Town Council - Regular Meeting

They are so willing to move forward with us. And so the grant is still in effect. And just wanted to put the purchase order in front of you all so you had it, were able to read through, ask any questions. The plan right now is to have it on the agenda next Thursday for you to vote for the, to give permission for the mayor.

So you have the purchase orders. Anybody have any questions?

Yes, I see it's 32 feet by 32 feet. I'm just trying to envision where we're thinking I'm putting it. Do we have a couple options for the location on that?

We do have options for the location. We have options for the location. It something. So I'll have to follow up. But the idea is that it would go behind the bleachers that are currently there. And we've had a good discussion with the town engineer around what could work. And that's the plan at this present moment.

Dead space back there now, as you know. So it would be a good utilization of that space. I think that's a good spot. Eric, any other question?

So we're just going to kind of piece things together, or are we doing an overall plan with Kellams Field? Because if we're just getting a piece meal, is that what we're doing?

We have a plan for Kellams, but this is a part of that, right? So from the community survey, the community said they wanted an adult fitness area, and so we were able to align that with available funds. on a grant and so that's why we're moving forward with this piece individually because there are funds available and we were selected for the grant project and it aligned with what the community identified as their desire.

It's just I think sometimes in being in construction myself, I know that at certain times there's key locations for logistics. Like not having a staging area and an overall plan, we could get this, it'd be in the way, and unless we have an overall goal of what we're doing, getting something like this might not be the right time for it.

I think that's a very fair point. I think the beauty of how we've been approaching it, because we've been in conversations with our town engineer around what the overall goal would be for Kellams, is that we've been able to work this into the overall goal. But as you know, all of construction, design, all of that takes money and time. And so it's not unnatural for things to be done in a phased approach. And so that This aligns with a phased approach and not piecemeal.

And that's 100% right. And if we have a phased approach, saying this is phase one, phase two, I haven't seen any of the phasing for us to be putting anything in place without having steps one, two, and three.

But you have seen the initial Kellams plan, so this is just adding it to the backside. But the... piece that I've said and we just had the meeting today the one that I told you all at the last council session we had to is how do we bring back to the council options because the first estimates we got were significantly higher than what we anybody on here has ever talked about with regards to Kellums but it still fits that whole master plan that has been presented to the council before the it's just that specific item sits behind the bleachers where before it was just open space with shrubbery and part of the path. So they just adjusted, made some minor tweaks there to fit it.

Correct. So in a plan, a master plan, you would have that complete and then you'd say this is phase one, this is phase two, this is phase three. Doing things without having a master plan and how it breaks out so that all the pieces can go together, it's not how the reality of construction works.

So for you, you just want us to get a master plan together so you can see how everything lines up all the way through, right?

We need to so we're not, oh, man, we should have not put that in there. You see it so many times. People have an addition, they'll do something, and then they'll want to add some more. And it's like, man, that wall is really inconvenient. The last thing we want to do is put something into place when we've done spent $200,000. So we don't want to undo the $200,000. But what if we would have been a little more patient to have an overall plan? We could have said, you know what? That's two years out because that's the area that are.

The meeting that we had today can actually put that in front of you. We'll make sure you see that before we vote next week. And then you can see what we're doing and what the plan is. I think we got it.

Well, I don't I don't think that's realistic. I think because I don't think we can get a response from y'all in time. We can put together what it looks like, but I don't think we can ask the town.

That's the thing. If you see what it looks like, then, you know, you're not putting it in the wrong place where a wall can pop up.

Yeah, but that was in there. I agree with you there. That was in back in like February or March.

We just reiterated that you can see where it's going to be because it's important to know that this will be where in the area where the pickleball court is. We're looking at the walkable, the route for people to be able to walk on Kellen's Field. So all this stuff all has places for it to be. And I think that it does make sense that you can see what that looks like so that you can have an understanding in the totality of what the work is being done right now.

I think so too, but maybe having a conceptual plan and having it located on the conceptual plan is maybe what we're talking about because we're probably not talking about phasing because we're not ready to accept the entire project. So we kind of need to have an overall conceptual plan and then treat – parts of it as separate projects and that's what that's what we're going to do but if the conceptual plan needs to be seen so that there's not the option it would be it would be nice to make sure it fits inside the walking path yeah we got that because part of the concept

Part of the conceptual plan is I need – like there's conversations where we've already reached out to Lori with the green team, and then we need – for walkability with the path, we need their intake as well. But the first piece was like how do we have the big pieces so that we can then – because we can't go to Lori's team and say, hey, how do you want to design a path around this entire complex, but we don't have all the components of the mini subprojects that are within there? Because Lori's team could be like, this is a great path right here, and then we're like, oh, wait, that's where – the amphitheater goes, or that's where the park goes, or the pickleball courts, or wherever. It's gone through the process. This one was an opportunity to achieve one of the first things that goes in the exact spot that we already had set aside for this effort anyways. It just wasn't on the draw.

I would like to comment at the general arrogance of moving forward with projects without receiving input from residents. You'll find that I will always advocate for outreach and vetting projects and expenditures, and I did that for a $20,000 water tower logo, and I'll do it for this project as well. You don't understand what people want if you don't ask, and you can't say that you're spending money the way that they want it spent if you don't put it to them. So for me, this could very well be a great project. People could love it. I can certainly see how use can be made out of it. There's aesthetics to it. There's functionality to it. There's positioning to it. There's a lot of things that should have had outreach. It's not blocked, as you say. It's funded. But on a council that's crashing a project that has been on the books for 17 years and then diverting attention to a project that hasn't even been vetted, that is problematic. It leads to kind of just an incoherent development.

May I refer to the town administrator for a moment? In the survey, that was to the public, correct? And in that survey, did they say they wanted an exercise space for adults, or was that one of the ones? Yes. And that's a survey to the public. The public said they wanted something like this. So we should do another survey to ask them what color we want it to be or how big we want it to be or what else do we need to have to ask the public for us to move forward to do the things that they voted for us to do.

I think giving them some awareness of what is going in and asking for input.

Are these out to the public? This packet, is this something that the public can access? Okay, so anybody that you think may have an issue, make sure they know that they can see all of the work that's being done, that there was a survey, that they said they wanted this, and if they have a problem with it, they can stand right there at the town council meeting and let us know before we get started because it'll be on the agenda.

Okay, well, we had council members on this council asking where it was going. And then the answer was, I don't know. So it's very hard to ask the public.

Did anybody say they didn't know? The answer is not. It's going behind the bleachers. It's going behind the bleachers. Right there behind the bleachers. So there's no, I don't know.

Was that different from February?

No.

It's not about the announcement, the announcing booth bleachers, right? Not the other stuff. There's a little bit of it. Just clarify. All right. So my...

So I was understanding that the bleachers themselves were discussed on a relocation, and it was a lot in the images that we saw that was preliminary and could be changed. I actually think that right behind the bleachers is going to be probably one of the most key items in that project. The other one is sort of where the fence is, where I was like, in between the parking lots. The other one's the entrance. There's few areas that are logistically, staging-wise, more important. I think having a general idea, but really having, before we put a placement in there, I think we need to have more of a concrete overall idea That's in place. Are you following along with that, Wayne? I hear you.

Good thing about the project.

It would be as if this is a permanent install or is it removable? What would the cost to move it? Does it have subsurface? This is the price for just the equipment. What about the site preparation and all that other stuff? Is any of that considered?

Have you had a chance to read through these yet?

This is just the equipment. This as well.

Also, I will say that the Kellums concept master plan was sent out to everybody on January 27th. of this year. So, I mean, we're, like, this is a piece of the concept plan, but we can't sit up here and pretend like it. I mean, it was presented. Jenny came in here and did an amazing, like, hour-long presentation to us about the concept plan. So there's nothing in here that's, like... The piece that I've gone back to say is that, hey, after we all kind of said, okay, this kind of makes sense, everybody gave feedback. Remember, I collected feedback and I shared it back with Wayne. His team then went back and said, okay, let's figure this out. And then what we got with the initial pricing was it was very high. So we said, hey, can we chunk this out so the council, instead of saying we need this one massive project that we probably couldn't get consensus on, how does it look like if we do need to take two or three pieces to phase it in phase one, two or three in phase two, and then so on and so forth so that we have options to execute against and come up with a phase plan? But I'm so lost right now because we're up here talking as if we didn't get an entire presentation, and we haven't seen it. I'm looking at my email right now sent out to the mayor and the entire council. Everybody has seen the master plan. Like, what is going on?

Just real quick, was this on the master plan? No, because that came in. Okay, so I only have one question. I only have one question. Yeah. and I'll just address it to Wayne because I think he probably knows better than anybody, if anybody knows. Does this fit inside of the walking trail?

It's inside a walking trail. It fits amongst the walking trail. It's on the current version of the master plan. So we took your comments. We took your concerns. We prepared a revised master plan, which includes this item.

Okay. And this does not interfere with the walking? It does not. That's all I need to know. And then I just have one more question. These items here that are on the mat.

Yeah.

the boxes and so forth, those are removable or movable. Is that correct?

Potentially. The idea is that with the national fitness campaign is that wherever you go, because it's all over the country, you would be able to use the app and be able to participate in the exercises that are within the app with the equipment that's provided. Right. And so it's, Could we shift it potentially? Like, I don't think it's going to be probably unbolted from the ground. But the idea is that you would recognize the similar configuration as you go across the country. If ever you were you were visiting family in Texas. They have a number of these courts and studios there. So you would be able to say, oh, I'm familiar with these exercises. I do them at my home park. And so now I'm in Texas and I'm doing these same exercises. So are they removable in theory? But the idea is that you become familiarized with the natural fitness campaign, their app, and the activities there.

I thought at one point in time we had, there was a comment that this could be used for like an outdoor yoga class or something.

Yes. So I personally will have to follow up with our grantor to double check because there are two different configurations. There's the 32 by 32 configuration and then the 32 by 79 configuration. So there are two separate configurations and I'll just have to follow up with them. I was under the understanding that we were going to move forward.

And a larger one would fit and would not interfere with the walking path?

No, no, no. So we made sure the walking path wasn't touched at all. And that was part of the conversation today was just making sure everything still was.

Who has a copy of the revised master plan of Helms Field, a central place in Chesapeake Beach, because I do not.

There is the one that you have, and then there is the one that has... You're asking for the revised documentation that is still part of conversations. So I can't give you a revision document.

We're moving forward with something.

What do you mean?

We're moving forward with something.

And she's saying that we're moving forward without having that documentation in front of her to see where it goes. Specifically, that's going to be an issue for her.

And here's the thing. You guys can – that's fine because at the end of the day, remember, this was not originally a part of Kellum's master plan. This was an opportunity that was presented to the council in, what, March or something like that as an opportunity. Now, because it – is located within Kellam's. It inherently gets inserted into the Kellam stuff to make sure it fits as part of the walking path and all that other stuff, and it doesn't impede anything else we talked about. But yes, this was an opportunity.

We were just told that there is a schematic drawing that has this on it. Can we have it?

Well, I mean, yeah, you can have that, but what I'm saying to you guys is that doesn't meet what you're actually going to get presented, hopefully, in the next month or two. So, like, what I'm worried about is y'all are going to see a schematic that doesn't match January, doesn't match what you're going to see in the future, and then y'all are just going to be lost.

Well, that is what is happening and will happen.

Exactly. It's not ready, hence why you're not getting ready.

If it's not ready, why are we voting on it? This doesn't even have the site preparation. It only has the equipment. So we don't even have the cost, the site prep, any other preps for it. It's just, hey, we're going to deliver this equipment. Y'all take it from there.

Pretty much. And I'm trying to make sure you understand. I get what Councilman Duvall is saying. I get what they're saying. The bottom line is what was talked about today can be put on a piece of paper so that they can look at it and they can say, oh, because nobody said anything about where the pickleball court going to go yet. Because I guess they pickleball players. But they ain't going to ask that much. But the bottom line is if you can see where everything aligns, then at least you know that the plan is there. We know it's going to fit because that's what Councilman Duvall's issue was about about exactly where is it going to fit and is it going to impede with anything else we can let people know that we've looked at ideas of how to piecemeal this also won't be too much at one time and we already found out that the people in the town wanted it from a survey so we can go to the next thing it sounds like you know but you didn't bother I know because I pay attention I was in the meeting because I get involved that's why I know we good?

I thought you got rid of the Kelman's committee. It's not a committee. See what I mean?

It's not.

All right, we need to move on. we'll have this at the June council meeting for approval. So the next thing we have on the agenda is, and Sarah has a need to get to a meeting in Upper Marlborough, so we need to move on to accommodate that, is ADU recommendations from planning and zoning. So Sarah, you've got as much time as you have.

Well, what you have in front of you is a memo with regard to the accessory dwelling unit changes that were sent over by the Planning Commission at their last meeting. And because these regulations are Determined by some of them are determined by the state who created sort of a table out of the document and so anything that's in red We're stuck with so we just have to adopt it how it is Anything that's in black is what's existing in your code and anything that is in blue are new standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed and so If everyone's had a chance to read it, I can take questions or I can review it briefly if that's preferred.

I would prefer that you review it. Okay.

So the first piece that we had to change was the definition of an accessory dwelling. And so that is actually defined by the state. And the part of that that is very different is that an accessory dwelling can be up to 75% of the size of the existing single family house on the lot. And we can't cap it at a lower size. So that's number one, has been changed. And then number two is just that there are limited owner-occupied lots, which is in current code. Number three, it just determines how that size gets established for the size of the main dwelling, so that you can calculate the 75%. And this is so that your zoning administrator, when they're issuing a permit, a clear standard of how they're going to determine what the size of the accessory dwelling unit can be. And that's just based on SDAT square footage. Number four is about height, bulk, height, area, and bulk requirements applying to the accessory dwelling. But because the accessory dwelling can now be much larger than previously, the Planning Commission did want to make sure it still stays subordinate to the primary structure and therefore caps the height at the height of the primary structure. So if you have a one-story home, you can do a one-story ADU. Right now, we haven't made any changes to the parking requirements because we need to have the parking study to create a waiver process from the parking requirements. Site plan is required, and we recommend that this stay here. Basically, the Planning and Zoning Commission said, how do we make it easy for a homeowner to find everything they need if they want to develop an ADU? Because they're not typically developers. They haven't done this before, and so they wanted to put as much information as possible into this space for homeowners. Okay. Seven, accessory dwelling units should be architecturally compatible with principal dwelling and similar in material building types, roof type, and roof line. And just keeps consistency visually. Then we get to number eight, which is that you can only have one accessory dwelling. And it's the only one that you can discuss. Everything else there just has to be there from the state. It has to be permitted on any lot where you have a single family home existing. Number nine is this caps the number of bedrooms that an accessory dwelling unit can have. And the reason that this is recommended is because if you have a very large primary structure, you can fundamentally build a three or four bedroom home in your backyard. And that's not really the purpose of the accessory dwelling unit law. It's to create sort of mother-in-law apartments or space for your kids. not to increase density at a level that has more impacts on schools and roads. So it's sort of a low impact type of infill. Number 10, accessory dwellings have to have their own ingress and egress separate from the primary dwelling. That's a safety recommendation. Number 11 is that if the ADU is detached, it should be eight feet back from the principal structure. That recommendation is sort of an emergency space, but also a bit of a quality of living space for the person in the ADU if they are detached. 12 accessory dwellings must comply with the town's water and sewer manual floodplain ordinance building code and any other applicable regulations The Planning Commission wanted to say, here's some places you need to look if you're a homeowner and you want to figure out how to do this. We also wanted to make sure that if something else was applicable, we didn't leave it out. But this is really just here to try to make it easier for a homeowner to find the regulations when they want to build that apartment for their kids or their mother-in-law. 13, accessory dwelling units aren't part of your density calculation. And that's state mandated. And then the last one is accessory dwelling conversions of an existing structure have to have vehicular access from a road, not an alleyway. This is something the state said that could be in the ordinance but didn't have to be. And the reasoning for this is really if you think about town and you think about some areas where The only access to the lot is really from an alley. You have lots of people parking on that little alley that's very narrow already. And so you're really potentially creating more emergency services issues and, you know, will that person have a place to park in proximity to their home? So that's only for a conversion of an existing accessory structure, like if you have a shed. That's everything.

I have probably a couple questions. Thank you for that. So I guess I'll start at 14 and work my way back, and then I have a few other questions that have come to me from the constituents. So the accessory dwelling conversions, existing structures must have vehicular access from the road, not an alleyway. I would say in order for us to put that in, that we would have to go through each and every one of those scenarios to make sure that the way that that happened was lawful and it wasn't just done. For an example, on 260, there is a sidewalk that got paved over. There was a vehicle entrance there. And I don't think the homeowner was contacted there. So some of these items that have happened haven't happened lawfully. And so we need to make sure that we're not putting an imposition on somebody. So the parking is actually, I tried to address this, it's throughout town, it's inconsistent, and it's not universal. So a law like this shouldn't be there. accessory dwelling units 12 for the adu is that in the state i believe i heard something that the state was there plus do we have sort of a town speaking of the water and sewer manual do we even have an appeals process for that i know that we have had a ton of negative comment about that um This has been a very controversial part of the town code, and I believe I've heard that the state said something about us not being, like you weren't allowed to do something. The detached ADU must set back from eight feet of the principal structure. That was what the state required on that?

No, that's blue.

All right. So... The two bedrooms, from a large family, I have five sisters, right? So if a mom has two children, a boy and a girl, we couldn't have that as a rental? So if the children needed a place that couldn't build one, have a three-bedroom so the The son and daughter could have a room? I really think that the actual, what the state comptroller said was the intent was to make housing more affordable, not for our seniors to have a place to go. It was to make housing more affordable. That's what the comptroller told me. Okay. Some constituent questions I have here are in regards to the parking. One, with the parking, I believe that we're not allowed to have the parking unless we have a parking study done. We have to make it one, and if we don't have a parking study, our recommendation should be to follow the state and not maybe we'll get to it. But there's been no plan for a parking study to be complete by October 1st is from what I understand. So ADU recommendations from planning and zoning, the parking requirement of this chapter shall apply. Accessory dwellings will require two off-street parkings in addition to those required of the principal dwelling. Why? Most of our residents don't have off-street parking, so when will you be preventing them from having ADUs? When will you allow a restaurant in the beach to use residential parking? Now, because they were allowed to have it, many tables, most ADUs already use street parking. In addition to any common living area, the accessory dwelling unit shall have no more than two bedrooms, one bath and one kitchen. What if the property is 2,482 square foot in Chesapeake Village, which has 3,310 square foot above ground? Seventy-five percent is 7482. They could possibly have a three-bedroom, wide-limit bedrooms. Oh. All accessory dwelling must comply with the town's water and sewer manual, floodplain ordinance, building code, and any other applicable regulation. The bill does say may not require the use of a separate connection between an accessory dwelling unit and a water and sewer main if the existing connection is sufficient to serve their accessory dwelling unit in the primary dwelling unit. What will be the town's take on this and the flat fixed charge on the water and sewer bill? Accessory dwelling conversions of existing structures must have vehicular access from the road, not an alleyway. A lot of our homes in the old section only have an alleyway. They come and go. So are you saying they will not be allowed to have an ADU? So are you preventing the same rights as other town? Those questions I have from constituents.

I do want to correct one item. I think that whoever sent you the question about the water and sewer connection was looking at the first version of the bill, not that version of the bill that passed. So the version of the bill that passed does not have that requirement in it. So I just wanted to... answer that and then I'm gonna take the questions as you go and start so starting at 14 about you know if someone has this alleyway connection then maybe they can't build an ADU and I think that's that's a point right not everyone is going to be able to build an ADU not everyone you know on their lot can build the same size home and Not everyone has an equal playing field because all of the lots are different and all of the lots are in different zones. And so there are different regulations. And so that's just sort of the fundamentals of how zoning is set up.

So my primary question was... Our town has a plat, and the plat requires certain roads to be followed. If we did not create the roads that allow that or we took and didn't provide them off-street parking, now we're going to say because we didn't do what you were supposed to have, you're also not going to get something else. I feel like that's a double negative for the constituents.

So I think that's also another good point. So with parking, it really isn't equal throughout town. Road widths aren't equal. Availability of parking isn't equal. The town developed over time, and not everyone had a car or even two cars or three, however many cars people have nowadays, when the town developed. And so there are some lots that don't have off-street parking right now, and those people do park on the street, whether the street is wide enough for them to do so or not. And I think in that case, you really can't add an ADU without providing parking because you're already actually parking on the only off-site parking available. So what we don't want to get into is allowing people to construct an ADU that they're going to rent to someone And then that someone has a car and they are having to leave it overnight here at Kellums and walk all the way home because there's nowhere for them to park. So it's a balance of that. And that's what the parking study, which just to kind of review. The issue with the parking study is that the state defined the parameters. They are not normal parameters. I've had people say they would give me a quote and then call me back and say they won't. We have a couple people trying to do quotes, but they're really struggling to figure out how to do it. The town engineer and I have provided an alternative solution that will still allow you to have a parking requirement and let you look at how you want to do a bigger study that has different parameters. But the reason that the parking requirement remains is if you think about some of the areas down like in the campgrounds and even up here north of 261, The lots are very small. The roads are very small. There isn't off-street parking existing. And if you add an ADU and that person has a car, where are they going to park? And how is Jay going to plow the roads in the winter? And so you have to consider that. And so, again, yeah, everybody won't be able to have an ADU, and the state knows that.

So when you say road, you're saying paved area. When I'm saying road, I'm saying the right of way that is allowed, that's supposed to have the road. So there's a difference. So inside of our plats, most areas require a 50-foot section. The alleys are mostly a 15 or 12-foot section. It varies in difference. There's over on B Street, they have an alley that's been named a street, but it's because the erosion happened that took away the access. So that's a unique situation there. I think that's one of the places that y'all had a whole appendix of it. If the town is supposed to have a paved area, and we pave the area in certain areas, for us to say there's not off-street parking when the grass is off-street parking, right? Grass is the right-of-way. Your property line starts at your property line. So that's what I was trying to address over the next few years, but that got shot down. So that would have helped with this.

So I'm not sure if you can park on grass. That's probably a Billy question. I'm looking at Jay. He doesn't know the answer off the top of his head either. So the bottom line here is like the state wasn't trying to require towns to have to expend large amounts of money, widening their roads to provide off street parking for people who may want to develop. in ADU. So, yes, I think the point you're making is everyone won't be able to build an ADU, and that feels unfair. No. Okay.

What I'm saying is that putting items in here, we should make sure that before we put an item in there, we should have done all the things that we could have done to that. And there's very few places that that would actually apply for. Maybe we shouldn't have that as a recommendation. It would probably be the best.

The alleyway?

Yeah.

So there are a few places that could have an ADU that have only alley access. And certainly you are the town council. You can say we want to strike that provision. The reason that the planning commission put it in here is because there can be challenges for emergency access and increased traffic vehicles. And the other vehicles can further complicate access for all the buildings on the alley. So that's why the planning and zoning put it in here. If this board decides they want to remove it, right, then that's the council's determination. This is just simply what the planning and zoning commission recommended based on there.

You're actually doing a really great job of helping me make my point.

Okay.

Emergency personnel if you remember over near Neptune's when we talked about having to fix The the street because that emergency personnel wouldn't get there That's why I was trying to address it because emergency personnel you're saying that oh, we can't have an accessory dwelling unit Because emergency personnel can't get there, but the house is there there's not an issue with that and Before, there was only one parking. One ADU is not going to make a difference in the world, but not having people with access to emergency personnel is something the town should address.

Right, but so that's just not that's not the like that that's that's a point for the town council to address but it's not something related to Whether someone should be able to if there's already an access problem Increasing the density and the number of people who are subject to the access problem is something that Planning and Zoning Commission does not advise the town council to do Sarah yes

I wanted to commend you on this report. It's very easy to read. And I like the column with the reasoning. So I just wanted to say that first of all. And then just for public consumption, I do think Dan does make some decent points. And if this council were to make a motion to strike five 9 11 and 14. i would be in favor of those um and then my last comment is um is there a variance process so yes because it's in zoning there is always a variance process there will be a waiver process from the parking requirement

I just, in good faith, wanted to design that waiver process based on the results of the parking study. So there will be a way to get out of the parking requirement provided there's somewhere for you to park, right? And then a variance from these rules through the Board of Appeals. Okay. Yeah.

And just one question for me. So with the waiver provision that you guys are talking about, do you have any insight on that or what it might look like?

I have a hypothesis that there are probably three different zones in town, one where There's no off-street parking available, and so you do have to provide off-street parking. One where probably one off-street parking would be sufficient, even if that off-street parking space is actually just like blocking in another vehicle. And then areas of town where you do need the two. parking spaces. I think I started off backwards. So some places you don't need the off street parking space because there's adequate space on the street, I believe. I don't know that. It's a hypothesis. And so we'll see from there. I do have another town that is looking at a waiver. That's renewed annually based on if the person living in the EDU has a driver's license or not. So if you have your mother-in-law living with you and she doesn't have a driver's license, as long as you come in every year and get that renewed. But if somebody else moves in, you know, if she moves out and somebody else moves in, then you may need to provide that parking space later. So that's something to think about.

The whole issue with the state, is the state even thinking about changing anything to make the parking? Has there been any talks about making it easier to be able to have access to getting that study?

I don't think so. I think the state would prefer that. municipalities, all local jurisdictions do not require parking for accessory dwelling units. And I think that comes into competition, right, with the size of the accessory dwelling unit. Because your one bedroom or even, well, really one bedroom is where you're not, probably not generating the vehicle, right? Once you have two bedrooms, you might have a mom and that you start to have younger people living in there and you probably have a vehicle. But if you're up to three bedrooms and this is becoming a much larger house, now you have more people with cars living in that accessory dwelling. And where are they parking the cars becomes the issue. So I think there's a size to parking consideration to make. So

Thank you. All right. Anybody else have any questions?

I do. Where are you at with the parking study? Have you coordinated that?

So at this point, I'm really advising that Wayne and I create something very simple that does not actually meet the data needs that the town has for parking, but meets the requirements of this project. It's the requirements for the state of the state and it's something that you think is sensible that can help us manage traffic and parking in town No, I don't I don't think that a quick a quick solution that meets the state requirements does provides the town with useful Substantial useful data, and I think that's just a result and you know everyone I've talked to sort of Agrees with this so people who are doing parking studies. This is not data that While it's useful to you on some level. It's not useful for an overall town parking strategy, but since They don't do it It's kind of like, let's meet these requirements so you can require parking, or if you're not going to require parking, then we don't need to do the study. But then you should, because you have parking and traffic issues that you want to discuss, that's a totally different parking study, and they can't really easily be combined.

My question is, is anybody working on an RFP for a parking study?

Not related to this.

I don't know if there's other Discussions not at the present moment Okay, and then so my second question is why not?

Well, one of the things that we'll be talking about is the number of priorities and goals of the council so it's Have to meet this requirement which is time-sensitive and so that's what we're going to do and And I think if you guys want to have a larger discussion about the number of goals and priorities you have, then that would be a different conversation.

So our planner just told us she's concerned about parking in town. The state is requiring a parking study for us to protect that traffic flow. But we're moving forward without a parking study. This was brought to us with No option to request an RFP. Like, to me, that's an implied task. If we're going to create a problem on the ground in Chesapeake Beach, and a parking study has been met, and it's been months now, months that we've known about the parking study. Why are we now at this stage of the game without a plan to get a parking study that our planner and most people say we need.

Sorry. A lot of response from the administrator.

I am proposing a plan to get the parking study you need for this document.

Could you say that again? I didn't quite hear you.

a plan to get the parking study that you need for this document. I will tell you Montgomery County's parking study is four, maybe six pages long. It does not have data in it. It is very simple and straightforward, and it is there for the purpose of being able to require parking in certain areas. We actually have a lot of data existing, so we can do some data analysis, and it will be a little more robust than Montgomery County's. It will be sufficient to determine which areas require parking, which areas don't require parking, and which areas require minimal parking. It'll be sufficient to establish a waiver process. It will not be sufficient to tell you, the council, what all your town traffic and parking issues are and how they interact with each other. because that's a more normal parking study that would go out with an RFP.

I guess the question was, is what we will be going forward with something that is sufficient To protect traffic flow and general livability on the ground as it relates to ADUs. Yes. Okay. If that is how you feel, then I'm more comfortable, but that wasn't what I understood your first answer to be.

I thought you meant townwide in general. Yeah.

Sorry.

All right, Dan. So what's the question is? One more?

Yes, please.

Okay, go ahead.

Is there a lot coverage requirement from the state or did they disallow it or can we allow it or how is that working?

So your lot coverage requirements are maintained. There's nothing coming from the state related to lot coverage. So you can't, if you already have, really in the area where a lot of the parking issues are, there's so much lot coverage, they probably won't be able to do an exterior ADU, but they might be able to do an interior one.

And we are not recommending altering the existing lot coverage requirement.

No.

Okay. And then additionally, has the state mandated that their law overrides an HOA or any other? Because previously it was it overrode everything, whether it was HOA or not.

Yes. So there are regulations related to the real property article that override HOAs. But the real property article doesn't apply to municipalities. So it's not part of this zoning that you're seeing.

So HOAs can or cannot have an ADU?

They cannot prohibit ADUs.

They cannot prohibit an ADU. So if you live in an HOA, you can have an ADU.

Have an ADU.

Have to abide by the lot coverage laws.

Of the town. Of the town. And what about your HOA? Your HOA cannot put any unreasonable restrictions on the development of an ADU.

That's going to be very interesting to navigate because our HOA laws govern a lot of stuff. I hope that you can give that some thought of how the town's going to handle that for the HOAs because that's going to be a big deal.

We just have to approve them if they come in and meet town zoning.

Well, I mean, there's interpretation that needs to be considered, and I think we should consider that in advance and think about it and not be kind of hit with everybody's different interpretation of that.

I think the thing is that we really don't have any jurisdiction to get engaged with that. That's going to be if the HOA prohibits an ADU from being developed and someone decides to sue them and say it's an unreasonable restriction, that's how the parameters around unreasonable restriction are going to be established. But the real property article is not related to zoning, and so we're not really establishing anything in the zoning related to HOAs.

It's just a comment, and I don't have the answer of how to deal with it, but there is definitely an ADU built in my neighborhood. There are a lot of opinions about it.

I don't know if it is a permitted ADU or not. I'll talk to you offline about it.

I don't appreciate that. Go ahead, Dan.

Just to recap with the parking, put a timeline. Over six months in conversations have gone into it. I rode around with Jay. I talked about it. I mean, I proposed millions of dollars of what I thought it was going to be to fix off-street parking. Millions of dollars, right? I met with Jay, the mayor, Sumilia. Like, I'm more concerned about it than I guess... But the goal was we were going to get a parking study. The parking study... Now, Sarah wasn't there in this meeting. And her explanation of how difficult the parking study is is sort of how we've gotten to this spot. But it wasn't that there wasn't a lot of work that went into this. Like, it's not the best answer. I wish it was a parking study, because then I could have had an answer. I'm... We're down the road on it.

I do, too.

Right, but it's not from not effort. That's what I believe has gotten us here, and we are going to do the best we can to put a waiver in place and maybe have to address the multimillion-dollar parking assessment. It's a multiple-year item if we're going to address it. arcing throughout town. It's not a quick fix by any means. Is that sort of the... I mean, it was... I don't know. There was other things going on, but I was working on that as well. So it's not like nobody hasn't put anything in there. So I just... I didn't think it was going to be so complicated to get a parking study. I thought it was going to be easier, so...

It is, as long as you're not doing this specific kind of parking study.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Now, hopefully you'll be in time for your meeting in Upper Marlborough.

I'll be in time to vote on the budget, so thank you.

Put your other hat on. Thank you, Sarah. Next, we have two budget discussions, and we wanted to take the water park first. So we're going to move that around a little bit, water park budget discussion. Mr. Treasurer?

Yes, sir. I was ready for the utility fund, so give me one second.

Well, we just threw a little curveball at you.

OK. Utility fund, water park, gotcha. All right, so the water park budget is ordinance 02613 that was introduced and discussed at the last meeting. There have been a few changes to the budget, the Appendix A that was introduced, and if you go to the fourth page of the packet that you have. It outlines the amounts that were provided in the first draft of the budget in the first column and the second draft of the budget in the second column. And if you drop down to the expenditure side, you can see there are four expenditure items that have changed. They total $38,696. And these are mainly the result of allocating the administrative costs of staff to the water park. We did not have that when the first draft of the budget was presented. In order to cover that cost, it would need to come from additional grant revenues from the general fund in the amount of $38,696. Also included in the packet is on the next Next page is the updated budget that reflects the total fiscal year budget at $806,302 and shows the total operational costs for the full season at $1,640,000. The following page, there's a question asked about what are the admission rates for residents versus non-residents. So we provided you the chart that was used to come up with the revenues for that and to show the individual costs for... daily admission, season pass, and family packages for whether you're in Chesapeake Beach, whether you're a county resident and outside the county for those different scenarios. And then the last pages are just backup information that you did not have at the last meeting. but it was other information that we felt that we used to come up with the reasoning for the dollar figures within the budget and to provide you with more information so that you could see where those numbers come from. So those are the differences from what you have seen before. We're looking to... approve the budget at next week's meeting and see if there's any questions you have on this or any other changes that you would like made before next week's meeting.

And I'd like to acknowledge that Marilyn has been deeply involved in preparation of this budget and using her many, many years of experience as manager of the park. So thank you, Marilyn, for your help in this.

She did a lot of the work, and I should have started out with that.

But I've known her longer than I've known you, so...

I will say that if people see these prices, the price points, they'll be very happy, especially in contrast to what they were before. So I think you did a really good job with being fair, just and balancing that just right.

I agree with you. Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, I think that's a huge, that's one of the major concerns that people had was the prices before it closed. We did, I know Marilyn looked at the survey that was put out a while back, and she has a lot of good data that she used to pull from to get these prices. I think she did a good job putting this packet together with all the information, so appreciate it.

Any other comments or questions? Yes, ma'am.

I'm going to let you know. So we have our job is to look out for the taxpayers of Chesapeake Beach. And so we have on the season tickets, we got taxpayers getting $135 for a season discount for season tickets. That's for four-pack for the... Oh, you're saying the difference... So... Thank you for $19,135,000 a year for a season of four-pack. That, to me, does not seem like the right thank you. I don't know. I was thinking it should be... A little more gratitude paid towards people that wanted to get a season ticket that are actually the funding party at hand, the taxpayers. So I don't know.

There will be a 20% discount offered at Black Friday. I don't know if that's offered. Thank you.

That's what I was going to mention. If you get the season pass with a 20% discount and you come five times, Every time after that, it's free. So I think we do take that into consideration. I think it's very reasonable considering what the season passes are going for everywhere else.

I think real quick, if I could just add, if I could just add a note, I think what we are getting, I understand what you're getting at. I think though the question then it's really on us because the question is, is how much would we want to supplement the water park through other funding sources? So if you, if you have an expenditure and you're not going to generate enough revenue through the passes or admissions, we have to supplement that through somewhere, right? I mean, that's, So I understand what you're saying. So I think the question just comes back to is I'm assuming that the math that you did is based off of the research. Here's how we would try to stay and break even, et cetera. If we disagree with that, then I think what we have to do then is say we disagree with that and we would push back and say we would supplement passes in another manner.

No, what I'm saying is that if there was zero discounts at all, And we had to pay for the construction of the project, if this was a private business, right? There would be a bill being paid. But then you have investors, which are each and every of the households in Tespeke Beach. They would have investor things, and so they would have their purchased property. They've already purchased towards their passes through the money that's built there. Over like 30 years is what I did the math at. It's at least $600 a household is what I came up with rough math that the discount should be applied to taxes, to residents. It's not a supplement. It's already been paid is what I'm getting at.

Yeah, I mean, we can word it how... No, no, no.

So the rates for the emission rates shouldn't have that effect because... The bill is not being paid. The bill has been paid. And the people who have paid the bill should receive some sort of gratitude for that.

The bill for construction is being paid through our savings and the loan. But the operating costs still have to be covered because this is a – I'm going to borrow Lori's target.

We're going to have a conversation about operating fees.

So, again, it still comes back to – I understand what you're saying because I've had this conversation with Eric as well. So the question comes back to is if you think that they've covered the cost, then, okay, that's a conversation. But that's not for her. her to make that call. That's for us as a council to say, would we fund the operating expenditures that would be covered through season pass revenue and emissions revenue from a different source? Because you still have to cover the operating expenses in some manner.

So we could start by covering no expenses and build it out from there. Because if we start it there, then we're comparing apples to apples. But if we just say, a part of it or not. That's not the same comparison. I'm saying that when you say Like, it's the taxpayers who paid it. That's where the money came from. I'm not saying that.

I agree with you. I literally agree with you 100% with what you're saying. I'm saying, though, that you still have to pay. We've got to pay costs. We've got to pay for the park.

That conversation is going to completely go around in circles until the end of time.

Dan, did we go up on property taxes this year? No. No.

No, we did not go up on property taxes. And if I'm not mistaken, we didn't really bounce up during the last budget season. We kept the property taxes pretty much- The same. The same. And with us keeping those property taxes the same, homeowners are actually doing very well with receiving back on their worth of their property because of that, correct?

With keeping the property tax the same and the value of the property goes up, you're going to pay a little more in taxes each year. We didn't keep it at the constant yield rate, which would be no increase in taxes. So we kept the rate at 29.77 cents.

Okay. But what does that do to the value? Okay. So is that accurate that the assessments of the homes went up? No.

They might have gone up, but they're limited to a 10% if it's an owner-occupied.

So if they have gone up, it's not... Right.

And the assessed value in the town from the notification I got on the council yield notice, it didn't go up 40% over the entire town.

Now, Councilman Duvall, how much would you... What's the price point you think it should be at?

And I thank you for hearing about the 20% on Black Friday. And that is not something that I've ever had. I've never had that 20%. This was from people who praised that. They were like, and I want the 20% back. So that's from the appreciation from the public who mentioned that 20%. I didn't know about it. And so... I guess the real conversation that we have is to make it so that the people here that get inconvenienced from the parking, that get inconvenienced by the things that do, nothing's free in this world, you know? And so it's not that the town won't be inconvenienced because there'll be... There'll be additional parking, but there'll also be enjoyment from it, too.

I just want to have a real conversation, and I don't think that discount represents a fair... A part of the real conversation is the answer to my question on what do you think it should be if it's not $135,000.

Well, I answered that. I did the math. It looked like it was about a $600 season ticket discount, so... And I think that could be done at the Black Friday for six hundred dollars. And then the season tickets are based on the season tickets. Right. And then however, that number works out the credit towards a resident. You don't have an actual number at this time. Is that what you're saying? I have a discount. The discount value I came up with is six hundred dollars.

Season passes are 575 you give them a $600 discount.

We don't get anything from them No, we've they have already given is what I'm saying. So the the season ticket would be too low is what I'm getting at the season ticket for four would be too low if that was the math What do you So what should we charge for a season ticket? I didn't do a business plan for it.

I'm just deciding on the budget Okay Well, because that's the serious conversation. If we don't want to go with the number that's dead, then we need to hear a number to say that that's what the opposite is. But then we also have to look at the different things that we have done, which it is important that property taxes have not gone up. With property taxes not going up, we're not digging into people's pockets. We're still getting things done for the town. I don't know if 135 is that detrimental a thing, but if you've got another number, I'd be happy to hear it.

So $135 discount on a season ticket is not, like I don't think it represents. I think if we based it upon a discussion and we went off a percentage for a town, it would be a number that would last forever. So us making the, like kind of laying the platform, if we based it off a percentage of the season pass, And so that for years to come, 30 years down the road, oh, the discount for Chesapeake Beach residents is X percentage. And the X percentage off the season tickets. And then if that's an additional 10% or 20% on Black Friday, however that works out to be, it's just... We're in a conversation about how people are going to look at this for years to come.

They're going to look at it like it was hell at first, and they're so happy that is where it is going to be now because it was way worse in 2024.

That definitely will be that way for a year or two, and then it will be complaints.

Well, I mean, can't please everybody.

But you can think about a percentage amount.

holds it for future years. Right now, we got 20% on Black Friday weekend. We will do a commercial with councilmen before telling everybody, make sure you buy them right now. Because if you think about COLA, you think about the raising the minimum wage, all these other things come into play. This is not the hill to die on in this moment, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you. Okay. Did you have something you wanted to share?

Yeah, I mean, Dan's getting beat up here, but I'm going to kind of, you know. make a few comments uh in support of what he's saying um you know if we're saying that 2024 was that the residents thought the prices were way too high in 2024 these prices are all higher uh well i mean not the daily price the single day prices are a couple bucks lower but the the um The season passes are higher. And I just want to say, just from a perspective standpoint, if you take just like some napkin math, there's 6,100 people in the last year. census that I've seen recently in Chesapeake Beach. And if you divide that by 2.5 people per house or whatever, you know, you have, what do you have? 2,500 tax bills. And if you take the cost of the park, 20 million and divide it by the 2,500, that's about $8,000 a house paying for the park. Um, so, you know, um, I, I, I, I understand what, like, like, uh, Jamie said, we had conversations about this. Um, and we had conversations about, you know, the option or potential of making the park free for residents. Um, But, you know, that would spread, that would obviously require, I don't think that we could make, I don't think we could fund this park. um, with attendance, maintenance and operation of the park through attendance from people outside of Chesapeake beach. So that would mean some type of transfer, um, from the general fund. And then, and then you're subsidizing it with more taxpayer dollars. I don't know what the answer is. Um, so to your point, I'm not telling, I'm not, I'm not coming, I'm not showing up saying this should be the number, but, um, You know, it's something we need to consider. And, you know, I just, I feel like that we should at least come out the gate with lower prices than 2024. Since that was, everyone was up in arms about how expensive it was then.

I think it's the daily rate. That's what people are calling it.

Well, that's out of town. The Chesapeake Beach residents, if they're complaining, they're... No, I don't think they were complaining about that. It was county residents that were complaining.

According to our sales manager.

I don't know. All I'm saying is that we do have the concept here of, you know, roughly $8,000 a household to build this thing. And so it's kind of a double whammy when they're paying for the park and then they're paying to go to the park. I'm not saying we can eliminate it completely, but I sure would like to see the price be lower than what I'm seeing here.

Would you think it's just for that Chesapeake Beach resident season family package?

Yeah, that's the particular number I think should be... We should try to target that at least for the inaugural season, you know, so we're not coming out the gate saying, hey, we're $100 more than we were last time it was open. I don't.

It's more so of an observation. It's not my role to agree or disagree. It's just an interesting fact that if you're basing it off of the money that's going in to repair the park, when you're looking on the administration side of it, is it like if you're brand new to town, you didn't contribute to that, so it doesn't apply to you? When you start to get into the weeds.

Right. Fair point. If someone moves tomorrow.

Yeah.

Right. I mean, there's lots of dynamics.

Yeah, absolutely.

We can make that, like, if someone's lived in town longer and they're like, no, I've lived here longer, make that person leave. You're really good at this. Yeah, whatever.

If you're here for more than 15 years, then maybe you get a legacy rate.

Front of line, front of line. All right. And I have a question for either one of you, but I believe that a significant amount of this increase is due to the increased cost of the minimum wage, is it not? I thought it was.

I mean, the cost, you mean the rates for the minimum wage? I mean, that's, in our budget, there's increases for what we have to pay out.

Right, that's what I'm saying. I mean, of course it all trickles into that, yes. I mean, I thought as we discussed that before that that was a significant portion of the, I mean, the minimum wage has gone up quite a bit. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head.

It's $15.

I'm sorry?

It will be $15. Yeah, I don't know if it is now, but it will be in 2027.

Yeah, go ahead. Salary costs have, you know, gone up considerably over the prior years, I mean, in fiscal year. 24 is $261,000, and here we are in 27, 28 is $561,000.

That's a lot.

That's a lot. I think that's where a lot of this is coming from.

We didn't change any positions.

Marilyn, you know, to be honest... In some of our conversations where we've discussed kind of the in the weeds part of run the park, I always think that us trying to define this and limit that from you having a variable, I would almost like kind of a window or something like that for us versus it being in writing. Because as... get ready to open it might be like you know what this we need to have a certain sometimes it's a little more expensive like july 3rd i guarantee you one thing uh you're probably not going to be able to have enough occupancy and and that's sort of where we can if we gave a flexibility inside the structure is what you're referring to yes and we are definitely talking about that i'm talking to a lot of the point of sale place you know

At the World Water Park Convention, we learned that you can bring in 20% to 30% more in revenues just by using dynamic pricing. So it's a very, very important issue that we need to work on.

And that's what I would want to come up with. She's been there for so long. One of the key items was kind of getting a thing and stuff like that. So I don't know if...

It says on here that these rates are used for the budget, but they are subject to change.

There we go. I'll just say real quick. I'm in alignment with... Me and Eric had talked to this, I think, for a long, long text right on this, and... I agree. Like there is some nuances to we spent $20 million, it is taxpayer dollars, that you have to balance that with the budget stuff. So I still propose to us, it's up to us to determine what we're willing to absorb in operating costs that we have to figure out where to pull from somewhere else. I mean, I like the inaugural season being something. as well. I will say I'm not a fan of dynamic pricing. Wendy's tried that and it failed miserably because the price of a chicken sandwich went up to like $8 and people wouldn't pay it.

Which is why I don't think they allow it anymore at Duke.

I would just say that because I don't want residents to fluctuate. I think Lori brings up a really great point often about like we need consistency in messaging and it needs to be, it should not be, you use a word, there's a good word to use, but I don't know. For lack of better words, we need consistency in messaging and we can't be, I just don't agree with that.

Well, let me just give you an example. When it looks like it's going to rain, I mean, we have no one show up. And so if we discounted, at least we get some people. That's just an example.

That's a good example of how maybe down, not up.

Yes. Oh, of course.

I just, I just have two more questions that are different. Um, uh, what are they? Oh, um, okay. So you have season passes here as four passes. Um, So, well, I guess, how do you determine, do you do any type of verification as far as, I mean, how do we... What's a family, right?

Right. So this was actually implemented after I left. So... They said that it all worked out and they did it and they were from the same residence.

Yeah. How do you prove kids without IDs that they're from the same residence? I don't know.

I did ask that same question because we did not have it before. But they said that it worked out. The parents, of course, and then... Yeah, okay.

What about families of five? Then what happens?

You pay the extra... Season pass. The discounted one, if you could.

Okay, so you get the four pack by additional one.

Right.

All right, and then my other question is...

I think the best rate would be if you had six kids. Then you'd have eight.

Yeah, right. That only blocks all four.

I couldn't resist that. I'm sorry, Eric.

Um... All right. Well, so then my other question is, down at the bottom where it says note, the season passes will be discounted by 20% for Black Friday and will likely stay discontinued until the holidays are over. Yes. What does that mean?

Well, we kept them through the holidays.

Through... Through Christmas and Thanksgiving. Through Christmas. We didn't announce that. Through Thanksgiving, through Christmas. Through New Year. I just want to know what, I'm not holding you to this. What was the intention with this statement? Through Christmas?

Just to let you know that. It's not just that one day.

Okay, and it could potentially be through Christmas. Or through New Year's.

Holiday presents, Christmas presents, yes.

New Year's.

I mean, I think one year.

It depends on how. There's holidays all year round. We've changed it a couple times.

What are we drawing the line on the holidays? Do you have a Jesus at your... People refer to the holidays like that.

All right. Thanks. Laura, didn't you have something?

Yes. First, I agree with Eric that especially for the inaugural season, I don't have a problem with, well, for this whole fund, it is an amenity. I don't have a problem with the previous council had Suggested that it be qualified under something that wasn't an enterprise fund that was a little bit more Flexible that received revenue, but didn't necessarily have to be run exactly like an enterprise And I am supportive that concept We fund operations at Kellyn's field we just got you know how much that cost it costs a lot of money to do all those events and I Would say that the water park being a consistent and resource available to everybody every day of the summer to provide water recreation is more valuable. Not that anything going on at Kellens isn't valuable, but I think that it's a valuable resource for the town that is worth paying for and not requiring the enterprise concept to apply the way that it should apply to critical infrastructure. So I don't have a problem with, you know, augmenting. And I also agree with Eric's statement that for the inaugural season, I would love to see these prices reduced, particularly so that people will come and rekindle their love of the water park when they come. So I would be happy to see a price schedule with reduced costs And then I have a question are we paying anybody out of the water park fund? before the water park opens

We'll need to do training calls for lifeguards and things like that, yes.

Okay, so just the ramp up.

And then the director of the water park, whatever that title would be, that person would need to be hired on early in the fiscal year in order to start the planning so that we could open by May. Gotcha.

But currently there's nobody hired yet for that?

Correct.

Particular line item. Okay, that was my question about that. And then my last question is, again, on the theme of the I don't mind augmenting a little bit. I don't know how you decide on the capacity, but I think that capacity is very important to the residents and being comfortable in the park. And so operating at max capacity might not be ideal. I would...

Agreed.

Those are my comments.

Did you want to add anything to that, Marilyn, the capacity? Because I know we've talked about it at length.

Well, there's a lot of different capacities right now, but, I mean, the capacity we had before is definitely not going to happen. I mean, the one that we were allowed to have, which was 1,363 people, that's insane. We all know that. I think the numbers are fluctuating somewhere around 750, but we're going to have to see how much extra ground space we have, you know, to really get comfortable with what that figure should look like, I think. We were operating at around 550, which felt really good before. We got the prices just to where we were covering our expenses. You have to understand when you start to mess with the rates, then we push out the people that can come in from Attic County who are actually subsidizing. I mean, these rates, if you look at them, they're paying much more So there's a balance there. And I do feel, I just want to say in closing, that I feel very comfortable with these rates because Danielle, who was our sales manager for 10 years, feels real comfortable with them. And she's the one that, you know, we listened. I was there, of course, not the last three years. So she feels she and I worked on this together successfully. She feels very comfortable. We did lower it. The Water Park Committee, we lowered a couple of the rates after hearing their comments. So the Chesapeake Beach rates have been lowered. The Attic County ones were increased from what we originally did, which she felt comfortable with that one. So I just want you to take that into consideration.

Okay, yeah, I'm sure you definitely did your research. I have no doubt at all about that. Yeah, a neat inaugural... initiation price despite the research.

I think the problem with that is when you go to raise them, if you go to raise them afterwards, then everybody thinks they've gone up. I mean, that's just something to think about. You know, it's like, oh, they just raised them after the first year, so.

Maybe a coupon or something. Yeah. Yeah.

Anthony asked to speak next.

Go ahead. I think what would be helpful since we will be voting on this next week is that our council members can give you a number that they think is comparable to the ideas that they have because that way there can be motions made. We can hear what number you think it should be and we can vote on that because it shouldn't be you bring it to us and we say oh we don't like these numbers and then you go back and don't know what any of us are thinking in our mind.

Sure, if you want to send those through the treasurer.

Send it to the treasurer. What do you think the numbers may be? Bring it up so that we can be able to vote on it in the next meeting.

Thank you. And Jonathan, you were next.

Yeah, I just had some ideas trying to capture everybody's thoughts. Instead of... like changing the rates like Anthony's talking about because it's hard to get consensus on that. Maybe, I know you talked about offering a free after 4 p.m. for residents. That's something that you can give back to the Chesapeake Beach Residents. Free after 4 on Tuesdays or something like that. Yes. Something to give back.

We can do a resident day of the week. We can do something.

And maybe like a half price after a certain time on the weekdays for people from out of county that are budget and they want to come check out the park, but they can't afford the full price, maybe offer a half price for the last couple hours, like a sneak peek.

Yes, we had twilight rates, and I think we'd like to go back to those also, and that's not even in here yet.

Yeah, just some ideas to try to... kind of compromise, I guess.

And if you've got ideas like this, council members, I would encourage you to send them to Maryland.

Yeah, I think the Twilight thing is one of the, I guess it might not have been there the last year it was open, but that was like one of the things that people were like, that was the best, you know, because it was like a lot of people have to work. And I think that the majority of Who was gonna do water park for the day? They've gotten their water parking out. I like the idea of having Whatever the The occupancy allows for to be because there are certain days where the money is going to be made like it did not To not sell herself short on the options that are there to allow the flexibility to you to use your judgment inside of something that you've done for a long time um it's just we have to have just don't want to box in a thing so i guess my whole you should take away from me is that i'm I guess, and I guess with all of us, we're more recommending this is our framework, not as our refined, and we can revisit this in January when we're a little bit more... You're going to vote on it. We're going to vote on it.

You can revisit the prices, yeah.

It can be amended. All right. Right now, I want to get...

I want to make one comment, but you can go first.

One suggestion that I would make is this budget is balanced, right? So if you have suggestions on ways that you want to offer a discount, I would gently suggest that you figure out what that number would be supplemented from the general fund. I think that would be an easier way to look at it as a whole. Like if you're saying, oh, a 20% discount or coupon mailed out, well, that 20% multiplied by, you know, 2,500 accounts that we have, households, would be X dollar amount, right? And so then that way, I think it'll make it easier for people to conceptualize what your idea is and the impact of the idea on the general fund. Suggestion.

Are you talking about my idea? Good point.

Just looking at you because you're the last person to speak, but I know Lori, Councilwoman Blackwelder, made a comment about coupons, and I think that's a viable idea. And if that is something that you all want to move forward with, understanding the impact on the general fund, because the budget would be impacted by whatever discount you decided to give. So it just would be an idea so that everyone can conceptualize the impact of whatever discount is suggested if you all decide to move in that direction.

Did I hear you say that, or did I hear somebody say that the general fund is impacted anyways? Yes.

Yeah, currently over the season it's $79,000. Then back to the general fund for fiscal year 27, it's $176,000. So, you know, my question was going to be, am I going to get six different scenarios that you want me to put together before next Thursday and then tell you what that impact on the general fund is going to be? Okay. Maybe more than six. So whatever you're giving me, I'd like to try to get by this Friday. And then the impact, I will just calculate the impact on the revenue, and then I'll have general funds supplemented so that $176,000 will grow to something else.

Are we bringing the whole general fund back, or are we going to amend a line item in the general fund? for what's already accounted for?

That's a good question because the general fund already has, we've already approved the general fund budget at $176,000. So if you make the assumption that that's going to increase, then at some point after that, you would need to go back in and amend the general fund for that amount of the transfer.

Can you just say that... I'm for lowering these rates, but these rates are, from what I understand, this is not an exhibit on the fund. This is a worksheet that we use to calculate funds, and these are subject to change anyway. So if we pass the budget the way it is, and we can still change these, and then if the budget's not balanced at the end of the year, then we can do some type of budget amendment

I like that idea better than that.

That's probably the best way to do this. But I just want to say one other thing. The more I think about it, I don't like this family package thing. Because I know that the previous administration started it and you kind of followed suit. But we're giving a discount to a family of four that a family of three is not getting. I mean, what sense does that make? And we should just keep it as the individual season pass rate and multiply that by the number of people in the family.

I don't see any reason why we should... That is not going to affect the numbers either.

No, I mean, like I said, this rate thing, it's not part of this fund that we're talking about. This is a worksheet. I just wanted to give my opinion on that. I don't see why we would... Why we would give a discount to a family of four and not a family of three.

We could adjust the individual rate to make that work. You make the individual rate a quarter of the person rate. And then that takes care of it.

And then you just wipe out the family package. You don't need that. Just have an individual. You have three people, you buy three people. You have four people, you buy four people. And everybody pays the same amount in town. Everybody pays the same amount per person. It seems the most fair way to do it.

It might be easier to track it at the entrance, too. But do you have any thoughts on that? No.

Just that it would be helpful if they all buy them at the same time because otherwise they'll be coming back and asking for discounts. So if they buy them at the same time, yeah.

Okay. I think it's going to go with Eric's suggestion that we get the way it is, amend the rate sheet outside of the budget, and then we adjust the budget during the year based on whatever the final...

It sounds reasonable to me. I mean, does anybody have a problem with that? No.

I would just ask that we bring the rates... to council in advance of publishing them.

Yep, sounds good. Thank you, Marilyn. Can I follow up now? No.

Well, okay. So I wanted to follow up with what Samilia said, and it's respectfully, don't take it the wrong way, because I know everyone up there got elected. We wanted a Water Parkers campaign, but we've got staff recommendations of rates that are break-even, no maintenance, nothing. That's a break-even zero investment for 30 years that they've studied on. We haven't even demoed the old park, more or less built a new one, and we're already trying to discount the rate. So my suggestion, because I know what will happen in 15 years, what that park will look like. My suggestion is if you're going to suggest a discount, I agree your elected body do it, but in the same breath, how do you subsidize it? Because if you don't subsidize a discount, I'll tell you what that park's going to be in 15 years. I'm just telling you. I believe that's firsthand experience that you're sharing with us. And so we're going to make a tremendous capital investment. I'm going to do everything I can to learn from our old, I won't call them mistakes, things we're going to do different. And it's going to last longer, and it's going to be less maintenance, but guaranteed, if you don't maintain it, you've wasted everyone's taxpayer dollars. That's just my thought.

Thinking of that, that's what I was talking about with the discount for the season tickets being done ahead of time, and then when we go into general fund, we would know what it was discounted because people had already selected ahead of time that they wanted the season passes. So that's where maybe the discount is because you've made a decision that it's a water park year for you, and the discount – The season pass price is the season pass price. The pass price is the pass price. And you have until April or something to buy it. And then we can have that number on the general fund. That's what our discount is. And then we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Like, I think that could be the solution. Whatever. I mean, I'm sure this is going to be their first opinion about it.

Okay, Mr. Treasurer. So for next week meeting, what else do you need from me in order to make the motions? You need to approve the budget. Is this sheet here with the four changes I've suggested or that have been asked for sufficient? Or do you need something else?

And it will not come in the agenda packet with the rates.

Right. So these would be the adjustments that are needed from the budget that was originally introduced. So we would need a motion to make these changes, and then if that's approved, we would make another motion to approve the water park budget. So if we just provide this, and the budget that will be approved, is that sufficient for next week's meeting?

I would honestly say that it's the same thing we ran into with the general budget coming in knowing we're making amendments. We could just pass what we introduced and then again the same thing we make it a budget amendment a balanced budget amendment later in the year. Because we're going to have to do that anyway, no matter what. So why do we need to make these amendments now?

I think these costs we know for sure, based on our best guess estimate.

But we didn't know them when we introduced it. We have an introduction. I mean, I think we should pass a clean ordinance, in my opinion.

You know, one thing, and I'm actually playing with something coming up. And sort of what was discussed earlier is a resolution and whatever is sort of a commitment that we make, a commitment that we make so we could have a resolution maybe drafted ahead of this, that this is budgetary, and we as a council... Agree that we'll have something by X day. So We're passing the ordinance for there But we pass a resolution ahead of time that says this is our commitment to know that we need to do this And we'd have some sort of draft that does that I think that might sort of work with a few different things we have going on and

Procedurally, you know, I've always seen budgets. The ordinance that's introduced is never the one that gets final approved after you have six or eight budget meetings sometimes. So my recommendation would be make the changes that you know you need now so you have a viable budget so that, you know, during the year that is what everyone's working by and striving to achieve. You know, in the end, over the next year, things will change in every budget we pass. But I think we should start with what we believe is the best budget possible.

That makes sense to me. I agree. But could you just read off what you think the potential changes are? Because I think what it is is you've captured three things. If those three things, if somebody here wants to introduce that motion, they're going to need to make that motion next week. If they don't make the motion, then we'll do it.

Would it be okay if Marilyn got to sit down? Can she sit down?

Yeah. Yeah, so on the fourth sheet where it has the second draft of the budget and the changes made on the spreadsheet, at the bottom there's four different accounts, expense account, 5006925602010, administration, town of Chesapeake Beach, that's the administrative costs allocated to the water park, You'd be adding $28,112, and then for the payroll taxes and benefits associated with those employees, those are the three amounts under there. That totals $38,696, and that would be funded from additional general fund revenues shown at the top. And I could just write those four accounts out separately and include it in the package, too, to make it clear if that helps. I think it would.

Sorry, I want to be done with this. I just – this was introduced 30 days ago, and, you know, the budgets are the most important thing we do. We need a clean budget introduced and not have amendments coming from the staff before we even vote on it. I mean – I'm going to vote against this and vote to pass a clean bill. It was good 30 days ago. It's got to be good now. I mean, I just don't understand why we're not getting clean budgets up front.

I'll just... I've never seen that happen before, that budgets, the first budget that is introduced is never the budget that is.

Yeah, but it's for the council to make the amendments, not the treasurer between introduction and the vote.

It's not the treasurer doing it. I'm taking the information I've been giving from administrative staff, the elected officials here, and all of the budgets that have been approved, the general fund, the utility fund, all those changes. I didn't make those changes. They were asked for by the elected officials and other staff members. All right. And I put it in there so that we could have any – I apologize.

I appreciate it. But I still think that we should have a clean budget going in. Whoever put these in, I guess they should be the ones that bring these motions up. I really don't think that we should do these as a bulk amendment from the Council vice-president like we've done before if this is someone someone's amendment on that's an elected official Then then that motion should be made by that elected official if it's coming from staff, then it shouldn't be on here That's pretty much okay let them do their own work We square what we're to you in York.

Don't you almost it?

Yeah?

All right

Next week, if they make a motion, that's it. Okay.

Next, we have the utility fund budget discussion.

Well, there have been no changes since it's been introduced, so that's a good thing. With the exception of the exception of the RATE SCHEDULE SHEET, WHICH WAS BASED ON A QUESTION ASKED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLACKWELDER REGARDING THE SUBMETERS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOTES FROM THE THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE BUDGET, LET ME DRAFT THOSE HERE. The second page of the rate schedule, at the very bottom, it says submeters see Appendix E. And Council Member Blackwelder, you know, appropriately said, well, what does Appendix E show? Well, Appendix E is actually the application for a submeter that has nothing to do with rates.

And I think with Councilman Reinhart, that's what we can all track, because we remember Lori saying that. So when we're with the other stuff, it's like, where did this come from? I think that's where we were here. We were in a conversation. We knew that that came up. That makes sense to us. But like all the other stuff, maybe we kind of have sheets to follow along with budget items, I think, is... isn't one the best for our residents to be able to follow along to. And if we need to start budget season and do an introduction and then we do a work session and then we do a reintroduction, however it is, just so it's in the discussion here that we're able to track along to why things are being moved so much.

Okay.

So on the proposed change to that is highlighted in yellow that says, you know, in talking to Jay regarding the sub-meter costs and talking to Fran, you know, it could vary based on the size of meter that you need and how much work that you need to have done. So instead of putting an amount, we want to take out C Appendix E, which doesn't reflect any amounts at all anyway, and put a note in there that would say cost varies based on request to include application fee, meter costs, and inspection fees per the rate schedule. So it just refers them back to the rate schedule for their individual scenario as to which costs will apply to them because it will be different for each person. So other than that, that's the only change from the originally introduced budget for the utility fund. So if you want to, you could change that. If not, you could leave the rate schedule together and adopt the ordinances originally introduced.

So one thing that I've heard many times is in regards to our revenues and what allows for certain things. I think it's the language in our water and sewer manual doesn't reflect certain things that are being charged, such as the fixed fee. I know that with our rental license, where we were able to add a separate line item, having the revenues reflect exactly what allows for them to be charged, I think would eliminate a lot of conflicts. So if the revenues, I understand that's the tower site rental, right? There's a contract in place that allows for that. The water and sewer capital connections, that's... two lots that are trying to be built um but the the water usage charge we know what that is but the fixed fees right so the fixed fee having that reference what approves that item to be is the rate well so the the manual is what i continue to hear people object about is that the fixed fee, the definition of that is left up for interpretation. If there's a way that the language in the manual can match so that we don't have to, like, is it an Excel spreadsheet change? What is that, does anybody have any insight on that?

I could be wrong, because I'm not looking at it from the billing end of it for the manual, but I thought the manual referred to Appendix A as the rate sheet, like in the manual, see Appendix A, and under Appendix A is where it's captured. Now, if there's something different that speaks specifically to a flat rate, I have not read it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

I think he's talking about submenu. He's talking about the total revenue.

I agree. I agree. But the rate schedule within the manuals affords to the exhibit we have here, right? Don't make me put on my glasses. So isn't this Exhibit A? Yes. Right. So in the manual, doesn't it refer to Exhibit A? Water and sewer manual, Exhibit A is where you set the rates. I'm just trying to follow.

Exhibit A.

Correct. No, I was saying he's saying that there's no justification or definition of a flat rate, which is in the rates. Am I reading you right or no?

I'm repeating questions that are given to me. So questions and objections are raised, and then I'm repeating them. People in the public bring it so it's budgetary at time. I Got this is something that people have raised So this is that moment when I say hey, I asked a question. Here's our answer.

So I miss heard your question I thought you were specifically referring that there was no flat rate explained in this water and sewer manual But must have heard you wrong. So as an example there was a

with their revenues about the rental licenses, right? It was mixed in there with fees or something. We've expanded that definition and that resolves a valid complaint, a valid concern. I think the language inside of our budget doesn't reflect what our manual is, our manual definition. I think there's something to it. In the budgetary items, when we say revenues, we should be able to say, point to this, this is what defines that. Just like on a sewer tower rental, I could say, hey, show me the tower rental, and it'll show a contract for that amount. And then this fixed fee, point to this document and that document so everything should have a document associated like so when you make the revenue sheet is there a document that's associated with each one the rates is based off of projected usage and stuff like that the tower site rental is based off a contract for rental is it like that for all the other stuff well

Would having that knowledge help us definitively with what we have in front of us, or is that something that we need to look at?

Well, yeah, because you're asking me to vote on a revenue, no problem. I want to make sure that the revenue...

has an answer, right? So if it says Appendix A and that's what you refer back to as inside the water sewer manual for that particular question, does that answer it? Or is there something more in-depth?

That's not my question. You know what I mean? That's the logic of it, and I'm asking it. And so if somebody says it, I'm like, I asked a question. If you had another question, you should have asked another question. What's the actual question then? I'd ask it. Ask it again. So... inside of our revenues, right?

What specific revenue are you referring to?

The exhibit A, the water sewer, the water budget here, right? It says revenue.

And it has like the... About 12 different items.

Right. So as an example, the tower site rental, I'm pretty sure has a contract in place that you referenced, and that's where that number came from.

The tower and the cell phone companies.

Of course. Okay. The miscellaneous grants, we know where that's coming from. The sewer usage charge.

Based on the rate schedule, under Appendix A, based on the rates that are listed that were discussed a few months ago and suggested to be used for the budget for this year. So they are the rates that are at the top of page two of Appendix A. And then the penalties and interest charge if people pay their bills late. The water usage charge are in accordance with that same schedule at the top of second page of Appendix A. The processing fees are the bank charges that are charged for people paying by credit card. The water penalties and interest, again, are for late charges. Investment interest is for interest earned on monies that are collected from the utility fund that are invested until we need to expend them. The fixed fees are for the $50 and $100 water and sewer fixed fee charges.

So I think that's one, the fixed fee, having that group together, I think a definition of that is what has been brought up in many different, over the past few years. So this is my first budget season, so I guess other people had the chance to ask that question. This is my chance to ask that question. So the fixed fee, I know that we don't have the bay fee on here because that money doesn't come through us, but it's something we collect and we distribute it, right?

Yes.

Right. So it could be here and it could be an expense too, correct?

separate line item but it is accounted for in one of those line items?

So my recommendation would be is for the fixed fees for each one of them to have their own line item. I think that could actually resolve. I mean, I think, like I said with the rental thing, it's about a 10% improvement, and a 10% improvement resolves a lot of conflict. So I think it's just a little extra stuff. I'm not trying to burden you, but I think it really makes a lot of other complaints go away.

Well, that's first I've heard that, so I'll be glad to. Make those adjustments next time.

I'll call them constituent questions. Perfect. That's part of the constituent questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Sounds like a question. So I watched the county session today, and they have their water utility fund and their sewer utility fund separate. And so that makes a ton of sense to me because let me make sure I'm understanding our fund correctly. We're receiving into, we already passed the wastewater treatment plant fund, which is sewer. But we're receiving sewer revenues into our utility fund, which is water, correct? This $1 million... We're billing water and sewer revenues.

We're collecting water and sewer revenues in the utility fund, correct?

We're collecting both revenues in the utility fund. Right. Okay.

And so if you go down in the expenditure side of the budget, if you're looking on Exhibit A, and you go about two-thirds of the way down the expenditures, and you see it count 400-6900-6700. Yeah, I see those. EPF fixed capital costs and then variable capital costs. Those are the town of Chesapeake Beach's share of the treatment plant cost for the sewer side of things.

And we send them back to the sewer bill, to the sewer utility.

Treatment plant. Right. Yes. But we bill the residents through the revenue side here. So that's how our residents pay for the water and sewer.

Okay. Are our sewer charges comparable to sewer charges for the rest of the users of the sewer utility?

You're talking about the wastewater treatment? Yeah. They're exactly the same.

They're exactly the same.

Okay, so that is... We're just paying our share of it based on the capacity that we're authorized for under the treatment plan.

Okay, that's good. That means that that's a fair, balanced rate based on the use. So I'm glad to know that. It hasn't always been that way. That's why I said... Okay. And then I guess my... I'm very torn about this budget because we are charging more and we didn't do all of our capital improvements anyways. So there is a reserve in this fund for whoever, and I know Jamie, you took the lead on this. And so help me understand why there are tiers Why they stay under the $35,000 amount?

35,000 gallon.

35,000 gallon, yeah. Thank you. Can you just walk through the reasoning behind the tiers? Because as you know, I believe there should be a couple more tiers.

The tiers originally... Four tiers that only went up to 15,000. So as part of the conversation, it was how do we expand it to capture families? So it was actually your ask to go to 36,000 gallons. So we adjusted to that. What was not included was a tier above that because the number of users is... It's like less than 50 or 100 or something like that, and it's basically all businesses. So then it was like a targeted rate towards our businesses, and there was just conversation is that what was wanted and nobody pushed for it. You did, but nobody else pushed for it. But there was also conversations that the biggest user who would be the most impacted would be the water park because they use the most water. So that's why – I mean, you're more than welcome to make a motion to add that tier in here, but that's why I didn't do it.

What is the lift to add a tier? Add a tier. I'll have two questions. What is the lift to add tiers above the tiers that exist now? And then my second question would be, What is the revenue loss if we do not raise rates? I don't think that we did this. We put all the burden on families, none of the burden on high users who bring revenue in as a result of their water use. And these rates will continue to go up. That's just naturally what's going to happen. And so to have this set up, so that year-over-year the standard is that families who don't make money off of their utilities are burdened Yeah, disproportionate matter. I just think it's the wrong way to do it.

So I can answer your question. So first, I mean, if you want to change, you got to make a motion to change the table. Right. That's that's how you have to. Second, though, I would ask for clarity. And let me explain before you get you jump back in. But I would ask for clarity when you're saying rates are going exponentially up because. Again, so I will just read out just so it's on the record that everybody can hear it. So the current rate for zero to 3,000 is $3.27. The proposed rate in our current budget for zero to 6,000 gallons is $2.74. 3,001 to 9,000 gallons in the previous current rate is $3.34. The proposed for 6,001 gallons to 21,000 is $2.91. For the third tier, 21,000 to, or excuse me, for 9,001 to 15,000, the current is 342. The proposed is 21,000 to 36,000 gallons. That's $3.09. And then over that is $3.21. In the current, it's 349. When you look at the Sewer rates, the lowest rate for the sewers, I won't read them all out, the lowest rate is $9.07. That is more expensive than every tier with the exception of the highest tier over 36,000 gallons, which is $9.37. So the highest users, over 36,000 gallons, are paying more than anybody else. And all the other rates in comparison to what the rates currently are in the last physical budget, they have gone down. I genuinely don't understand the math that you're asking.

No, effectively, because we had the 20% discount in place, they have gone up.

No, no, no. They returned to the rates that were established. The rates have never changed. For 18 months, we provided a reduction, a discount that we determined while we were going through this process. And then the results of that was we removed the discount and we reduced the actual rates. So yes, when you remove the discount, your costs will go up. It would just be like if you had Xfinity or your cable provider gave you the first year for $99 a month, and then after the first year, it goes up to $150 a month because that's the actual cost. We did something similar. We provided a discount while we were doing the assessments. If you look at NUGEN's assessment, NUGEN's assessment was insane. And I don't knock NUGEN. They went off of what we provided them. But NUGEN had over $15,000 at $6 for water and over 15,000 gallons of sewer was almost $14 a gallon or every thousand. So we are significantly lower than that. So we've reduced the rates. But yes, we have removed the discount. And that was known. That wasn't a shocker.

So I'm glad that you said that because I recall you saying that you broke the model and I recall you campaigning with me saying you were about data-driven analysis.

Correct.

And I will continue to say we are still augmenting this fund with the general fund. We've got a half a million dollar investment in the general fund per se. I'm not sure what we did with salaries, but this fund will eventually need to be stabilized, and we will all have to be in it together. Not a couple tiers in the residential level. We're going to need a little bit more help from people who use a lot of water and make money off of their water. And it's not inappropriate to ask them. We treat businesses very well in this town. And I won't go down the list of the ways that we do that, but I don't think that it is too much to ask our businesses to accept a tier to help stabilize this fund so that we don't argue over every single capital improvement fund. I mean, it could either go up just like these four tiers did with different levels of use, which is probably the most appropriate. I think Alyssa did say you can have a commercial tier, but I don't know the legality behind that. If you can, I think it's appropriate to have one. That's just my thought. But as you say, I'm the only person that has pushed for this. You all have the people to pass this budget. I would be interested in going through the exercise to, if not now, going through it over the course of the year and remedying it. this situation.

So, I got just two quick notes. One, you are absolutely empowered to make a motion to, like, that is your legislative ability. You can make a, whether it gets passed or not, I'm one of six. I'm one. So, but if you want to tax Rod and Real Admirals and Traders and all the other businesses in town at a higher rate, you can pass or make a motion to insert Tier 5, but then you have to come and say it's Tier 5, It's above this range, and then you have to come in here and say, what are the rates? That's all you have to do.

She's saying commercial.

It could be called a Tier 5 commercial, whatever terminology. She acknowledged it doesn't matter what the terminology is. But the second piece is you're concerned that we're raising the rates, but we can add the saddle stuff back in. If we would have added the saddle stuff back in, we would have to adjust the rates to account for another half a million dollars, which absolutely... would drive the rates up, either fixed or variable, because we have to account for the other rates. So what I'm kind of stuck at is you're bashing the reduction from the current rates to a lower rate, but then you're frustrated that we haven't added half a million dollars in extra expense into there, which would inherently drive the rates up. So you're mad at me for making a recommendation. This is a recommendation. You are. You're annoyed, not mad. You're annoyed with me for making a recommendation to reduce the rates, but you're annoyed with us for not passing an ordinance that increased it by half. I'm genuinely not following the logic here.

No, I guess my rub is that in this process, we have done everything but ask very...

I'm not going to the rod and reel and asking them to pay more. That is not appropriate for us to do. That is not appropriate for me to go ask that.

It is appropriate to ask a high user to pay more. NewGen even came and said that to us.

We say commercial tiers is different than specific business tier because I don't think we're allowed to do specific business tier. I think we can do commercial tier. This would be a commercial tier. This... And there's different things that are like commercial. So it would be its own separate tier for commercial usage. We could have the fixed fees and the charge. All that would be commercial in itself. But then we're back to the drawing board on all this entire thing. I didn't think we agreed on that. I know we discussed it, but I thought because we can't selectively say – Like, this, this, and this have their own tier.

Well, we can say higher uses has their own tier. We can say that. This was, you know, somebody's project. I am disappointed that we continue to, A, not balance this enough, and, B, kid-gloved, who are have very high revenue streams and again I go down the list that's not necessary I think that we need to stabilize this fund it is the linchpin to every budget challenge that we will have going forward and it is appropriate to ask business partners to contribute, and this is the most obvious way that that could happen, and it is missed opportunity. So at some point, I would like to go through that exercise of using NUGEN's report, understanding reality without breaking the model, and understanding where we could ask a little bit more, because right now we're asking residents to go another year without a water park, to not have a sidewalk that was promised for 17 years.

Where are we asking residents? Wait, wait, wait. Anthony is next. Are you done, Laura? Almost.

We have lifecycle costs associated with the general fund that, to my knowledge, are not operationally accounted for or documented or anywhere on our radar. at this moment that will have to be paid for. So we have a lot of budget things we have to address, and I don't think it's too much to ask the businesses to say, we don't want to raise taxes on our residents, or we don't want to raise the water rate on our residents. You don't have a commercial property tax rate. You have a very low ANA rate. you know, quite a few perks to being a business in Chesapeake Beach. And I think the water is where they can help residents the most. And the water is where they can stabilize budgeting the most. And it is also probably the least impactful of all the things we could do.

Okay. Thank you. Anthony.

A question for the town administrator. For the new gen report, did all of the council members get that? Okay. So we've all had it. Did Dan get it as well?

I believe we did.

He's seen it. I did it to him.

Okay. So we've all had the new gen reports so we could look at the numbers that they've given out. And also in that report, they did list the highest users in Chesapeake Beach. And among that list with Rod and Rail was the Board of Education for the schools. There were some actual homes in Richfield Station that were high on that list. And there's a couple of other places and the water park wasn't even thought of yet. So if we are looking at asking... or putting in for more money, not only would the taxpayers be paying more because of the water park, but then you'll also be going after the Board of Education, and then you'll also be going after some homes if this isn't thought through and done out the right way. But now that we're at... a week before passing this utility fund. And there is nothing that's definitively in our face to show the impact of what these different monetary changes would be. It's kind of like We're going in circles. But it needs to be understood that we've had the information that it's not just one entity that's the biggest user, and we will end up becoming one of those big users. Yes, the tea shop, Abner's, Trader's, all these other places use water. All these other places could be affected. We can't make one target and then get shrapnel on everybody else and then shrug our arms and walk away because that's still hurting the town. But with that being said, I am open for any actual discussion, any motion in front of me. I don't want to go through another work session next week because people ain't do their homework between the day and next Thursday.

No, I can...

I'm finished. I'm finished.

Like, I can... I'll tell you, the 36,000 gallons, that came, like... I'm pretty sure that I remember putting the 36,000 gallons because there was... Like, it was... Like, that's where, when I went through the bill where you can see which one's commercial and which one's residential, it was like, that captured the residents. That's where the $36,000 came from. $36,000 came from Lori.

Jamie just said it. You might have validated it.

Yeah, yeah. But I remember there was, like, that's where I think the max residential user was at 36,000. And I think we really did a lot of work on this. Like, if we want to do something next year, we could, but I think, I don't know, I kind of thought we'd, I don't know, I thought we'd kind of, I mean, there's things that I think we should address, but I think that we should address it this coming year. I think we all did pretty good on this. I thought we were... I thought we did pretty good on it.

Thank you. Go ahead, Eric.

Just real quick. If I could, I think I know where this is going to go, but I'm going to ask anyway before I do the math, see if I can get a show of hands. i would be more than willing to do the math and put a motion forward to eliminate the fixed fee and to eliminate all tiers is anyone interested in that raise your hand Okay, I won't do the math.

Well, I think we have the trouble. We did that. We did that. We did that system. Didn't we do the math on it?

I've done the math before. You did the math on it. There's not sentiment.

Agreed.

Or anyone else. Motioning. Next.

OK, any any other comments on this before we move on?

Yeah, I just I kind of want to echo Dan's comment that at this point in the game, I don't think we should be trying to reinvent the wheel. I think we should let all this work that we did play it out for a year or two and see how it goes. And then if we need to make adjustments, we'll do it at that time.

Thank you for that comment. All right, let's move on. It is time for the municipal compensation study. If you would take that.

You guys should have in front of you the outline for the initiative. So I took the feedback that I got for the past council meeting conversation, as well as some other conversations, and put together a generalized outline of what the initiative would be striving to do so that we could address the questions that were coming up regarding compensation and classification with the ultimate goal of having a clear pay scale for town hall staff and for the full staff in general. excluding the treatment plant because they are already operating on their scale, which is informed by outside entities. So this work typically is done by consultants, so I just want to lead with that. But the goal or the proposed initiative is for Dan, myself, and the town attorney to inform this based on the key deliverables that have been outlined in the table here. With the target outcome to develop a formal compensation and classification framework, including position classification, salary ranges, and or pay bands. Merit administration procedures which are already in the merit administrative administrative procedures are already in place It's within our code, but just making sure that it's clear for all council members how that is informed so if you all choose to Make amendments to it you can but it's already informed, so it's really just putting it in front of you for educational purposes so everyone's informed compensation policies also already outlined in our code, but it would be placed in front of you if there was a desire to make amendments that would be an opportunity for you to look into what you would like to do. And then receive any recommended ordinance or policy updates required for implementation. So as I said, a lot of this is already outlined. So if you want to make changes, you know exactly where in the code you would need to make changes. So that way we would still have a cohesive code instead of spot changing. So this has the key milestones, target dates. before you so you know what we're aiming to be able to deliver and when. If I would like to, if there's feedback or if there's something else that you would like for us to consider and or try to deliver to you, if you could let us know before we embark on this, primarily because I don't want to get to next year when we're giving you the final deliverable and then you say, well, you know. And then you have... thoughts that you would have liked us to approach things differently, right? Like it's fair, but I would really like to have you all partner with the staff to do this because ultimately the goal is to make it better across the board, easier to understand for council members, but also easier to understand for staff.

All right. Just real quick, thank you for this. This is very clear. It's well mapped out. And I like what's in front of us. So thank you. Thanks, Eric.

And my thinking behind this, you know, is that – I guess a little about me is I'm a third-generation union electrician. So I have an agreement that I have that I operate from. My dad operated from it. My grandfather operated from it. Sometimes the protections that are there for me as an employee – I think maybe we can provide some of them protections for the employees of this town, just not only the town staff, the public works and the water park employees. And I just think there's some things that could use a sort of a clarification and just a adjustment for and I think it's more so not from what's happening right now but I believe it's part of the role of the town council to do and I think that You have to challenge yourself to actually work through sort of the items that sort of overview for the employment and the work staff and things like that, that you're like, oh, man, I think we might not have accounted for certain things. And so that's the idea from it. I appreciate you guys looking into it. I just think it's time.

Thank you for that comment. Does anybody else have anything they want to add before we adjourn?

At the Dragon Boat Race this weekend? Dragon Boat Race is Saturday.

Hopefully we can bring it back. It'd be good to bring it back. It never left. It's right here.

At least me. Savannah. Josh Dennett, maybe. Yeah, just me.

I'll be going in circles. Well, I can assure you I'm not paddling.

We already won the mayor's cup, so we don't have to worry about that. Well, you know, just leave it here. Leave it here.

Yeah. All right. Is there a motion for adjournment? Motion to adjourn. Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you all very much for being here. Those of you in attendance, I appreciate that. And have a good evening.