Town Council - Regular Meeting

So like we like to call to order the March 10th, 2026 town council work session. Uh note that uh Jamie is uh not going to be able to be here tonight and Jonathan is going to be here late otherwise we but we do have a quorum so we will move forward. Uh we'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Um, and I'll lead it myself. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States for

Mayor. Um, would it be okay if I added uh a few items just in kind of conversational items that to the discussion tonight? Um, and tell me again what they are. Uh, so I I've been working on some things in regards to the alleys, some uh proactive trimming sort of I went and did a ride around with Jay uh yesterday and uh just wanted to have a chance to discuss it. Okay. There's snow removal. Anybody object to adding that to the agenda? We can vote on it, right? Yeah. Is there any Is that all? Yeah. So, I put Alli's proactive tree trim.

Not another item. No, just that and it's connected with snowing too like snow removal. Just a just a public works kind of discussion. That's a motion. Yes, please. Second. Is there a second?

What are you doing, man? So yesterday I've been trying to line up with Jay. Me and Jay went and rode around and uh looked at different alleys. We talked about some tree trimming, some tree issues. Um there was some infrastructural concerns and then I also saw some some items for like maybe to have a conversation about snow removal, what worked, what didn't work. And uh

would this mainly be Jay explaining it or or is in and us to ask questions and stuff like that? One one item like there was a tree that was on both the alley and in property and just kind of a conversation about how would we look at being able to maybe work with the property owner in the town? And do you think it might be something that be better offline because the only person that would really have be ready for questions with that is you because none of us we're present already know. Yeah. I mean if we can just if you want to just have a moment where he he explains it and then we can hear it

and then later come back to it because right now I wouldn't I'm just hearing it for the first time. I'm not going to be able to process it to be able to have a full conversation about Yeah. just something maybe informal just to kind of uh because this like springtime's coming and stuff like that and and just so I will second the motion. Any further discussion or questions? All in favor of the motion to amend the agenda uh as expressed by our councilman, please say I. I opposed. The eyes have it. So, we will add that as the uh I guess right down here. Right. Right.

Do I have to make a motion? I make a motion to make it 10 minutes long. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. Okay. Yeah. No, I'm just playing, Bruce. Let's keep it. You mean to have it work? I'm I'm gonna fight very hard for that tonight. All right. Great. Um the very first thing then on the agendaformational discussion on the following the signs ordinance ordinance discussion and Sarah you're going to lead that. That's funny because it says you're Dan Ben. Oh well I was here so I could sit up here with you.

Oh we have a sign for you. Um, so with the sign ordinance, uh, there, what we found was that there are a lot of signs in town that were non-conforming with the existing sign ordinance. Um, and those are very expensive EMC's. And so we said, okay, let's take take a step back. Our sign ordinance needs some updating. let's see if permitting EMC's is something we can find a way to allow so that folks don't have to remove these very expensive signs and we can permit them after the fact. So that was one of the major sort of impetuses behind looking at these signs. And so what we did is we took a look at our existing ordinance. We defined everything. Um we changed the structure a little bit. Um, and we tried to make it a little more user friendly. It is longer, but you can say, okay, what signs am I not allowed to have? Let me go straight to prohibited. Um, what signs can I put up without a permit? Let me go straight to exempt signs. Um, and so that makes it a little easier for folks who have sort of simple yard sale signs to find what they need and move on. Um, we added a section about BMC's, electronic messaging centers, and the regulations around those. Um, those are a little tricky because they can be distracting if they are not properly regulated. Uh, and so that's that's the biggest, I would say, chunk of this. We also um put in a way for non-conforming signs to receive permits. So if you had an EMC before this like the school or American Legion or Rod and Real, you can come to us and get a permit for that sign and

then you just have to comply with the regulations of the ordinance after you have that permit. So um checked it out earlier today. Very thorough work. was I'm pretty sure it was a herculean task, but it was it's is easy to read because I have no idea, but when I read through it, it all made sense to me. Um the only thing that I um pointed out is um the wind mile per hour when you should take signs down. I don't think that there was a number there. Um there is a number.

Okay. So, I looked it up and I saw that between uh 20 and 25, you should consider removing uh banners and feather flags because they'll start to waver and they're lightweight. Um but the the actual practice is about 25 to 30 miles per hour when you should take them down. So, maybe we should make the number 25 and then let people know if it's at 20 to watch out for your light weights and your uh banner flood um signs. Okay. H that's good with me. Are there any objections from the uh J?

No, as long as it references the size, right? Because obviously the bigger the lower wind. So, as long as the size is still for the banners and the temporary signs, then I think 25's fine. It's going to be a hard unit to measure. It's more, I think, if something happens after, but also if you know a storm is coming and you know there's a sign that's going to be a problem, you can go knock on a door and say, "Hey, remember when you got your permit you were told?" Yeah. Any other comments or questions?

Yeah. So, section F, prohibited signs. um to flesh out the uh logic behind um number six be and here's why I ask um because there so if you're at your own house right and you put a sign in the window why why would that be prohibited? Another concern is typically if you're getting a permit for something, construction in your house, something like that, they'll place a sign in the window. I mean, there's if it's not actually obstructing um an egress and it's and it's your private home, uh I'm just I'm wondering why that would be prohibited. Um six page. So F6.

I got you. So you're just talking about just windows. Everything else you're good with. you just concerned about why you would not want to obstruct um some type of egress that is you know but you say you have a window on the second floor that and there's multiple egress windows in that room it's not it's not the sole obstruction of an egress so I would say that covering the whole window so that you can't open the window and get out that would probably being a fire code issue.

Um, so this wasn't really structured around residential units though, though I can see that that, you know, does apply, but it's not meant to be you have a little sign in one corner of one panel of your window. It's more for when there's certain commercial businesses that will cover their whole window with signs. No, I I understand that that you're kind of talking about the spirit versus the text, but the text is is what it is. I would suggest

that um we um take window out of there and make a separate subsection that narrows what we're talking about in terms of window. Uh yeah, some some type of clarification that allows for um because this seems um flatly prohibitive of any type of sign in a window.

Um so I think by the word obstructing they were intending to say like literally it was blocking egress through the window. Um, however, I I appreciate what you're pointing out and I think sir and I can out a proposal to accommodate that because I I do agree that people have a first amendment right to put signs in their windows of their personal residences. So, um, let's let's figure out a way to accommodate that. Okay. There are certain windows that are meant for like ingress and egress like in attics and or second floors and stuff. I I agree. There's a solution, right? I don't I don't think it's that hard. Well, no.

Yeah. Are there um are there any signs like currently in town that might be affected by this? I'm thinking of a couple in particular like want to make sure the water park uh sign doesn't get affected. Uh maybe the 1936 sign is came to mind. So, the 1936 sign is not compliant with current regulations and it's also not compliant with the proposed regulations. Um, it it was supposed to be it's a temporary it's was supposed to be a temporary holiday decoration was my understanding and it's it's been up there.

Um, so it will continue to be um not in compliance with the sign regulations. Um, and so that will be addressed. Yeah. I just want to make sure we're also not affecting like the new water park when we're trying to figure out our signs. Just have to abide by this. Thinking it'll most of the signs should be about the same that's there now. So, as long as they're good. Yes. And we looked at that and considered that when we were drafting our documents.

Thank you. Okay. And and since we are going to be allowing the the moving signs and I know you guys spend a lot of time um thinking about this and going over it um and I'm sure it complies with anything medical or any of those kind of considerations, but can you just explain it for us? You mean the electronic the electronic signs change? Yes.

Yes. So um electronic messaging centers do change. They can change quickly. that can be distracting. Um and so we actually I didn't study the um MDOT studied what what change frequency was actually distracting and what change frequency was not distracting and that is 3 seconds. So less than 3 seconds it can cause accidents. It can cause problems. More than 3 seconds they found multiple transportation agencies found that it did not actually impact drivers distraction or increase accidents. So that's why the 3se second threshold was the one that is in there to define what is flashing.

And that's pretty much what they have at uh Calvin Health over there by the in Prince Frederick. They have a sign outside like that. So it's it's real simple. Just make sure that it stays three seconds with text. Um and that's it, right? Yes. So we have a number of signs in town that flash faster than that. And so once they get their non-conforming after the fact permit, they'll just have to program them to comply with the 3 seconds. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Sarah said I probably have more than um to link up with you about and it's been something I've probably been paying attention for a little over two years, believe it or not. It's I know you guys put a ton of work in it. I think that uh the first draft uh and this draft really looks to protect freedom of speech and and I appreciate that. I think there's Reed v Town of Gilbert that there might be a few things that are objection and this is like if we're allowed to prevent or some words or not. I'm not sure.

Yeah, just asking. So, um, so we we did our best to, um, walk the line with respect to, um, what Reed says in terms of content based regulation of signs. And I I think that what we have in here is permissible, but if you have a concern about a specific provision that you want us to take another look at and, you know, we I'm we can do that. Yeah, like I said, I've been probably looking at it more for two years. So, I've there I want to make sure we're protecting people's freedom of speech, but also not and putting hazards like one of the items we're talking about is snow, but people don't realize it, but you're not allowed to put signs inside of our setbacks. I want to make sure is that covered where we're not allowed to put signs. Is there enforcement mechanisms about that? So also want I also want to protect but enforce.

So signs that are that don't have a permit if they're not a exempt sign then they'll there will be code implications. if they're temporary signs. The ordinance does say a temporary sign that's where it doesn't belong when it doesn't belong there can be removed by public works um and disposed of. So any signs that are located where they are not allowed or without a permit um can be removed at the owner's expense.

Is there a time threshold or just removal? It's it's just removed for temporary signs like those little yard signs. Come get your roof done by my business. Jay's team can pick those up every day as they go through um if they're in the right of way. I'm sure that's they have lots of things to do. So, they're not picking them up every day, but they can pick them up as soon as they see them.

I think Cal County itself had put some uh removal ordinance and and things in place, too. So, like I said, maybe I'll we just got this today, so maybe we'll circle back with a few things and go from there. Thank you. And I'll just make the comment. Um, well, this is a work session, so that's good. But, um, we always like to get these in advance when we can read it because we did just get it today. I got mine at work, so I really have read it very quickly. Um, not thoroughly. Can I speak to that? Yeah.

So, um, I wanted to honor it because it was on the agenda. So, we got it and I sent it to you as soon as we got it. Um, but we can put it on the agenda again for you to for you all to discuss at another work session if needed. And if you have questions, uh, you can reach out to me or Sarah directly, CC me. Um, and if they're legal questions, we'll run it by Alyssa. But um we had already planned to have someone from planning and zoning here for questions and they may want to address you all as well. So we just wanted to honor the agenda as we had prepared it. Um but understanding that you haven't had enough time to review it. It will come back on an agenda if need if need be.

Okay. I would say that you know for signs and I watch them do this sign. For me personally I don't need to see this back on the agenda but there are some code items coming up that I do would not want to be done this way. Okay. All right. Can you flag those for us? Uh, I will. Thank you. And I want to apologize for getting it to you. It's on me. Yeah. Okay. A lot of ordinances for you. Um, and it's I apologize for that. Hopefully you're not prioritizing chickens. Well,

it's only 20 pages is done. Pretty thick. Hi, honorable mayor and council member Cindy Greenold, 7629 Sea Street, Chesby Beach Planning and Zoning Commission. I just wanted to let you know how hard Miss Franklin's been working on this ordinance for the past at least 6 to 8 months. I think we've been working on it and we've added, you know, it had to become current. It a lot of it was from 2012, I believe it was. We had to make it current. We added a lot of definitions. A lot of new kinds of signs that you haven't seen around before are we had to now put in definitions like the feather flags, the snipe signs, things that you may not have heard of or realize or understand. They're now defined. They're now in our ordinance. Um so you're going to want to go over those carefully because we referenced all the ones that we are addressing in the ordinance or are in the definition. So that'll um help people understand what they are allowed to put up and what they can't. So as uh Miss Franklin said, it's a much more userfriendly ordinance. We consolidated. We did keep some of the simple original um word uh verbiage that we had in the original ordinance that we thought, you know, let's not change this. It's pretty good as it is. But with the EMC's electronic messaging centers, we had to start from scratch basically. And this is where Miss Franklin came through and really did a great job, I thought, trying to explain it and making sure that we defined um the size and and the the timing and there was just a lot of critical information that had to go into that that section of the ordinance. So, you're going to want to really read over that carefully and understand it pretty well. But, I I appreciate all the important points about freedom of speech. We really thought about that. Um, and also there's a a grandfather clause in there. We don't want to be have an ownorous situation with our

current businesses. And I think we've done some, you know, I think Rod and Real did a great job with their particular EMC. I think the size is perfect for their um particular facility. So, um, we just wanted to make sure that a new business coming in wouldn't have any questions. They would just be able to get right into that ordinance, go bam, that's what I can do, what I can't do. Great job. And it'll make their job a lot easier, too. uh the planning department and and especially Miss Franklin's job. So that's what our intention was was really just to make her job a lot easier also. So if you have any questions,

I know I know when you all were talking about uh like political signs and advertising signs and like man you guys you did put a lot of work and a lot of discussion and so I appreciate appreciate it. I've done one of these before and it took me a year on the last one I did, but this one for a small town like this is a very small town and it still took us a long time because there's so much detail and of course we have to really go over it with our attorney and make sure that everything is is legal as well. It's that's a lot of work. Yeah.

Yeah. And then so like one thing I was thinking that's it's kind of like where where it'd be nice if we were able to work out like so I've heard complaints when people come out of maybe it's E Street and they're turning left on 260 the Papa John sign that's there. So that sign's allowed to be there because it's grandfathered in. yet it's a an obstruction to be able to see. And so like if any was if there was a way to maybe have a some sort of work together to to resolve that like I don't know that's that's I I I know that that was a

I think we have a lot of code enforcement issues perhaps with some of our signage and maybe this is what we need to discuss also but it may be grandfathered but if it's not to code I think we still have some options there but because we can't have obstruction you That's one thing we want to make sure we don't have in this town is dangerous signs. So, I think you guys really did consider that in most of your conversation. That was whether it sounded I was saying thank you.

Well, when we do our we do like a work section, when we do our uh planning and zoning meetings, we do mostly like you guys do in a work session where we really do a lot of deliberation. We do a lot of education and uh Miss Franklin comes in with a vast amount of research that she's done and and um great um she's able to answer a lot of our questions because we have a lot of them and we have a lot of really dedicated um commissioners who ask everything. So we bombarder and I don't when I'm chairing I don't restrict the questions. I don't put them on a timer. I'd let them go because the more we hear from them, the more we learn from everybody and that's what we want. We want to make sure that we do the best job we can um for the town. So, um it may not be the fastest meeting in town and maybe we keep staff over a few minutes, but I think for all of you it helps you out at the end of the day. So, we as much work as we can get done, it's easier for you guys and that's what our intention is to try and do that.

Thank you. So, anyway, thank you. One one more question. So, I actually want to piggyback on uh Dan's question. Um I looked through this and uh so if if a sign is non-conforming, right, and some type of notice goes out, what's the timetable for the person to react before the town can come in and do their deed? Uh Miss Franklin, you have that. I think it's it's fairly quickly especially if it's obstructing or it's dangerous. We commit I see I see there's a lot of fiveday verbiage in here but mostly that's for

d if it's a dangerous situation it's immediate and uh that's where we have the upper hand. If it's not dangerous then it's a different in here. Is it in here? Where is it? I think it's in L or is M M3. Thank you. Whenever the public works director deems a sign to become structurally unsafe or to be endangering the integrity of a building or the premises or the safety of the public, he can order that the sign be removed.

Yeah, it's very quick. Um, one thing that but it doesn't say okay. So sign it should be in there within five days. Within five days. Okay. Yeah. there's anything that we are all responsible for, it's for the safety of our residents and our businesses. Um, so that's one thing that we make sure we protect is that Yeah, that's a good point. Is the only reason it can be removed safety because it says that.

No. So, there are other sections of the ordinance that specifically address unpermitted signs, signs that don't have a permit or that are not permitted, right? that have that are separately removable. Um but that that provision addresses public safety and I suppose um Councilman Reinhardt that um if the position of council is that 5 days is too much for a potentially dangerous sign then we could reduce that number. Okay. you'll let us know.

And because this is in the zoning ordinance, the same sort of removal provisions that apply to building anything without a permit apply to signs. So the extra, you know, the extra regulations are about safe public safety. And then the non-conforming getting non-conforming signs in alignment that has a timeline as well. May I add one thing?

I imagine, and I wasn't thinking about it when I was going through this ordinance, that um things that are like imminently about to like fall on somebody's head, for example, would also be um removable under the priority maintenance code, I expect. Um, and that can be done, you know, immediately. I guess really where my head's at on this is not is not public safety, but just a non-conforming sign.

So, a typical non-conforming sign that exists today is going to receive a letter saying, "Hey, your sign is non-conforming. It does not have if it has a permit, has a permit." And and that is what it is. If it doesn't have a permit, you can apply for an after the-act permit. You have a certain number of days to do that within and we will give you an after the-act permit. If you have an EMC, you're going to have conditions on that, you know, to make sure it complies with our EMC regulations. If you have a non-conforming sign that is also obstructing a right of way, then you may not receive that permit. You might receive a permit to keep the sign if you move it to feedback. But it does retain, I believe, my ability to put conditions. Yes, you kept that. Yeah, conditions on that after the fact permit.

That's in L4, right? So, the highlighted where it says insert date, that's going to be the day that we sign the ordinance. Um, I believe so. So, is there something already written as far as the time frame that you have to um apply for a permit? So, I thought this was in non-conforming in this paragraph. Is it okay for Miss Gringo to sit down?

Oh, I'm I'm just You know what? You're so kind. Any any other questions? and I will sit down, go home, whatever you want me to do. But I want to thank you all for evaluating and you know strictly up for your recommendation, but this is our best attempt at at good signed ordinance. So there you go. Like a tremendous amount of work has gone into that. Commissioners and especially from Miss Franklin, so we have to give her a pat on the back. Thank you. Yes, we are volunteers. I will. How long have you been on the commission?

I think this is going on my it's my 16th year being on a planning commission, but my eighth year, I think, in this town. So, I've been doing this for a long time going, "Why am I doing this?" Anyway, I enjoy it. I enjoy it. That same feeling. Don't you have that same feel? I know. that same thing. And thank you for uh for clarifying uh and and for all the work that's gone into this. Yes. And if I can just clarify about that date. We were thinking it was a signing date, but it's actually the date you're going to determine is when people have to have their non-conforming permits in. So you can make it two months, you can make it three months, you can make six months, whatever it is.

It's not an actual date. It's like a time frame. It's a date. any specific date. It can be a date you all are comfortable with. Oh, you turn

before we before we move on though. Um, so I hate to belabor the point, but the point is that I'm trying to get to where I'm trying to dig is not with existing signs and what we're going to do with that versus like, you know, when we sign this and give them all a certain amount of time to apply for a permit, but in the future, say someone has a non-conforming sign that's not currently erected, is there a time frame for them to apply for a permit that's already established or is that something that we need to figure out? You're supposed to apply for a permit before you construct the sign. Right? So, if the sign is constructed

and it is not compliant, well, if the sign is constructed without a permit, they will be getting a notice from code saying you need a permit for that sign. Then it comes to me and I see that it is not compliant. So, I will deny their sign permit and give them a timeline for removal that's related to what's in the zoning ordinance, which I I don't know off the top of my head. Um, and then they can apply for a variance or say that my decision is an error. They can go to board of appeals. Um, and that the sign doesn't get removed while that's happening. Um, so that can take longer if they decide to do that.

Okay. So if someone engages in this process, that sign could remain for a long period of time while they're while they're going through the process and the town would not be able to go and remove it unless it is posing a safety. Right. Right. We're not talking about that. Yes, we have we do have to follow the processes. You know, if you build a house without a permit, you're going to go through a process to remove the house. Like anything you build without a permit. I understand. And I I I like that. Yeah. Um I was just asking if you know Yeah.

there was a process versus, hey, we sent you a non-conforming letter and in 5 days we're going to come get it if you don't remove it. And there's no process to uh kind of figure it out. No, there's definitely a process. Um it's only safety that triggers the fire and the sign would remain through that process. Yes, they build it without a permit and it is compliant. They just they can apply for the permit after the fact and no harm, no foul. Yes. It's just more expensive for an after the fact permit. So you save yourself money by applying for a permit.

That's a good incentive. There you go. Thank you. I mean simple things it could be six business days and then if I think that would cover just little suggestions you know what I mean so great all right let's move on thank you very much for being here and unless you'd like to stay in for the rest of the meeting where we're talking about state highways thank you for being here we appreciate it all right Uh we're now going to talk about uh item two uh under section three uh Ches Beach connect village connectivity uh SHA state highway safe routes to school and alternatives and Silia is going to take the lead on this discussion. So thank you very much. So, um, I the goal right now is to help bring the conversation back to what the what needs to be determined by council. So, I've prepared a number of things that'll go through the the history, the design, and the grant progress. Um, where we're and then where we are currently. So um ultimately this the goal of this discussion is to determine the most responsible path forward for the town as it um applies to safe routes to school project. So this project has been underway for several years and has involved multiple grant programs and councils. Um, what I will also say to you all is if you have questions or if you want to have a point of clarification, let me know because this is as I understand it based off of the data that I've read. But many of you have lived here a lot longer than I have. So, if you know things historically you have a question about, please let me know. Um so at this point we need to determine whether to either

continue the project as currently designed, modify the approach or close out the grant and consider al alternative connectivity solutions. So, right. Um, so in 2017, uh, the town received funding through the Safe Routes to School program, which was administered by the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration. And my understanding is that the original concept focused on connecting neighborhoods to the to Beach Elementary School. And so if you look at this map here, which comes from the adopted comprehensive plan and the the connectivity study, um the this red dotted line was the original plan. It was going to connect Old Bayside Road along with um the Chesapeake Village community and then that was going to continue the connectivity to Beach Elementary School. And that was what was presented to SHA. Um so if you look in the current comprehensive plan, it's called Old Bayside Road Sidewalk. Um and my understanding is that at some point SHA to agreed to participate only in the portion along Maryland Route 261 and that shifted the focus of the project as a whole. That is my understanding. Um so when it comes to the design and grant pro uh progress so the 30% designs were completed under the first grant that grant is theou that you saw from 2017 that is a safe routes to school grant um and then in 2022 the town received a transportation alternatives program grant to fund the 100% design and that was the secondou that you saw. Transportation alternatives is an

umbrella program of SHA and some of the priority areas within transportation alternatives is safe routes to school. But if you look at theus there is a distinction. MOU1 has from 2017 says safe routes to school. MOU2 from 2022 says transportation alternatives. And that is a broader program. So, um, once we received that, uh, award for the completion of the 100% design, the town developed an RFP that was approved for by SHA and sent out to bid, but the initial RFP did not receive enough bids. Um, and so it required revisions. So, uh, after additional coordination with SHA, the procurement approach was changed to allow the use of pre-qualified engineering firms through SHA. So that's why we that was uh sometime last year when we switched procurement um the the procurement approach um when we received the cost estimates the design cost exceeded the current grant award. So uh to continue the project under the current design approach the town would need to request a grant award increase from SHA and the council has already indicated that they did not wish to request an increase. So as a result, SHA is currently evaluating how the project should pro proceed under the existing grant agreement. I have a meeting right now on the books on Thursday to meet with SHA to figure out what our options are to move forward under the current grant. So um the key issues that have been raised by council members um so several concerns have been raised throughout this process including the project duration. So, the project has been in development since 2017 and some residents are understandably frustrated by the lack of construction pro progress um the project cost. So, current estimates indicate cost exceeding the grant award and the town would need to cover Wayne, correct me if I'm wrong,

but the full amount if the grant is not increased because SHA will not cover it at all if it's since it's above 10%.

That's correct. So, um, other concerns or the sidewalk would be constructed along Maryland Route 261 where the speed limit is currently 40 miles per hour. Um, which brings safety concerns as well as the steep grades and other engineering challenges along the portions of the corridor. So, because of that, I went back to look at the connectivity study and the town's connectivity and walkability study identifies a broader strategy for improving pedestrian access. So the key points from this study is that the goal overall is to create a network of connected routes, not just a single sidewalk. Multiple project types were identified, including multi-use paths, boardwalk or trail connections, neighborhood connectors, and safe route to school improvements. The Maryland 261 project uh represents one component of that broader connectivity vision. So at this point there are several option and potential paths forward and I've stated those earlier. Continue the project either request a grant increase from SHA proceed with uh with completing the design and then later applying for uh construction funds. Um option two would be to close out the current grant. Um and that process would be notifying SHA that the town will not pursue additional grant funding. Um, and that would be a withdrawal of the current grant as it exists now. Um, but there's also the option to potentially work with SHA um to reposition uh the grant as it exists, but that will depend on what they come back to us with. Um, and then the option three would be to re-evaluate alternative routes. So using the connectivity study to review the alternate alignments and then potential potentially pursue a future grant for a different corridor.

Um the other thing to note is that when it comes to SHA's funds, everything that we are doing now, the direction we're moving in along 261 is because the 30% designs are based on the path going along 261. If we were to change the path, we cannot we would have to go back to the 30% design process with SHA. So that is important to know like if if we change it we have to go back and re basically restructure the whole program and reapply. Um while they may have internal mechanisms that allow us to do this more seamlessly um it still is basically a reapplication. So that's just something to to note. Um and when it comes to the current grant, um we have five years to get the design done and then 10 years to construct. Otherwise, if it's not done in that time frame, you risk having to pay back the full amount, not just the what the part that the town contributed. So, all of those are critical um for you to take into consideration. Um and ultimately what this the staff will do the will of the council. So ultimately what you all need to decide is how you intend to move forward.

Um just to clarify you said we have 10 years from the application to have construction start. That is my understanding. Wayne, do you understand it differently? Where do we add on that? Because seems pretty close. Yes. From 2022. Okay. The current grant was written in 2022. You have five years to get design finished. That'd be 2027. I was thinking that's your first hurdle. The grant also talks about having having to be a part of this program. You have to construct begin construction within 10 years of the initial grant. So it' be 2032. You have to begin construction is what the grant says. I was thinking 2016 for some reason. That was the original.

That was the So just for clarity, each step is its own process. It's its own grant. So the initial application was for a 30% design, which is basically the alignment design. That's what the state looks at at that as. So pick your alignment. Where is this sidewalk going to go? What's it going to look like? What's it going to cost? That's what the 30% design was. That grant was finished. That was under safe routes of schools. It was done, closed out. We paid our portion, state paid their portion. That that's now done. Then when we go to the next step, which is 100% design, the state highway has design steps from 30, 60, 90, 100. So the next grant is from 30 to 100. Design doesn't include any construction. Doesn't include any bidding. Doesn't include anything past design. That's the current grant you have that has an upset limit from the state that was adjusted based on the states and our construction our design cost estimate. Um and the bid that has come in from from our current consultant they've gone out to exceeds that by more than 10%. Which therefore the state can't award the contract. That's how that works. U once if we do get to 100% design again that is finished the 10% design's closed the new grant application for construction for bidding in construction. So that's how the process works.

Thank you. Well, thank you. That's that clarity is very much appreciated. Are you you're not done, are you? Maybe cuz I I had a clarifying point. If you Yeah, if you No, that was it. I'm saying you can continue.

Ultimately, it's about how you all want to move forward. What I know about the the safe routes to school program is that the grant is a difficult one to administer. There have been other um municipalities who had received the award but had ended up in so much bureaucracy with SHA because there are lots of different stakeholders who have to approve. And when you're going through that process, the minute that you've gotten approval from person A, you're now like step G and now they're saying actually we want to do something different and now it has to go back through the process again. And that is part of what makes it a tedious grant to administer. Um, and so I had a conversation earlier today where someone told me, hey, when I had to administer this grant, the town that I was working with ended up withdrawing the funds. They submitted a letter from to SHA to withdraw the funds because and then they went and were able to build it with their private funds much faster. So I I want to hold space for the fact that it has been a long time coming. The original grant was awarded in 2017 and we're coming up on 10 years and we only have 30% to show for it. But that is not as far as I can tell tell most of the challenges have come because of the um the level of intricacies that the SHA has within their process and it's not entirely clear to the people that we've spoken to how like when I say okay well who does this need to go to I've I've not gotten very concrete answers on who they're going to what the the actual step process is. It's very opaque and I don't know if it's that way by design, but the reality is is that it has slowed down the process. And if you were to

take into consideration the amount of staff time that has gone into administering this over 10 years, you probably could have gotten a lot more done faster. So, it's not to say that it's a bad program because I don't think that it is. I think it's um it can be very helpful but I also want to make sure that you all focus on the larger picture and working with SHA already reduced the scope of project because you of the project because originally you were trying to connect the town was trying to connect the old Baysidewalk and then it became 261 only because that was what SHA would cover. So, it's just these are it's all data for you all to take into consideration so you can figure out how to chart the the path forward that we can bring connectivity to the town in a safe way that's fiscally responsible.

Okay. And just for your clarity, just to add on to the difficulty of the pro project or program I'll call it, this is a state highway administration administering a federal highway administration grant. So you can imagine when you get both those agencies involved, there's there's a lot of bureaucracy and that's I think what we're seeing. Um there's a lot of the state can't move forward unless the federal government agrees to it and we can't move forward unless they both agree to it. So that's I think the the challenge that we're seeing.

Okay. I just want to push back on a little bit of the direction of this conversation. Um, first of all, we're we're no longer talking about a safe routes to school grant because we're talking about transportation alternatives grant. And either way, even if we were talking about a safe routes to school grant, we qualify for that grant. Um, I understand there's bureaucracy, but there's been a lot of bureaucracy right here in the town of Chesapeake Beach that um has slowed this down. namely um our last meeting we could have potentially moved it forward for a cost of the town of $15,000 and some you know under $16,000 but we did not um an 80% SHA grant for an important connectivity link is not a small thing. I've been watching those public works agendas over the years and um it's amazing how infrequently Calvert County is on them. How and Ches Beach is hardly ever on them. To have a grant and then say you don't want it for a connection that you say you want because you're trying to save $16,000 to me is insane. I'd like

what what I' what I'd like to know from all of my colleagues is an explanation of why we are throwing away millions of dollars in grant money.

Okay. Um so I have written down my talking points for tonight regarding the overall objective I believe we should consider when looking at accessibility within our community. These talking points are intended to ask general questions about the project and to help guide how we as a council should approach the projects of this nature. I would like to ask these few general questions for clarification regarding the proposed side projects before we consider moving further in the process. My goal is to simply ensure that we fully understand the environmental safety and regulatory con considerations associated with this project. First, from an environmental perspective, this corridor appears to drain towards Brownies Creek, which ultimately connects to the Chesapeake Bay wershed. Because areas often along creeks often fall within Maryland's critical area protection, I would like to to ask whether the project alignment has been reviewed and for compliance with the updated critical area buffer requirements and whether the environmental studies associated with the project meet current regulatory standards. Second, I have noticed signs of erosion and drainage changes in the area where the proposed sidewalk would connect to the neighborhood. In some locations, there appear to be fallen trees and runoff patterns that may indicate storm water issues upstream. Has there been any recent evaluation of storm water conditions or drainage infrastructure in a corridor to ensure that project design reflects current conditions rather than older assumptions. Third, I would like to ask about accessibility and slope consideration because sidewalks function as access routes under ADA standards. Has running slopes of the proposed sidewalks been evaluated to ensure that it meets federal accessibility guidelines for pedestrian routes?

Fourth, regarding traffic safety, the roadway in that area operates at approximately 40 miles per hour when pedestrians facilitate or introduced along roadways with higher travel speed. Design guidance often recommends evaluating separation, buffering, and sometimes speed management. Has any traffic or safety review been conducted to determine whether speed adjustment buffers or other safety measures would be appropriate in conjunction with this project? Finally, I would like to raise a broader governance question. Are the town MDOT or Maryland State Highway Administration aware of any current accessibility concerns, complaints, hazards along Maryland 261 or Maryland 260 involving pedestrian infrastructure along the state highway corridors without referencing any specific matter. I believe it would be helpful for the council to understand whether there are any existing accessibility or safety considerations that should be addressed before the town moves forward with any additional sidewalks infrastructure along similar type of roadway. My question is simple is simply whether would it be advisable to ensure that any existing accessibility concerns are fully understood and addressed before the town takes on any additional sidewalk responsibilities along another state highway corridor. Again, my intent here is not to oppose pedestrian infrastructure, but to make sure that we as a council, we are addressing environmental conditions, accessibility standards, traffic safety, and existing infrastructure obligations in a thoughtful and responsible order. I appreciate any clarification staff can pro provide so that council can make the most informed decision possible moving forward. is also my position that we should continue to protect private property rights while addressing existing issues as we move forward. If we do not acknowledge how past approaches have unfolded, it becomes

difficult to ensure that we learn from these as we make future decisions. So, I'll go back to my point about internal bureaucracy. Um, which is what every single one of those questions will bring to this project. And what doing this project will bring to this project is an engineer. um who will be obligated to address most of your concerns um and connect an area of town who is that's unconnected and currently in danger every time they try to travel to town. Uh in 2017, you had um very accomplished individuals getting behind this project, taking the time to write letters, using their influence that they gained from showing up for people year after year for a very long period of time to get behind this project. Those people recognized the need for this project and we have a grant It is so shocking to me, especially after spending time with some of you on the campaign trail and listening to what you said about this project and others that are tied up by bureaucracy. Um, to watch the arguments that are made to throw away millions of dollars that could be invested in our town for connection that we need. I don't understand it. That That's a nice paragraph you read, Dan, but it doesn't match anything you said on the campaign trail. It does not facilitate a project. Um, it facilitates a narrative. And we spend more time on narratives

than we spend on projects in this town. And we have a project that we can do. It's a design project. It will bring us an engineer. And that is the only thing that will move us forward to a sidewalk. If we go it alone, it will cost more. Um, we will take more time doing it. Right now, our engineer has his hands full. So, doing it internally would be very difficult and we wouldn't get an 80% match. So, I understand that you want to be very thorough, but people that have done much more than anybody up here in their lives and for our town have gotten behind this project. I think that maybe we could trust them and go forward.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else have anything to say on this issue? We're still I guess the alternatives are next. So, we're going to move to that next, right?

Okay. So, back in October of 2024, we were asked by the prior administration to take a look at alternatives because we ran into a similar situation back then where this was not moving forward. Um and we discussed uh at the at the council's request and actually Jay had a lot of these ideas quite frankly um of what could we do on our own property without needing the SHA. So the plans you're looking at are simply that they're basically this is GIS topography based uh from aerial aerial photos and it shows four potential routes we looked at. Um the intention of each one of these four routes is to connect Chesapeake Village Boulevard to the school. Um as you'll see when we go through here, we did not follow the State Highway Administration path except for where we had to which was from uh Chesapeake Village uh Boulevard to just um north of the Browns Beach entrance because we have to stay within the state highway rightway there to limit and and minimize environmental impacts. to Dan's prior questions. So, each route will that you'll that you'll look at will go from Chesig Village Drive along Bayside Road and then it will veer left or west away from the bay. You'll see pass one, two, three, and four. They're they all accomplish the same task and that is to get someone from Chesapeake Village Boulevard uh to the school. Uh but they use town roads and town property. Um as best we can tell, there are some anomalies in the state. uh Department of Assessments and Taxation um website which we we believe the town owns all these lots. We need to confirm that through a title report. Um path one is what we at at at that time uh in October of 24 decided was going to be we thought would be the best option. Somehow here it's going to tell me how how to light it up. Is it that one? Nope.

and the right button. Which button is it, Wendy? Oh, there it is.

Oh, the I see it. Okay, so you can see it over here. So, Chesapeake Village Boulevard, Bayside Road. Okay, here's Woodshshire Avenue. Every alternate from this point north follows Woodshshire Avenue by follows 13th Street I think D Street to get to to get to the school. Right. The difference in all four options is from the end of Woodshshire here to where we leave the state highway administration rightway right here. to be to just to be clear when you're working within a state highway administration right right ofway when it's when it's the when the project is not grant funded by their office your requirement is to apply for a state highway administration access permit which therefore you get reviewed through the access division the traffic safety division office transportation safety the hydraology division all the all the agencies of the state highway administration to determine whether this is adequate and appropriate or not um so from here to there is within the state's right of way. The proposal at that point would be a sidewalk of some type to a point probably roughly right right there which is station 3 plus 00 and from out which is 300 ft of sidewalk from there out to roughly here it would be a boardwalk because you're crossing a wetland and and a stream which is which is Browning Creek and then we're going up the hill to Woodshshire. Again, path one was what we believed at that time in October 2024 was the the the best most reasonable path. Uh that includes a stair uh to get to trans to traverse the grade. What you will find on all these alternates is we cannot get to ADA compliance which is American Disabilities Act compliance. You cannot get to a point where with this sidewalk you can get to ADA compliance. You can see that path four even goes way out here to try to lengthen that slope to get get that done. You can't get there. That one gets the closest, but it doesn't get you to ADA compliance. So, what what that means is so ADA

compliance means you have a pathway which is less than 5% slope. This lowest slope we can get is I was roughly 5.8%. That's path four. Over 5.5% you can do ramps which require handrails on both sides. 8.33% is the max slope you can do on those ramps. Even when we do ramps, we can't get get that point to get get ADA ADA access from here to here without doing this long path. Jonathan, I see your hand.

I was just wondering, it looks like the sidewalk would take a even more direct path, which would me seem like it would be more of a slope. So, how does how would state highway get over get around that? Like to Dan's point with the ADA stuff. So to Dan's point, when you are building a linear project, which is a sidewalk alongside a state a roadway, it is not required to be ADA compliant. You're required to match the road slope. So there, even with your current program, your current project, which is 30% design, it is not ADA compliant. It's not required to be. It can't be. You have to re rebuild the road to get there. That's why I was confused. Yeah.

So this is more ADA compliant. It's not ADA compliant. Right. Path one, what we believe be the right one. You're coming off with a sidewalk. You come across with a boardwalk to get over the creek. You come up a hill a little bit. Then you start walking up steps. There's a series of steps and landings as you come up as you come up the hill to get to the end of Woodshshire. Can you go to the last sheet to me, please? The rest of these alternates are just the profile for each each alternate. I won't bore you with all those, but it basically shows you what slopes you can get to. Um, is there the last sheet? I show you one more. No. Okay. There's another sheet in this set which you don't have which basically shows from Woodshshire down Woodshshire up 13th and out to D which ties into the school. I can get that for you. Apologize it wasn't in here.

Uh, but basically um along Woodshshire 13th and D, you're basically building a sidewalk along side of road. Yeah, you have it in your packet. It's in this packet. It's in this packet, too. We have it in your packet. That's it.

You can see the route. It's along the side of the road. Minimizes disturbance. It is literally a sidewalk along the side of your existing town road. Uh it gets people to the same exact point. The difference is this isn't grant funded at this time. Now, Silia and I had a conversation today. Could we get this grant funded? Maybe. But as she just said, it means going back to square one to redo a 30% design and under the more recent grant title, what's I forget what it's called, something what's the new the TA transportation alternative.

Transportation alternatives, maybe that'll they'll fund it. My understanding from the reason that the state originally wouldn't fund the old down Bayside road was because it wasn't a connection from a school to a community along a state highway. That was my understanding. Now, I could be wrong. Like I like she said, like she said, if you know more, tell us. Um, so potentially, if you decide you wanted to go this route, we can certainly go back and ask if there's grant funding for this. How long did the first 30% take? We finished it in 2022, 5 years.

Yeah. So, we're basically resetting the clock on unless we can reuse a lot of the stuff, but I doubt that's how that works. So my other problem and I and and I like a lot of things about this design. I think the idea to bring it around the um the land finger and gradually send it back is a good idea. Um but I do think that people will continue to travel the most direct route on the road on the road. So, I don't think it solves the problem and it's not grant funded. So, while I, you know, it's it's a good idea and a good design,

I don't think it solves all the problems. I don't think it's cheaper. Um, and and you know me, I like trails. So, if one day we wanted to build that to be ADA compliant in some other way, I would be all for it. I I'll I like trails. I would love to build them all over town. But right now, we have this grant um and we don't have a connection and we can have the grant. So, I'm I'm just so confused about why my colleagues waited a year to bring up issues with a bird in hand that they previously did not have any issues with. Um,

well, I'd like to I'd like rather than looking back, I'd like to look forward. That sounds great.

And um, Becky and I, my wife and I drove all of the streets on the south side of Old Bayside Road, every street. And and uh, there's some steep slopes there and there's some challenges there. But my sense, and I've shared this with you, is that one area on the west side, which it would be grant funded, uh, where the steep hill is, uh, and no and and nothing on the side of the road, it makes that path impossible. So, I hadn't seen all of this before we made all of the before we had all those conversations, or if I had, I had forgotten it. But what I'm seeing here now looks like it's possible. Okay. And so Woodshshire, I mean, it is a steep hill from Woodshshire down to uh where the the the water cuts through. But if if um if we can do I mean if we can do that and have steps that people can walk the steps at least we've got a way to walk from Chesapeake Village to the rest of town without getting people killed on Route 261. And I'm very concerned about that. So, I'm I I like the alternate thinking here and I'm hoping that we can continue to move this forward. Uh I started advocating for this project when I served as mayor before I had Governor Hogan down there. Uh I I got him to come and look at it. He agreed it needed to be done.

What are you suggesting? I'm suggesting that we do whatever we can to move this thing forward either way. Right. Oh. So, well, it doesn't sound to me for from a safety point of view, it seems to me to be impossible to keep it on the side of the road all the way. It has to it has to it has to deviate from the road once you come up to where the cliffs are on the left hand side on the western side of the road. Sure. But we need the grant and we need SHA to make the sidewalk and and I'm all for that. I'm all for that. But what I

but um what and this is a the good opportunity to have this discussion as far as I'm concerned. Um and and it's appropriate to have it in in this in this discussion time now and weighing with his background and the work that he's done on it. I think this is this is going to help us move forward. But as far as what the council would like to do, I think we ought to just bite the bullet and and and and put it up on Woodshshire and and put steps there and whatever it takes. If we can get grant funding, good. If we can't, we'll pay for it.

So, Mayor, I I I I have to call this out. This this is going to delay things. Um what when I say I want to move it forward, that's going to delay things. when you say it. Yes, we have moved it forward and to have a sidewalk on the side of the road is going to prevent people from walking on the road and we have a grant for that. So, I'm saying I'm saying where the cliff is, not right, not down as you come out of your subdivision and go across the swamp. I'm saying where the cliff starts. I don't want you can't put I don't think we can put it there. I think that's a safety hazard. So,

I'm I I think it makes perfectly good sense on the west side of the road to come across with a walkway on the west side of the road all the way until you get to where you'd have to go upstairs to get on to Woodshshire. Well, we don't need to go to Woodshshire at all. We could bend it around the finger and not even go up Woodshshire. There's no reason why what you were saying is real real long. So I Yeah, I mean this any one of these alternates uses Woodshshire. It gets the people off of 261, right? Your current grant funding is to build it along 261, right? We would have to throw away our grant to do that.

We wait a second. What did you want to say? Silia. So because the you have when you do the 30% design that locks you into what you agree to in that 30% design which is the full way along 261. So any change alternate would be if we were planning to use SHA fund would require us to either try to negotiate within the project that we have now back to 30% in order to move forward or apply for a different grant under the transportation alternatives so that we could get SHA funding. you can decide to privately fund it along that portion of 261 and then deviate from there. But you either way, if you change from what we have now, we're not able to use the funds that we have now. So, if it doesn't go the full length of 261, then we would not be able to apply for construction funds. What I will say is this, this is just a thought and and it's more of a if you have thoughts on it, let me know. Um, what could be possible is that you move forward with the grant that you have now, that the town has now to get the full design of that full 261 and then when it comes time for construction, use aspects of that to inform how you like you keep the portion that is along the lines that you want and then move forward in a different way with private funds for one of the alternative paths. that is a way to do that because either way you spin it, you will have to have some sort of design plans for the portion that runs along 261. So I think that would be a path forward because either way we have to apply for construction funds, but I would want to

defer to Wayne on this because I don't know if you can peacemeal the because it's a new application for the construction. Are we able to construct it without SHA design plans that follow the new alternative? Ask that question again. Right. The design plans that I'm sorry. He asked me to say it again. Oh, okay. The design plans that we have now run the full length of 261. We don't have to con we're not beholdened to construct what they design.

That's correct. so we could get the design that would inform the whatever the town decided they wanted to move forward with. All of the alternatives that you've presented require for us to have some sort of design that runs along 261. So if we have that in hand, we can move forward with that and and fund the rest of it privately, the construction of it privately is my understanding. But is that possible? So you could, and this is exactly the place the last administration got to, you could continue with the 100% design as you have it planned and you can go through the 100% design and finish that grant. Again, that grant ends at 100% design. That doesn't fund any construction. Where the prior administration got to was we think we should also plan ourselves this route in parallel with the state highway project and see which one is is is the best. And in that case, they they were they were thinking, let's bid this, let's bid that, and let's see which one makes the most sense for us.

That never moved forward because administration changed. But that's where we were heading. Yeah. I mean, that sounds logical to me. Question. Would we be eligible for the alternatives if we didn't have that? If we didn't have a design that was proofed through SHA, like we didn't go through the SHA process or a grant. Yes. I don't believe so. Okay. So that this the phase two of that work, right, the actual construction of the work would not be able to be funded by SHA funds under the current grant. No, but I will ask that question on Thursday while we're in that meeting. Okay. I there in my opinion there there should be a way to amend and change and get a new grant. Yeah,

the money is there. I the the way these amen memorandums are currently written is you do 30% for this and once you have your 30%, you can't change it. You have to you have to get 100% and construct that. So we can ask that question. Looks like that was my understanding when we talked to him too.

Um but again, you're going to have people going down the road and you're going to have the sidewalk that is going to follow the roadway, right? Um, but there's no reason why at some future date we can't make that ADA accessible in some way with pound funds. But and if you can negotiate something better that is not delaying this, that sounds great to me, too. But all of these alternative plans at the last minute are delaying this. And

if we would have done this in a progressive way from the start, we would be on to our next SHA grant. We would have that grant and we'd be working on another. We can't we cannot turn the clock back and we need to move forward. Wait a minute, John. I would appreciate if we would move forward by not throwing away a state grant and I think everybody would because that doesn't seem like forward to me.

I think it's more about having a contingency that if we keep running into these hurdles with SHA, we're never going to get anything. So, this at least gives us something to try to accomplish. Um it looks like it's pretty much the same route until you get to about right across the creek and then that's when we start deviating from. But I mean that path those paths look seem more exciting as a pedestrian like it goes kind of into the nature trails a little bit but and it still accomplishes the route to school. So I hope that SHA would allow us to maybe make this modification. So, some of the last discussions in the last administration were exactly that. They believed that this route was safer because it's so a community instead of along a highway. Um, they believed that it was a more attractive route. And I agree with Lori, your your comment that people aren't going to they're going to make take the most direct route anyway, which is why the prior administration preferred option number one because it's the more direct route. Um, if you were to move forward with a let's just call this the private option, the alter private alternate where you're going to fund it all. Um, we would we could bid it out to a different engineer if you if you wanted wanted someone else do it. That's fine. I have no problem with that at all. Um, but if we were to start this project today, I think you'd have permits in 18 24 months.

And say that again, please.

I think you'd have permits in 18 to 24 months. Okay. because you're no longer hooked up into the grant funding program that we're working in. And Dan, to your question, uh, any of these projects have to be reviewed by the curricular commission. They have to be reviewed by the state hobby administration, have to be reviewed by Calbert County, have reviewed by the curricular commission, uh, DNR and mail department environment. Um, so are there environmental issues here? Yes, there are. But there's also permit mechanisms and design and construction mechanisms to minimize impact of those things. and we do it all day long and none of this would get approved with either option uh without all those approvals. So the really the environmental portion of the of the entire project is that first 600 ft until you cross Brownies Creek and that doesn't change no matter what option you go with.

Have a question uh for you Wayne about uh this alternative plan. Couple questions actually. Um, did you look at a possible route from the end of Canon Cade to F Street?

We did not. We can. There is one other piece of property in here that's owned by the town, uh, which is roughly right here, I think, um, that we looked at as well, but there was such a steep stair to get up from the street here, it didn't make any sense at all. We couldn't even get stair to work. We only looked at this at this option. Eric, we could look at other options. When I was doing my drive around last week, I did go into the end of Canon Cade and and just eyeballed it across there. Um, and it seems like that might be doable. Um, but I I I just wondered if that made the most sense.

Well, that's why I'm asking. I mean, I I don't know what you have a topography map here, but it doesn't really show that that particular area at least that I can identify. But it seems like you could um you could make a straight path either to from end of Canon Cade to F or the end of Canon Cade even to Woodshshire. Well, one thing about that though is that you still would have a steep drop off from Canon Cade. So, you'd have a steep drop off from Canon Cade to get to the bottom and then a steep climb up the Yeah. That was one of my questions regarding that is the topography. What is it? And and you don't have that if you go all the way down by 261. So there's more of a

from Canade. It's more of a a steep drop down than it is when you're right at the bottom of the hill. I can look at it. I have not I have not looked at Canate. Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing what um happy to look at it. A study like that would would yield. Um and then so did do we have any type of budget proposal for this alternative? Yes. In your I think in your in the questionnaire which I sent out was sent out there there email there are rough order of magnitude options. We are we not discussing them here in public? I can um I think option one is roughly $4.5 million.

Okay. The others are cheaper just because it doesn't have that giant concrete stair, but they're all in the three to four million three to $5 million range. Oh, which is more than two. If the SHA project was $10 million, we would only pay two.

Why do you think that the the SHA project is twice as much as that? Like, isn't that seven around seven? Well, the original estimate from BAI in the 30% design phase and in 2019 was 3.162 million. Um, I was asked in the prior again prior administration to what does that look like today when you escalate construction costs given the Washington DC metropolitan area annual construction escalators and I escalated it to 2024 at that point which would have been 6 mill 6.073 million. Um, recently, just because I knew you were going to ask this question, I updated for 25 and the projected number for 26, 26 is a projected number. Uh, 25 was 3 and a half%. So 25 was the lowest in construction inflation rate we've had in nine years. It was only 3.5%. The highest was 24%. 26 projected rate is 7%. Um, so yes, according to my escalation factor, if you look at constructing at the end of this year, which it wouldn't be, it's $6.73 million.

Asking why is it more expensive to build a more direct sidewalk than it is to a boardwalk that goes way out in the woods? Because you have a tremendous amount of excavation along the side of the highway. You have retaining walls that you have to build. Um, you have a lot lot more drainage to to deal with. Um, this is most of this is literally building a sidewalk next to a road. Then you have to build a boardwalk which is the same boardwalk you're building for the 261 project and a set of stairs. So that's why

so uh Wayne um in council I emailed you guys a I went for a walk um two weeks ago went from my house and walked all through the woods there and found a couple different possibilities for some beautiful trails. Uh was able to talk to a few neighbors and uh that live back there. There's I have tenure shoes on. I was able to walk all the way to Chesig Village without using 261 without getting my shoes muddy. There's possibilities. Um talked to a neighbor and they used to have four-wheelers back there and stuff like that. Seems like that's one of the reasons I brought up the storm water management. It seems like from talking to the residents that have lived there since the 90s, there's issues that maybe need to look at um from after the development was built from what has changed. And so that's when we look at we continue to look at things, we'll notice more items that need to be addressed. I think the overall goal for us as a council to do is decide, are we looking to have our town as a walkable community? And if so, how do we affect and and maximize wins? I know that when we were at our uh team building exercise, one little easily seemed to be not too many obstacles. We were able to connect two neighborhoods on Cox Road, which if anybody remembers, people complain all the time about speeding. I know John complains about speeding on Cox Road. And you have two neighborhoods with a ton of children that live there that we could protect them. So, as much as we

want to connect everybody, I think the goal would be start stringing some wins together. How can we say we're working on this? You're saying 18 months, two years for permits. Cool. Is there anything that's quicker that we can kind of like string some wins together? I think that's what maybe as a council we should be looking at. Um,

Dan, we have a win right here. We have a grant project that is doable. We have a a grant project that we can get a design for a sidewalk that a community that has more people in it than any of those areas you just talked about to get connected to town. And right now, they currently are not. And we're going around in circles with ideas after a year of this grant project that the town administrator has pursued and I followed up. We've done it for a year and we brought it to the doorstep of this council. And what this council is currently doing is I like to call these decoy projects. They divert attention and and they're going to lose us an opportunity to get an engineer in town working on a project that we need and that we've talked about wanting for years. Well,

I think it'd be helpful if we bring the conversation back to the substance of the issue before us. You know, the question I raised are simple intended to make sure we understand the environmental accessibility and safety consideration associated with the projects. Healthy debate is a good governance but we it works best when we keep the focus on the policy questions in front of us rather than on each other's personality. If we keep the discussion centered on the facts and regulatory requirements and the long-term interest of the community, I believe the council will be able to have more of a productive conversation about the project. I would like you to bring both of those statements to the doors you knocked on in my neighborhood and read them to them and see how much they like those statements.

All right. Now, that that's not relevant to this discussion. I think it's um I'm interested to hear back from your discussions with SHA on Thursday. You said, especially like like you said, the project is going to be almost twice as much as some of these alternatives might cost. So why in my mind why wouldn't SHA want to support a cheaper project that accomplishes the same goal? Why wouldn't we want? Excuse me. That question was directed to it would be if it I'm saying if if SHA can still give us the grant for those alternatives and it's cheaper.

So let me chime in. What we want to make sure that we do with our SHA partners is not sound any alarms in their internal review process. So, uh, Wayne and I will thread that needle very carefully because I don't want to make them think that we're not planning on doing it. That does not put the town in the best position. So, I will have that conversation very generally. I hear what you're I hear the heart of your question. The recommendation is to move forward with the 100% design. The recommendation is to move forward with the 100% design first. Get through that.

Um I think from your discussion earlier um right now we're we don't have the 100% design completed right yet. Right. We still need correct. We don't have the 100% design completed. So the discussion was that we could get that done first and then start to think about the alternative proposal

and that's where we right now that's what we're positioned to do because the I haven't received any directive otherwise. So that's what we're positioned to do. The the biggest thing with that is that in order for us to move forward with Rossi, we would had the town would have had to make the request to increase. And so now the conversation is what can we do because the town does not want to increase and that's what we're supposed to get feedback on on Thursday. Perfect.

And I appreciate you retaining that position for us and and still confounded about not moving forward to say $15,000. But we are past that point and I I do hope we bring this over the finish line and we don't go off the rails on a diversion and throw away millions of dollars that could be invested in our town and tons of time um getting this done. It it if we veer off track, we won't we won't have this project anywhere close to the finish line. And I agree with you. If we get an engineer in here, we will need an engineer anyways. Um, that will be a useful step towards connecting Ches Peak Village, which is important and a large part of our community. So, thank you for your work, Sumelia,

and thank you for your comment. I um I've only been advocating for this for about 12 years now. So, is there anybody that doesn't want this connection? I mean, I am kind of curious why it didn't move forward last time, but I guess I know there was hesitations and stuff. Well, let's not go back. Let's go forward. And um I think unless there's anything else to be added to this particular topic that we can Does anybody else have anything to add to this particular topic? All right. So, we have to have a closed session. Dan had his 10 minutes for the topics he

Okay, Dan, go ahead.

So, I have uh been working on a few different things and uh me and Jay were able to link up and we rode around um looked at a few issues in different alleys. Um, one home over on near First Street over near Neptune, there's a tree that's sort of in between uh an alleyway and a private property. And I mean, we were just kind of snowballing idea. I was like, h, let's go have these. You know what I mean? And that that's sort of it we would have to talk to the home own the property owner and uh the council and stuff like that, but it's a big home that's over top some a big tree that's over top some homes and stuff like that. And uh it it's it's been looked at by the arborist and and things like that. It's just where do we where I guess my conversation would be like where can we partner with our neighbors and and community people in the community to kind of address some larger trees that may um where we claim sort of like as a tree city we use the arborist in a proactive way. Um I know we have a really good green team trying to address some of the ivy English ivy that's on trees. one of the place I think it was on E and what was that 28th or something like that that they had taken the ivy off but you could see the trees dead inside there you know um and uh there's a handful of different ones we looked at with the public comment five different areas that had bu the bamboo um I know we have a public comment from the people in divorce but uh I think next to John's house there's bamboo And then there's like over on like 14th 15th street. So I

think we should look whatever it is like what's a trigger mechanism and then also uh if if we address it at one spot is it going to be something there? We we had looked at some trees that may have been planted and not considered how big they get and and

like the one on first street. Oh, wait. Well, so huge. Well, it's even worse. So, it's near uh there's a bunch of them and and they it looked like they could uh maybe damage I think in Ridgefield Station they were planted the trees away from uh the street and the sidewalk. So there's not a lot of damage, but then another neighborhood, they're like playing it in between the sidewalk and the street and and we worried about maybe it could cause like that. Yeah.

It could uh cause uh some uh like maybe some uh was our saddles or or some sidewalk issues and and I think maybe we can do some pruning now. and we're in we're like just it probably help prune the trees to sort of not get uh too out of hand and create a infrastructure problem. Um furthermore I I I wanted to have Jay sort of talk to his guys and and if if it's all right to kind of give up what's worked and what didn't work with the snow removal. I know I previously talked before about the parking and abandoned vehicles. I've seen a few vehicles that have out of state tags with flat tires and and I think there could be that maybe somebody left a car here or who knows? But just just things that we observed in our drive-thru.

I think what we need to work on is figure out a way that Jay can keep ice from falling on top of a snowstorm. I think I I I think we're what we're saying is Jay, you need to get us to like the keys when the snowstorm's coming. Hey, hey, no, no, no, no. So, Jay, if you could uh take it from

So, Dan had some issues, everything from rentals to parking, and we've been trying to get together for a while, but we did get together. So, while we had the time, he showed me some things that I agreed with and some alleys need some work just new eyes on a situation. Um, but but we'll go to let's say First Street. This is one example of a to give you the situation. This is a falls under the historical tree. It's estimated 250 oak tree by the arborist. It's one-third in a town alley, twothirds on private property with a fence growing through the middle. But its canopy affects eight houses. Four of those people don't want the tree removed. But what rights do they have? Yes, the trees over there airspace, but does that give them rights? So, you know, guy that's got dead branches. He's like, "Cut it down tomorrow." So, it's a very We can't just go in on the town and private property. It's a it's a rental property. We were there twice, mayor. We met the moment. So I know that I know the situation, but it's a hard riddle to solve. You can't four people are going to be left very unhappy and four people are going to be happy. But where does the town draw the line? Who's the mechanism to go in here and take action? Right? Because I've looked at it for two years. So it's it's one of the things I was telling Dan, same few there's a few alleys that, you know, they're deadend alleys that only one homeowner uses, but when there's a tree that's leaning, they call the town. But when they have a party, they park all on the street in the alley because it benefits them and no one else. So, I want to comprehensively look at some of these. They should be abandoned by the town. Um, in my opinion, but anyway, the snow removal, it's not going to snow. I told Bruce when he was mayor last time, it was snowageddon. He got elected this time and we had the worst snow in 10 years.

So, all right. So, it's like it's Bruce's fault. It's not going to happen again. But but there are the other thing is code enforcement you know it's it's with public works we looked at vehicles in my opinion the process for all of this is is very long you it's a letter you cite them you put a thing by the time you can actually physically tow a vehicle it's like six months so unless you're in Roland's parking lot

true you know and the town could look at ordinances or specific things but basically uh there's a certain amount time to prove that your tags are indeed not dead. And that's a letter and it's a process. But um as long as there's a plate on it, we can follow up and eliminate is it it's stolen? Does it belong in town? The ones without plates, it's hard first of all to find the owner. Second of all, to start the process. So, um that's really all I had to say, but I appreciate the time and looking at some different things.

Yeah. And you you think you could have your guys if they wanted to kind of just say what hindrances they had? I don't think we had many people complain about the mailboxes. I know I saw maybe some people in Calbert in the county. So I want to say good job on that. But just you know because it's not such we had such a a battle with that maybe saying hey you know what we could probably do is this would help or this wouldn't help. And any feedback from residents, you know, is this sort of being

Sure. We had a pow out prior and and we had one afterwards and and we did take out a few mailboxes just the nature of the snow when it fell and uh we fixed some but along 260 261 and old Bayside road uh those residents their town residents but they reached out to the proper entity for those um obviously state highway going up and down 260 large trucks and slinging snow they took out pretty good share of mailboxes unfortunately

and they also covered all the sidewalks up and so nobody body could walk unless they walked in the street, but then the town crew went down and after they were done and cleared the sidewalks off. So, I mean, given the nature of that storm, um I feel like we did very well and uh and you add one more story to it. Talk about going up to your Was it wasn't your mother? Oh, yeah. The following Saturday, I went to to dig out my mother because I figured they'd plow her in. They they had never plowed her street and she lives in Hetering, which is an upper Marboral, Prince George's County. I lived in Ker.

Yep. It was funny. I was like, "Mom, I'm coming to get you." And I was like, "Oh, they never touched her street, which was fine. I mean, she could get out a week later, but and also that same time, a week later, 301 was down to one lane." Yeah. Which surprised me. That was sketchy. a week later. So, you know, all all things considered, I believe that the town fared quite well in that storm. And kudos to you and the team and the contractors and everybody that was involved, especially Les. And he goes crazy on a machine, doesn't he? He does. And uh and he's he's a he's an asset to the town. He really is. There's no question about that. And and he'll tell you just like I do, snow is a four-letter word.

Remember that guy on B Street that mentioned it to us? we were talking about um and that's definitely yeah um maybe a cleanup day or something like that. That's you can circle with Smelia and I think you were going to have a conversation with that but there was a discussion of having like a dumpsters at the field for cleanup yard day some for yard debris and some for trash. Um but I'll let you work that internally. But he it was coincidental you had brought it up and then he'd asked about it. Yes. Yeah, it was. I appreciate your time. Sure. Thanks, J. All right. Seven minutes. That was good. Yeah, man. I was watching.

All right. I think uh we we have close session on the agenda, but I'm not sure there's a need for it now. Is there? So, I requested if there was budgetary information that to share publicly because I have honored Smeilia's request not to uh talk about numbers in public. Um, but I think that we talked about them anyways. So, I think it's our responsibility to talk about them in public and let the public know what numbers we're talking about.

Acquisitions and people are bidding projects, you can ruin all of your leverage. And so, that's why you go into close session, talk about them. But yeah, that when people put numbers in the paper that are inaccurate and aridos, then you have to talk about numbers. So So we're looking to Are we going to close session on that? N I don't do Do we have any numbers that we have not yet talked about that we need to consider? Next up. Okay. Well, I' I'd uh I'd accept a motion that we don't go into close session. Right. A second. And then I would accept the next thing on the agenda. I would accept that motion too. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? I

I oppose. Who would be silly enough to do that right Sharon? Thank you. Good meeting. Wow. Thank you all.