, 93% vacant occupied at the moment.

97.22. We have four vacant units.

Four vacant units. Okay. Yes.

So you keep about approximately 3% so approximately 3% of the little less than 3% of the units are vacant, and that's, I'm guessing, mostly due to tenant turnover. Is that correct?

Nope. Primarily. Primarily, yes.

Okay. So if an incident, like, let's say, or mold or anything comes up that would make a unit uninhabitable, you are able to accommodate families at least for a unit in the complex itself traditionally?

Ideally, that would be the ideal approach. However, if it's a situation where we we don't have an apartment available, then we would place our our resident in a hotel as we work to immediate remediate the mold and work to address the situation or or have a unit made ready available for them to transfer into.

So, in those situations, though and this is just me trying to get a general sense of what the situation is. This isn't me, like, shaming or scolding here. Sure. Just trying to get a snapshot. How often are you able to accommodate someone in a unit in the complex versus how often are you able to put someone do you have to put someone in a a hotel? Is it, like, fifty fifty, seventy five twenty five?

I would say I'm sorry, Kenneth.

I was gonna say that would deter that would depend on the resident circumstances as if it's a family. I would say the two bedroom and we don't have a two bedroom availability, then we might move over to a hotel. So it depends on the circumstances for that individual family.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Just piggybacking off of Alderman Schandermeyer's point, are there properties within the portfolio that the residents could also transfer to? Is that accurate?

So when you say the portfolio, are you talking

Maybe other properties that that that are owned, by the managing company.

Ultimately, are you referring to properties outside of the city of Annapolis?

Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Yeah.

That depending on the depending on the situation, that's a possibility. Those properties also would have wait lists that we would have to contend with. So ideally, you know, if if we are not able to accommodate the family there on-site immediately, then we would move to, setting up hotel reservations for them, so they're comfortable, until we can make an apartment available or until we can remediate the situation.

But I guess the main takeaway is you do not have a very high vacancy rate. In fact, you're

We we don't.

Very long wait lists, and it's mostly build up.

You're you're absolutely correct. Typically, we have around 988%. And as you know, the need for housing just, you know, around affordable housing around the country is there's a huge need for it, and

Thank you.

Annapolis is is no accept

Alderman Huntley. I see him.

I just had a curiosity question while we're talking about vacancy rates. Would you all say you've seen any noticeable change in your vacancy rate in since I don't know. Over whatever time period you could state? Mister Bowling, you're, you're muted.

I apologize for that. No. I wouldn't say anything noticeable. Typically, as I mentioned, 98% occupancy is typically where where the.

Oh, thank you. I only ask you is I know in the in the housing market in the broadest sense, vacancy rates have been going down, or vacancy, yeah, vacancy rates have been going down. And, but it sounds like from you guys, what you were saying is you you already had a very low vacancy rate, and so it's it's staying low. Yeah. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you, Hale. I guess one of my last questions is, has the new property manager been introduced to the community? Has there been a formal, greeting either written or in person? And if not, can we count on something of the sorts being done?

Obviously, some of our our biggest challenges with, you know, residents is that they they have issues communicating, with property management that leads to, you know, small issues, you know, festering over a period of time. And it blows up to the point where we're here, in, committee meetings. And I'm of the belief that if they are able to walk into the property management office or call or email and feel that there will be no, no penalties, held against them, that if, you know, it's a open in place, then then this probably could have been could have been done in April, for him, particularly this one situation. I'm not sure how, along the others have been going on. So can we just count on that, some sort of formal, greeting or or or or letter being sent out?

Sure. What is yeah. Go ahead. So we've had we've had some events that featured Shanay at them introducing her to the property, but we will endeavor to get another notice out to the community announcing her as the community manager on-site, so the residents know what her office hours are and that they can stop by and visit her.

Thank you very much. And do you operate, on a hybrid? Is this office hybrid, or, is it, Monday through Friday?

Monday through Friday.

Fantastic. Yeah. Alright. If there are no further questions from the committee, or Aldwoman Finlayson, did you?

Well, I would just like to thank, Mr. Bowling, Mr. Hart, Ms. Whitfield, Ms. Smith for, coming to our meeting this evening.

And just to say that, you know, they are always very responsive, so I wanna say thank you for being responsive. And I hope the message goes out that there is a new person and that she is there and open to their concerns. I mean, of course, they can reach out to us, but they have staff on hand that should be their first, approach. So but I just wanted to say thank you for being so responsive whenever I call, whenever I send you a message. You've attended community meetings.

I guess last one's been a couple months now, but just thank you. And thank you, Alderman Gay, for bringing this to light so that they can address the concerns that we've heard this evening. Well Thank you.

We thank you. We thank you for your warm welcome. We appreciate, the partnership, the collaboration, and thank you again. We'll we'll work through this and work to resolve it.

Thank you all very much. And, elder woman, I I echo your share of sentiments is we get it. It is a a tough, tough job, you know, managing the properties and dealing with the many personalities that, you know, our constituents have. And so, you know, kudos to you. Thank you for stepping up to the challenge, and we'll follow-up offline so that this can be rectified. But to the point that the older woman made, I've reached out to her, And within the week, you all were here. And so, thank you for also having that relationship with her.

Absolutely. Sure.

Thank you. No further questions from the committee. At this time, we'll close out ID 12525 and move to any last closing comment. Alderman Schandelmeier?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Is there a second there?

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye. The

meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Have a good night.

Thank you. Have a good night.

Most influenced just by the the cover of the book itself. I know that over the years over decades of course during the time of the civil rights era and the struggles that many in the black community endured this was something that

he