City Council - Regular Meeting

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

A special meeting of the Annapolis City Council on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 will be called to order at 7 p.m. At this time, we will have a moment of silence. Thank you. At this time, would everybody willing and able please stand for our Pledge of Allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam City Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Yes, sir. Mayor Littman. Alderman Huntley.

Present.

Alderman O'Neill. Present. Alderman Smith-Brown. Alderman Alston Johnson. Present. Alderman Shannon Meyer. Present. Alderman McContee. Present. Alderman Savage.

Present.

Alderman Thorpe.

Present. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the first item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda.

At this time, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended to remove ID 13026, which is a proclamation for Pride Month 2026 from tonight's agenda as their officials are unable to make it, and we will reschedule that for June 8th. So moved. Thank you, Alderman O'Neill. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

Next item on the agenda is a ceremonial items beginning with ID 12926, a proclamation for National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

I will read the proclamation. Whereas, every day more than 120 Americans are killed by gun violence and more than 200 are shot and wounded, and on average there are nearly 17,000 gun homicides every year. And whereas, municipalities across the nation, including Annapolis, are working to end the senseless gun violence with evidence-based solutions. And whereas, protecting the public is among a mayor's highest responsibilities. And whereas, support for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens goes together with local leadership, keeping firearms away from lawbreakers. And whereas, Hydea Pendleton was born on June 2nd, 1997. And in January 2013, she was tragically shot and killed at the age of 15. And whereas, Hadiya's friends honor her by wearing orange, the color hunters wear to protect themselves from guns, and a color that symbolizes the value of human life. And whereas, anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange in June to help raise awareness about gun violence. Now therefore, I, Jared Litman, Mayor of the City of Annapolis, Maryland, do hereby proclaim June 5th, 2026 as National Gun Violence Awareness Day in the City of Annapolis. Signed, Jared Litman, Mayor. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda.

is petitions, reports, and communications, beginning with an update from the mayor's office.

Good evening. I'm Acting Mayor Frank Thorpe, sitting in while Mayor Lipman is out of town for a once-in-a-lifetime family opportunity. He has stayed engaged as we have communicated every day, and he will return later this evening. A quick note on the cancellation of the city's Memorial Day parade yesterday. For the city, the heavy work of a parade happens before the actual event. So canceling is never an easy call. Because by the time we make that call, everyone is in place. The no parking signs are up. The police and fire have done their jobs. It's just a tough thing to tell the staff that we're doing it. It's a disappointment for all of us as much as it is for the public. I want to thank the Office of Emergency Management for their vigilance in guiding the staff through the process and the new city manager who dealt with the situation exceptionally well as residents would want and expect her to. Everyone remained focused on keeping the public safe, especially in a place where we don't have a lot of options for spectators to shelter in place. The next parade is June 20th for Juneteenth, which I'll talk about in a minute, and after that, July 4th for Independence Day. For the July 4th parade, there are still spaces available in the parade lineup. Please contact specialevents at annapolis.gov. As you may have heard, the City of Annapolis has reached a tentative settlement in two lawsuits related to public housing. The settlement terms, if approved by the federal court judge, include payment of $15 million to the plaintiffs. The city's excess insurance carrier will pay $5 million, and the remaining 10 million will come from city funds. It's important to note that this is not a finalized settlement, the details of which will be worked out among the attorneys before being presented to a U.S. District Court judge for final approval. Finalizing this agreement will allow the City, the Housing Authority, and the plaintiffs to move forward. The City's financial obligation in this case notwithstanding, our role is to ensure quality housing standards for all tenants in the City through our inspection process, whether those tenants are renting from the private, quasi-public, or public housing landlords. I want to acknowledge and thank our new city attorney, Tony Coopersmith, who so ably stepped into his new role and quickly rolled up his sleeves and get us a result right away. Thank you, Tony. The next item that I'd like to talk about is an opportunity for all poets and artists in Annapolis. The sixth edition of the Around Each Corner poetry book will be released in early autumn during Hispanic Heritage Month. The annual literary endeavor is a great opportunity for Annapolis youth to see their work in print. All young poets who live or study in Annapolis are encouraged to submit an original poem by August 17th. Additionally, the Office of Hispanic Community Services is holding a contest for the book's cover art. Young Latin artists are encouraged to submit an original piece by August 12th, and the winning creation will be the cover of the next book. Summer is a great time to get started on that artwork. All art submissions that comply with city guidelines will be displayed in the City Hall Latin Art Gallery during Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs from September 15th to October 15th. You can find more information and forms by searching the keyword youthpoetry at annapolis.gov. Set up the easel or get out your best poetry pen and start creating. There will be a series of events in Annapolis on Friday, June 19th and Saturday, June 20th to celebrate Juneteenth, America's second Independence Day. The first event is the City Recreation and Parks Department's Juneteenth concert, which will be held from 3 to 7 p.m. on June 19th. Come for food and live music at Cars Altonia Heritage Park and the Eleanor Moyer Park. Then on Saturday, June 20th, the Celebrate Annapolis Juneteenth Corporation will hold its Juneteenth Parade, kicking off at noon at the intersection of Calvert Street and Bladen Street. Following the parade, their Juneteenth Festival will take place from 1 to 9 p.m. at the Bates Athletic Complex. This free event will feature live music, entertainment, vendors, and food. For more information, visit the annapolisjuneteenth.org. And lastly, I'd like to take a look forward at our next city council meeting on Monday, June 1st at 10 a.m. This will be an all-day meeting to iron out the final city budget for fiscal year 2027. We'll be voting on more than 120 amendments. The council and city staff have been hard at work on this budget, figuring out how to fund important city services while staying fiscally responsible. The Finance Committee, chaired by Alderman Huntley, with Alderwoman O'Neill and I as members, held nearly 20 Finance Committee hearings with City Department directors and managers and consultants, making sure that we had the information to work through these numbers responsibly. Outside of City Council Chambers, all of us have spent countless hours meeting with City staff and our constituents to figure out what priorities align in this spending plan. The proposed budget does not include a property tax increase. The City of Annapolis property tax rate remains the same. Annapolis residents and businesses may see some variations in enterprise fees with the fee schedule aligning with increases in costs for water and sewer, refuse collection, and stormwater fees. Thank you to the mayor and the city staff for an outstanding budget submission and to my fellow council members for your hard work. It's been a long process, but it's been an important one. Next Monday, all of that work will pay off as we begin to move our budget through the final legislative steps towards passage. So having said all of that, let's get on with tonight's meeting. Mr. City Attorney, will you please present the next agenda item?

The next item on the agenda is reports by committees.

Yes, Alderman Huntley. I'm still used to the old system.

This isn't exactly an update from the Finance Committee, because you guys know we haven't met, but I did just want to give a little bit more in-depth for everybody on where we are with the budget that, as you all know, on Friday, we sent out the list of spends. Everyone ranked them over the weekend. Aldo Romancanti, we did get yours incorporated. And I met with the City Manager and the Budget Team today to make sure we've collated all of those prioritizations they are going to sort of group them into a high medium and low and I anticipate we'll be able to get those back to everybody to understand all the spends tomorrow we were also working through finalizing all of the pay force and what the city staff recommend as in terms of where those should be prioritized with the mayor's office recommends terms where those should be prioritized and trying to get those into a order that makes sense as well so i think we hope to have that out ideally tomorrow but it might might take one more day so everybody should have hopefully everything they need by thursday

Hello, active Mayor Thorpe. The question I had is actually for the finance committee, if that's okay. I was gonna ask a question. So I know that we all sent our priorities or pay for orders. Will we in return receive how each person ranked it or are we just gonna get a general combination of everyone's?

Alderman Huntley. Yeah, I think the plan is just to give everybody back what everyone said. I'd have to think a little bit more on if I have any opposition to sharing everybody's. I think we didn't want you to see them before you put yours in so that everybody got to vote on their own merits. But I mean, I suppose technically how everybody voted is public record if we really wanted to get into it. So at this point, the plan is to just share with you the combined scores.

All right, and everyone's individuals as well. That's great. I would support that. to know what each person did as well.

That's not what I said the current plan is, but I'm hearing you that that is what you want.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Shannon Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Racking. Mayor Thorpe. As many of you know, the Economic Matters Committee is very proud of our Maritime Apprenticeship Program, and I do have some updates on that. The Seafarers Union has expressed interest in partnering with us on this program, and they have invited us in July to tour their school. We are working on getting a specific date, but I welcome any of my colleagues who are free to join us down in St. Mary's County to see their fantastic facility.

Thank you. Alderman Savage.

Thank you, Acting Mayor. I just want to give an update on the last Environmental Matters Committee meeting. I'll give you a brief update on the hybrid passenger ferry pilot project, because we did hear quite a bit of testimony. First of all, we heard a presentation from Deputy City Manager Guild, just giving the status of the project. And then we heard supporting testimony from Director Rosalind Johnson of Rec and Parks. Dee Strum of Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation, former Alderman Ross Arnett, and former Mayor Buckley. I want to be clear about why Environmental Matters has a particular stake in this ferry. And, you know, because the ferry is a really direct implementation of policy that the council and the prior councils have adopted. So first of all, a recommended action T1.77 of the Annapolis Ahead 2040 Comp Plan. It's part of the 100% Electric Mobility Plan and the CIP Project 40043. Integrated with our electric GEM e-carts and battery electric buses that we have already taken delivery of. It's also been a recommended action in our adopted Climate Action Plan, also called Community Action Plan, since 2010. It connects three projects that we have long championed as far as environmental resilience. You have the City Dock Resilience Project, Hawkins Cove Living Shoreline Restoration, and the Cars-Alctonia Beach Restoration. On the funding side, the 2.975 million federal grant is in place. The local match is covered by staff time, and the RFP is ready to be advertised pending the mayor's authorization. On timing, based on the committee's review and subsequent discussions with staff, It's understood that the RFP must be released no later than this fall, not next year, to keep the project on a viable timeline for the October, 2027 federal encumbrance deadline. So that window's closer than it looks. And the committee spoke about and generally supported a parallel track path, which is releasing the RFP alongside an operator-focused request for information and a community survey so real operating cost numbers could form the operating decision before any kind of binding agreement is made. I have circulated a full report to all of you over email. Happy to have a conversation any time about this. Our next meeting is going to be June 11th at 3 p.m. I don't quite know, I don't know what's gonna be on the agenda right now, but I'll update at the next meeting.

Anyone else? Okay, Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next agenda item?

The next item on the agenda is comments by the general public.

Thank you, so during the comments from the public, the public may not speak on any item that is scheduled for a public hearing this evening. So if you have anything that you want to present on those topics, please hold off till we get to that point. So for the public hearing, we have one person signed up, Allison Webster Giddings. So if you take the podium, please.

Good evening. I'm Allison Webster Giddings. I live on Moss Haven Court in Annapolis. First, I'd like to thank everyone here, both the Council and the staff in general for your service and more specifically for this evening. I just wanted to mention two things. One was on the hydroelectric ferry. My professional background is in system design. And so both in the Navy and now in higher education, I focus on acquisition design support and lifetime support disposal of systems. So as I have read and understand the ideas of the ferry, I challenge you all to make sure that before you invest any money that is available to us, that we think about that life cycle, and that a business case is done before investment of any funds are made. Because oftentimes, my experience has been that the cost is not on the front end and the acquisition, the cost is on the life cycle and the disposition of the system. So I don't encourage the expenditure of any funds until after a business case is done. So that's just point one. Point two, I really appreciate the street end work that you guys are doing in making the waterway accessible to everybody in Eastport. I know that there are 16 street ends that are being worked on. That's a lot of work. And coming years, I'd ask you to consider Mosshaven, which I don't believe is on the current list. But Moss Haven historically has actually been the place that allowed for all of the produce from Hills Mirror to be then loaded onto ferries and then brought over to the city of Annapolis. So as a street end, I think we should take a look at it in the future and make that accessible as well. Thanks very much.

Is there anyone else present who would like to speak? If so, please come forward.

Good evening. I'm Lori Sullivan, 25 Wagner Street, and I'm here to speak on O-1126, the Long-Term Room Rentals and Private Home Bill. And I want to be clear that I'm not here to oppose it, at least not in its current form. The legislation hasn't been shaped enough for residents to fully even understand what its eventual implications will be. But I did want to say that I'm disappointed that this council appears not to have learned the lesson from last year's debates over ADUs and duplexes and short-term rentals. Residents pushed back then, not simply because of the individual policies themselves, but because these proposals were introduced piecemeal, one by one, without coordinated vision for how housing policy should evolve across the city as a whole. Once again, we're seeing a potentially significant housing change introduced in isolation rather than as a part of a transparent, holistic planning process that first asks, what kinds of housing does Annapolis actually need? Where can additional density realistically be accommodated? what neighborhoods are appropriate for various housing models, and what infrastructure, parking, traffic, and quality of life impacts should be considered first. So these are citywide questions, and they should not be answered through disconnected one-off ordinances. Most importantly, residents should be involved before policies are drafted and not after the fact when legislation's already moving forward. Whether the issue is duplexes, ADUs, non-owner-occupied short-term rentals, or now the rooming house bill, the public increasingly feels that major long-term changes to neighborhood character are being pursued through incremental legislation without first engaging residents in a meaningful democratic process. That's not collaborative planning. It feels like top-down governance. The Council should also remember that the current moratorium on non-owner occupied short-term rentals is already underway, and this creates a unique and valuable window of time for the City to step back and thoughtfully evaluate all housing options together before the moratorium expires. Rather than rushing individual proposals forward independently, this period should be used to wisely engage residents directly in determining which housing solutions are appropriate and in which parts of the City they may make the most sense. A comprehensive housing strategy would allow the City to evaluate these issues together, weigh trade-offs openly, and build public confidence that decisions are being made thoughtfully rather than reactively. Residents are far more likely to support change when they understand how individual proposals fit into a broader long-term vision for Annapolis. Right now, many people feel that they're being asked to evaluate major policy shifts. Can you wrap up, please? I'm sorry? Can you wrap up, please? Sure, one ordinance at a time. And it creates confusion. and frustration and distrust. And if we would just change that to a more holistic approach, then I think you would get a lot more people willing to make the changes that we all think we need. I just want to point out that in other places that have already enacted similar legislation, they have required that an owner be an occupant on the property at all times. So to the extent that you are weighing this legislation, I'd ask that you make consideration for a more holistic approach and look at other cities. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else for general comments? Not seeing a rush to the podium, we will consider general comments closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you present the next item, please?

The next item on the agenda is the City Council Discussion ID 123-26, Advisory Boards and Commissions, Governance Modernization.

Thank you. I would like to invite the Community Engagement Strategist, Ms. Richards, to the table and turn the mic over to you.

Thank you, Acting Mayor Thorpe and Alders for giving me this time to walk you through the boards and commissions and committees governance modernization recommendations. So we currently have 26 boards, commissions, or committees right now, a very large number, both to administer and a large number of citizens contributing their time and their talent to extending the capability of city government. That represents about 200 seats, more than 200 seats. And you can see almost 50% of those seats are either currently vacant or soon to be expiring. We currently have at least six that are not meeting for lack of a quorum or potentially a chair. spend about 8,300 hours of both our civic volunteer time as well as staff time to operate boards and commissions. So that includes meeting prep time, time to do minutes, City of Annapolis TV streaming time, the coordinator's time, who's reviewing the applications that are coming in and sending those to the appropriate people to vet candidates. doing the listings, making sure that the agendas get posted, and so on. In addition to that, it's your time and the mayor's time and the clerk's time processing appointments and getting folks into their seats. So by modernizing boards and commissions, what we would hope is that we can improve efficiency, strengthen accountability, reduce the burden on staff, and increase the impact of our boards and commissions. When a board or commission can't meet because they don't have a quorum, they can't contribute. And I'm sure that's frustrating for the volunteers who want to meet and make a contribution. And obviously, it's not effective. So right now we have a lot of boards that are made up with members that haven't, although terms may have expired, they haven't been replaced. So they're allowed to continue on. So I think boards and commissions would also benefit from turnover by getting new people involved. So it's a way for us to get more diversity into boards and commissions, which is one of the things I hear a lot is we should have more diverse boards and commissions. Right now, most of the applications that we process are coming from three wards. So by improving the process, even if we shrink the number of people on a board, we can create a more inclusive and diverse community of board members by consistently following term limits and enforcing them. We can also simplify and create more efficiency through standardization. And I have worked with our legal department to create standardized bylaw templates. Right now, the advisory boards don't have bylaws. So that's one way of getting some standardization and also a way to implement structure is to implement those, so we're recommending that, as well as templates for minutes and agendas to simplify those processes and make them more uniform in appearance for posting on the website, as well as annual reports. We have also worked to identify appropriate terms of use of AI for minutes for those boards to streamline that process for the advisory boards. You may already be aware, but we have been doing staff liaison and chair trainings for the board chairs. We've had two chair trainings and our second staff liaison trainings tomorrow. Really going through and empowering them to know how to enforce the different rules that are written into the code and just run an effective meeting and be in compliance with our code. Another thing that we're recommending for the advisory boards is it's been noted that some meetings are unnecessarily long. So using a standard time of 90 minutes and holding boards accountable for ending on time and respecting the use of our resources like City of Annapolis TV. So I think beginning with advisory boards is like a great place to start because they all have the opportunity to be the same, whereas some of the quasi judicial have different code that apply and different. ways of operating, but I think all of our boards and commissions could use a look. So for the advisory boards, we're recommending we reduce the board size to five members, and that we look at consolidation with an eye to those that would make sense to roll together. One that would come to mind, for example, would be environmental and conservancy. They take similar skill sets and they would immediately have a quorum and that's a good example of what we're talking about. And we've already talked about code provisions like term limits being enforced. And then I think some things that are boards currently, like aging that aren't currently meeting, have an opportunity to become something like a working group where we can get them functioning. So we're getting that feedback, but it's not in necessarily a board format, which doesn't seem to be working for that particular one. Enforcement for efficiency. When a board member misses, and this is already written in the code, but three meetings in a row or four meetings in a year, that is grounds for removal, it's not currently happening. So part of this education process for board chairs and for staff liaisons is to be accountable for taking role and for enforcing those terms so that if you have a nonproductive board member, you are replacing them with a productive board member. Other options for consideration are using the remote meeting stream as the minutes for advisory boards. That meets the code standard. So all we have to do is say this is the way we want to proceed and create our trainings in that vein. And City of Annapolis TV would only support them for 90 minutes to discourage longer meetings. Obviously, if there's a meeting with decision business needing to be made and that business takes longer than 90 minutes, there's going to be exceptions. We're really talking about where there's no business decision, maybe we don't have a meeting that month. Just because we can meet every month doesn't mean we need to meet every month. We should meet when we have business to move forward. We have talked about most of this. We are recommending that 50% of the meetings be in person for advisory boards. If we're able to do that, that's again a 50% reduction of the use of City of Annapolis TV for those particular boards and commissions. And we also think face-to-face interaction helps these groups to have cohesion and civility and learn how to work with each other in a face-to-face way. And one of the things we've been training the staff liaisons and chairs on is if you are going to have a remote meeting, when people are speaking, they have to be on camera. And then lastly, quarterly management of all of everything that we've talked about. So coming into this office in December, it was kind of ad hoc. We had a lot of boards that needed help to get to be able to meet, basically, and make decisions. And so we were kind of putting through appointments on an as-needed basis. Because we don't have a dedicated staff person for this, Moving to quarterly management is going to really solve a lot of problems for a lot of folks. There'll be standard training, so orientation that can happen quarterly, taking the oath can happen quarterly. We can have an AM and a PM, and it's standing. So every quarter, it's the same time. So you always know if you're joining a board or commission, there are these two times. For folks doing the vetting, if that ends up that we agree that advisory committee members should go directly to Alders for interviewing, which is the current system that we have in place, those can only come to you on a quarterly basis. So you're not getting one up or two up. It's just one group and you know when to follow up on it. So I think the quarterly review is really gonna help us. But first getting all of the boards to a quorum is really important and then we can initiate that. Maximize staff liaison role. I think from what I learned, there were a lot of staff liaisons that weren't really sure what that meant. They had been told, you know, I'm the liaison to education, but I don't really know what that means. So we have educated them on how to use Civic Plus to upload agendas, on the legal rules of governance, on how the code works, on best practices, and on board accountability. Another thing that we're hearing from the community and from residents is they'd really like transparency. They wanna know how the process works. They wanna know what the interview questions are and how people get appointed. So we wanna make sure that we're communicating and letting people know what the process is and how that works. So currently when there's a vacancy, It's hard to know when there's a vacancy. If you go to the boards and commissions pages, you see a list of all the boards and commissions and you can put an application in, but you don't really know. So what I think we can do immediately without like a website overhaul, which that will also happen, but is that we can provide the quarterly update to you and you all can put it in your newsletters. Here's all the vacancies this quarter. If we all do that quarterly, it's in the mayor's newsletter, it's in your newsletters, we're gonna be talking about it an awful lot. So I think that's one way the outreach can happen to make it more transparent. And the application review process itself, what are the questions? We can easily put those on the website. I've sent you all an example that, you know, we can talk about at some point, get your feedback on what those questions are. Those were questions that we adopted from the AIPPC process that worked really well for our interviewing and hopefully will work for you. But this is pretty self-explanatory. From vacancy, we do outreach, we take applications, we review the applications, we send them to the alder of the ward they live in. When the recommendation is made by the alder, it will go to the mayor, and then it goes back to the council for appointment. at which point the mayor's office will schedule the swearing in. We will give them the two orientation dates for that quarter for them to get oriented, and they'll attend their first board meeting. So what are the next steps? Everyone has this presentation. I would like to follow it up with a list of my recommendations in terms of consolidation and have discussions either one-on-one or four-on-four about those. The Office of Law is all ready. They have some draft code amendments based on everyone's support for moving forward in this way. And we can draft the ordinances and amendments for you all to vote on. We've already done the chair and staff liaison trainings, but any updates that they need to have on these changes. We'll document all of those standard operating procedures if we're gonna move forward in this way, and then we can get started on having a dedicated person getting trained in the software and administrating the system. And obviously this is gonna take continuous care, upkeep and maintenance to keep it going. So I want to thank you all for your time, and I'll open it up for questions. I'm sure you have some.

Thank you. Any questions from the council? Alderman Huntley.

Oh, thank you. First of all, thank you. Overall, love this effort. Really excited about it. Think it'll make us a lot more efficient. I'm gonna not give you opinions. I will send those to you in an email. But I do have a couple questions that I wonder if maybe others have too. Is part of this effort trying to standardize the naming between boards versus commissions? Is that something you guys have considered at this point?

I would definitely consider it. No, we have not been looking at names. We're really looking at function and trying to make this system more functional.

Function, definitely more important. I just told you I wouldn't give you my opinion. But... So we have a couple pieces of legislation before us right now for making elections board bigger, human relations committee smaller. I'm not necessarily asking for a whole list, but like philosophically, how are you thinking about the size of, what the size should be of the committees to make sure, obviously we don't want it too big, but we also don't want it too small either.

I think five is a real sweet spot. And if we could keep it to five, I think it would be advantageous for a lot of the reasons that I just said.

Thank you. I think my last question was just, you mentioned about having people being on camera. Is that a legal concern or it's just a sort of preference thing?

Well, it is, I mean, so you can identify someone if you're only hearing a voice and I think it's common courtesy, but I think also in terms of the record, we need to see their face or at the very least when they're, you know, voice comes on, they need to identify themselves and who they are. But ideally, when Annapolis TV sets the meeting up, they're always in the meeting 30 minutes early to make sure that they can allow people to enter and all those things. At the very least, the person should have their camera on, introduce themselves to Annapolis TV, identify themselves when they speak. Ideally, I would hope people wouldn't have their camera off if they're gonna be in a meeting. That's more of a good housekeeping, good board participation.

That was all, thank you.

Alderman Savage.

Mr. Acting Mayor, I am gonna give you some opinion, but some of it anyway, I can certainly happen to meet. But to start off, I also definitely agree that this is long overdue as far as taking a strong look at some of our boards and commissions and overhauling a lot of the processes involved. And just to say where I'm coming from, nearly 20 years ago now, when I worked for the city, as a staff person i was liaison to two different boards the environmental commission and the conservancy board so i do bring a lot of kind of detailed knowledge to that personal knowledge to that so first question is just are we going to have a work session on this instead of meeting with us separately i'd encourage you to do that i think some of the boards in particular i think we are going to have probably have some group dialogue on. Some of them are probably not, but I think of at least a handful that may benefit from a collective conversation. And I think it's good to do all that public when we can. So have you thought about getting something scheduled?

I definitely have. I wanted this to be a work session. That would have been great. You all were a little bit tied up. So I haven't been able to get a work session scheduled. And this is really timely. As you saw, as I put up there, we have about half of our boards and commissions about to be vacant. I don't want that on my watch. So this is a little bit of I'm covering my bases here because as of July 1, our boards and commissions are going to be in a world of hurt if we don't take some action. So trying to be expedient, I put myself in this position rather than wait for you all to have an open time for a work session. More than happy to have a work session on this. And I agree. I know people have strong feelings about this.

you know whatever the council thinks is best i'm i'm here to serve um and as far as so there are a couple things like as far as the um the membership numbers i think there are some bodies i'd encourage you to take more of like has a nuanced approach and as opposed to one size fits all i think there are some bodies and boards that have been set up to get a greater diversity and number of opinions than some of the others and i think that has to do with in some cases their their actual missions um you know and so If for example, Maritime Advisory Board has very specific about who should be on that body. Human Relations Commission, I think the idea behind having that be larger numbers to bring again, a diversity from the different wards. So yeah, as opposed to just having five is the cap, right? So some other things would be Just a quick on some of the proposals to consolidate boards. I'd like to talk with you more about the environmental ones, because again, having been on both of the Environmental Commission and the Conservancy Board, very different missions. And when the Environmental Commission is functioning well and is fully staffed, which it has been, many years they have packed agendas and they're doing quite a bit of work and i also know how much work is should be done on the conservancy board but there is also a parallel conversation that we've been approached by the senior rivers land trust about partnering with us to improve the conservancy board and work with us on those functions so just as an example of I'd like to chat more about, because I do have some concerns about merging those bodies in particular.

So you're aware I did speak with Dylan, who is the staff liaison to those boards and commissions. I believe he spoke with both of them, and there seemed to be support there for that. And it's interesting, because both of the ones that you mentioned, also Human Relations Commission, those are two that haven't been able to meet because they don't have a quorum. So...

Well, that's another comment. As far as the quorums, I don't really understand why we have quorums on some of these advisory boards. All they do, again, it's just as the name implies, they're advisory, they're just recommendations. I think it's more important to have quorums on the quasi-judicial boards, like the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, Port Wardens, Civil Service Board, those ones that actually do the quasi-judicial duties.

Right now is the code is written. That's my understanding. That is how the code is written.

Yeah, and you're proposing changes, so I would encourage you to take a look at that because I do think... And then, oh yeah, I wanted to ask, have you reached out to the boards and commissions themselves yet to get their feedback?

I don't think I need to do that until we know we're making changes. So once you all agree that this is a way we should move forward, that would be my first stop.

I think it'd be better to reach out to them first. Because some of them, especially, again, Maritime Advisory Board off the top of my head, that chair has been on there for a long time, has a lot of institutional knowledge. So not just him, but the other bodies.

So all of the chairs that came to the chair training that were all encouraged to participate, we had several slides in the presentation that talked about modernization and not specifically how many or anything like that, but alluded to the fact that we were looking at changes to improve efficiency. And I felt like we had a lot of support in the room.

As far as chair term limits, I think having rotations of the chair is good. I hope we're not thinking about having limits as far as rotating people off the boards and commissions.

So right now the way it works is you can be a chair for a certain number of years, you can serve two terms, then you would roll off for at least one term, then you can run again if you want to continue to be on there. And there's terms for the chairs as well. So if you have your, whatever, is in the code or what we agree upon for the advisory boards, whether it's two terms or three terms, once you serve that, you would roll off, give someone else an opportunity. And again, this is how we get that diversity. It's not just by having more board members, but it's allowing access to more people.

Rolling off the body entirely or just out of the chair position?

rolling off when after a certain number of terms you roll off and someone else gets to have that opportunity to serve the body and after a term off if you want to reapply and go back through the process you can do that

yeah i mean i think that throws the baby out of the bathwater i mean i know we've had some problem chairs over the years but some of them have been very effective bring a lot of institutional knowledge i personally believe it's benefit to have new members and and ones who've been on there a long time for that blend but i think the great idea to rotate the chairs off but we have a difficult time recruiting as you've just mentioned and i think to have them rotate off is going to make that even more and then are the people actually gonna wanna get back on? It's just, I'm not very supportive of that at the moment.

I do think there's another way to look at it, too, which is that when people go into kind of something that feels like a closed system where it's just the same people and people have been there for years and years, they almost feel like it's their board. And so then somebody new goes in there with new energy and they're all excited and they want to make a change, but they're met with this wall of uncertainty. you know, what's been there for a long time. So I think part of getting people excited to serve the city and to give their talent is giving them an opportunity to be that change maker and have their ideas heard. And part of that we can accomplish through training of what good board leadership looks like and how to give everybody a voice and equal time and all those kinds of things. But I think part of it looks like new participants.

Alderman Savage, before we get into too much of a work session, can I go to a couple other people? Oh, sure, yeah. Thank you. Alderman O'Neill.

Thank you. I was actually going to say very much what you said as far as new blood coming in. I've actually heard from several people who have come on boards, served their term and left because they didn't feel like they had a voice because of the long-term servitude of the people that were on those boards for terms and terms, years and years and years. We've got people that have been on boards for 20 years. So I do believe that we would have more participation if we opened it up to a broader number of people. One of the questions that I have, and you and I have spoken offline about it, is limiting it to five, but possibly having an at-large service where it's somebody who would benefit that board that maybe doesn't live within the city lines. And a case in point is the Recreation Board. I have four people that live in Bay Ridge that would love to be a part of it, who send their children to camp at Moer, and would love to have a say in what's going on in our Parks and Rec Commission, but haven't been able to do that because they don't live within the city line. So I would urge us to take a look at, if we're going to limit to five members, possibly looking at an at-large opportunity for one or two people that live outside the city.

I agree with you, Alderman, Alderwoman O'Neill, and I also think there's a second side of that, which is many of our boards and commissions would benefit from legal expertise, like having an attorney on that board or commission, and some skill sets are harder than others to acquire within the city limits. I think if you have an at-large who has an interest in Annapolis, they own a business here, maybe they have a property here, maybe they're from here originally and they're still in Anne Arundel County, that it would be worth looking at those at-large members to gain expertise that maybe isn't accessible to us within city limits. So I'd be open to that idea. Thank you.

Alderman Smith-Brown.

yes um thank you alora i mean all the work that you're doing this just shows the importance of funding the position that you are sitting in appreciate all the conversation we've had and a part of that is coming forth to us and also we've talked about a work session so i highly do emphasize us still doing that now We don't have to go too, too much into opinions and all that. I know you talked about it, but there are some really important pieces here that we should probably acknowledge. The first to Alderman Savage's concern or point of limiting members to five members and also merging it with Alderwoman O'Neill's. I think for us to do five members, if we are to have outside persons, because this goes directly into the conversation with resiliency board that we talked about, the county updating legislation to expand the membership, but to allow for the county executive and the mayor to have the freedom to choose any person within the county to serve outside of certain limits, which I do not support. And if it were to be that case, they should not have any voting rights. I think that limiting to city residents for voting only, if we are to have advices coming from outside sources, would be my recommendation and something that I would support. Otherwise, I will not support that. Regarding the membership amount, I think five members is pretty decent. Also though, I think nine, I know we talked about five, seven, or nine being some of the average range, dropping it from the 15, which we currently have, for one of the larger boards. So I think that that reduction wouldn't be too severe if we did nine. As well as to the reduction of Annapolis City staff. Would that, the TV staff, would that cut costs for the TV staff as well? Would we save money? Will they no longer be in service so we're saving money?

So two things to answer your question. The Human Relations Commission is an outlier at 15. Most of the advisory boards already only have nine. So when I talk about open seats and all of that, that wouldn't be very impacted if we kept it at nine members, which is part of the reason for my recommendation of five. And regarding your question with City of Annapolis TV, yes. Currently, You know, if there is a meeting that is being streamed, it is Annapolis TV that is streaming that meeting. So if that meeting is for four hours, they're on there for four hours and we're paying for that. So some of my recommendations are for cost savings, but they're also for more strategic use of Annapolis TV. There's times when we're towards the end of the fiscal year that there are things that we cannot have them attend and film because the budget is used up. So it's my expectation that we would fully utilize the budget, but we might be able to be more strategic about how.

Okay. Now, for clarification, as was said by the Alderman, one size doesn't fit all. So even if there were nine members on one or two of the total boards, that would be completely fine, that being the max, not necessarily the uniformity of all of them being five or all of them being nine. So that's, I think, what the point was. Also, when we talked about the members and how many we would have serving and the diversity that's one point that i think we've talked heavily about and i appreciate you incorporating that so i think a part of the conversation with the code should be that no more than one person serving unless there are nine members on a board should come from the same ward so i do want to make sure that that's a part of the conversation seeing that if we had the Planning Commission and three members are from Ward 1 or Ward 2, which currently is the case, that's a huge problem, seeing that the interest of that specific ward would draw more attention than not.

I definitely understand your perspective, Alderman Smith-Brown. I think we should be careful by trying to dictate what wards they have to be from, and I think we should use language to encourage and support diverse ward representation. But we have many instances where we don't have applications from eight wards for a board or commission, and I think that's why our system that we have now currently isn't working, because we have eight seats and the assumption that we can find one candidate from every ward, and it's currently not happening. what I would like to see is after implementing our quarterly changes and updates and using newsletters and using our voices and our outreach abilities and our social media is to track how many applications we're getting from different wards and to make sure that the implementation of this process is accountable and and fair and adequately representing the words as much as possible in that process, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I think of all of them, though, maybe the Planning Commission would be the prime one that should resemble what I just said, which is not having the same membership coming from the same board. I think that of all of them, I think that's one of the prime ones that should be taken into account. Now, other ones we can discuss and figure that out. But this is going to be a long conversation. So the last question I had is what is our timeline of this? seeing that you mentioned that we have some vacancies coming up. Of course, we reviewed. Thank you for sending that list. And I saw some repetitive names, which we can talk about offline. But what is the timeline if we're to make this happen? What do you see?

To the repetitive names, those are people that applied to multiple boards. So they're listed as many times as the boards they applied to. You can check any that you're willing to serve. And so it makes some duplication. As far as the code change to the advisory boards and commissions with the number of members, I would love to see that change happen first. We have an Art in Public Places Commission we're trying to reestablish, and we're actively working on that. And we can't give offers and take the next steps until that code has gone through. I've drafted the code and sent it to legal. It's sitting there and it's awaiting this conversation and those next steps. And I'd rather not do it piecemeal because we do have 26 boards and commissions, and so it would be much more effective if we could address a large number of them at the same time versus just going one by one. I understand there are... There are the quasi-judicial ones, and there are a few outliers that you might want to deal with separately, and we can certainly work through that.

Okay, thank you. Alderman Savage. Maybe two more questions? Thank you.

A few more. So one of the things I do want to emphasize is that I think it's been helpful to have the nominees come before the committees. This isn't something we've always done, but we started to do it because we did have some people, for example, come to committee, go through the interview, which is really just pretty quick typically, but it turns out that wasn't what they ended up wanting to apply for. We've had some people not show up at committee because they, again, they didn't actually intend to submit for that particular body. And so it's kind of a way to weed out. We've also had an opportunity to identify, because some of the individuals, some of the boards, I should say, do have very specific qualifications for example, historic preservation commission, I think building board of appeals, very specific things that I think we need to make sure, because we have had things come before the council when that hasn't always been checked. And so it's just another kind of check and balance there. And so, yeah, I'll try to limit this. As far as the absences, I would also encourage some flexibility on that, because I know I was reviewing the document that you and Mr. Pfeiffer just sent out, and one of the Ward 7 applicants for, I think, Rec Advisory Board happens to be, I think, a military reservist or something along those lines. And so they may be absent. And so I think if we give flexibility to the chair, who's sufficiently trained by the liaison or staff, because there are exceptions, I think, too, they may have very good valid reasons for missing certain meetings. Oh, I'd also encourage you to look at some of the history with budgets. A lot more of these boards used to have budgets. Conservancy Board has requested one a few times over the years. I think Planning Commission, I don't know if they still do, but they've had budgets before. Obviously Arts in Public Places has a very large budget. But that again, we would gain, I think, I would encourage you to interview some of the chairs to see if there is, if they would benefit from getting some more money so we could work that into this legislation. And lastly, I would just- Oh, go ahead. One correction.

So Arts in Public Places is a recommender of funding, but they don't actually have a budget.

thank you last thing is just i'd encourage you to speak with the new hr director when they get confirmed i did mention to them already the idea of looking at taking a closer look at our civil service board and what kind of assist what kind of i guess representation we might want to give to the non-represented employees because that is one of their few appeal opportunities for grievances uh maybe something even the city manager's office may want to take a look at um so that that's all for today thank you thank you alderman savage alderman huntley yeah i'm sorry so this one is kind of an opinion but it's it's a problem that i'm i don't know what the solution is to so i just wanted to bring it up for you to think about

I think right now it's very, at best, awkward to say, I'm going to oppose a nominee when they get to the point of coming to the full council. If we're not really ever going to oppose people when they come before the full council, does it really make sense to have them come before the council for an appointment? I don't know if the solution to that is to just have them come before a board and committee. I think part of what you're doing by having them sort of vetted by the individual alder is a good idea. But I just, like I said, just bringing up a problem in hopes that we can all think about what the solution to that might be. Oh, I know, we'd have to change it, yeah.

Alderman Chanemeyer. Thank you, Acting Mayor Thorpe. This will be very quick. So I do want to echo my colleague Alderman Smith-Brown's concerns on finding better balance amongst the wards, especially for the quasi-judicial committees. Those have historically been dominated by the wealthier wards, and I think that is led to a lot of the social issues that we are seeing with the city. I understand hesitation to codify that due to potential consequences, but I'd love to talk offline on how we can encourage better balance on that front.

Alderman Smith-Brown.

Thank you, Alderman Shannon. The last point, actually, I'm glad I was able to recall this. There's such importance in the transition of power and people who have this institutional knowledge being willing to still serve in a capacity, which is handing off that wisdom to the next. And so when you mentioned trainings and we talk about new persons taking the lead on these boards, commissions, task forces, et cetera, I think a huge part of this, the component should be that if you've served all of these years, please don't leave us yet. Please remain here and you can serve as a mentor, ex-officio member if we want to incorporate that into the conversation, but it's only those who don't do that that I think we should question leadership and judgment.

Anyone else? right i'd like to speak as alderman for ward 8 rather than the acting mayor for a second and applaud you for your effort here it is clearly as we've heard tonight but as you've expressed earlier how important this is important work that is done by these volunteers I have received feedback from your training session and attended one of them, which I thought was never gonna end because of the enthusiastic discussion that you created and the feedback that you enthusiastically invited. And I think that's really important. And I think, again, speaking as an alderman, we got the right person doing this. So thank you very, very much for doing what you're doing. And thank you very much for being here tonight. Thank you. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is public hearings continued beginning with ordinance O-8-26, annual budget and appropriation and property tax levy.

Thank you, so if there's anyone present who would like to speak, please come forward at this time. We have a list with a couple names on it. The first name is Freda Wilde, and if I could ask the next person, Paul Rankin, to be ready right after that, we'll get started.

Okay, thank you. Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much. Freda Wildy, 403 Chesapeake Avenue in Eastport. I've been a resident there almost 30 years. I wish to speak about the diesel-electric hybrid ferry project. I have been a sailor and a boater for over 55 years, including 19 years as an offshore sailing coach at the U.S. Naval Academy. I think I know a little bit about boating. I'm on the second term of the Maritime Advisory Board. Although I'm not speaking for the board, I'm representing myself. But this ferry project started in the previous administration when tourists had priority over residents. No one ever asked residents if they wanted the city to spend taxpayer dollars to run a ferry of any kind for tourists competing against Watermark Cruises, who's been in business successfully for over 54 years. Sure, there may be some sort of FTA grant to cover some of the ferry expenses, but residents will end up paying for maintenance, infrastructure, and more. My esteemed Maritime Advisory Board colleagues know many issues with the diesel electric hybrid propulsion system, which is being touted as the latest and greatest by some city staff. The overall efficiency of a series hybrid system diesel engine with a generator inverter electric motor is only about 20 to 22% compared to the 35 to 40% efficiency of direct diesel propeller drive chain. The city would have to hire at least two qualified mechanics, of which none currently exist on city staff to maintain these complex vessels, plus vehicles to transport tools and equipment to wherever the ferries would break down, and they will break down. In addition, finding an American company to build the two vessels will be extremely difficult, and the US Coast Guard will not certify a foreign-built vessel to carry passengers in American waters. And don't get me started about building a ferry landing system at Cars Beach. The water there is only two to three feet deep, and I'll be happy to show anyone on an article chart the current depth at there. You'd have to build a huge dock at a cost of 50 to $150,000 just for a ferry landing. It's not necessary to support the current budget request of $50,000 of taxpayer money for a feasibility study. I've already done one. None of my East Fort neighbors, Annapolis friends, Maritime Advisory Board colleagues, and members of the East Fort Civic Association support this proposal, except for Ross Arnott. Please do not spend one more dime of taxpayer money on city staff time, studies, RFPs, or anything else on this proposal. There's no shame in returning the grant and use our taxpayer money for something for residents like sidewalks, perhaps, Alderman Hundley, and bike lanes, perhaps. There are certainly more higher priority uses for our taxpayer dollars. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Acting Mayor Thorpe, members of the Council. My name is Paul Rankin. I live at 408 First Street in Annapolis. I'm here tonight speaking in my capacity as President of the Eastport Civic Association. We do want to commend both the Mayor and the Council for all the work they've done so far and all that's left to be done to push the budget forward. You have a copy, I believe, on your desks already handed out of our our discussion this evening. I simply want to bring to your attention some of the issues that we support that are largely being put forward by our Alderman, Alderman Thorpe, as well as Alderwoman Conte. We have six, well, divided it into really three different sets of proposals. The first is infrastructure improvements, the second is fee and fine adjustments, and the last is some, I will call them miscellaneous, but they are not truly miscellaneous, amendments that are put forward by Alderwoman Conte. Of the six infrastructure improvement amendments, we are looking for the following. First is to add $100,000 for basic waterway improvements. We have 16 water access points in Eastport. All of them are in need of some form or another of repair or work, and we'd appreciate some additional money going to help support that work. as we've just heard also that we have a lot of work to be done on sidewalks throughout the city but most particularly we think at least in eastport we're looking to add an additional 150 000 for repair and improvements to that this is really a safety issue everywhere in the city but we also of course here tonight i'm representing the esport view We'd like to add $100,000 for improvements to Hawkins Cove. This issue's been discussed time and again here before the council. I think you know what's going on there, so I won't belabor that point. We'd also like to see $50,000 for improvements to Turner Park. That's located at the corner of Third Street and Chester Avenue. It needs significant amount of work. It's fallen into disrepair over the last several years. In more general terms, we're looking to add an additional $200,000 to improve roadways throughout the city of Annapolis. This is for all of us, not just Eastport. And an additional $150,000 to the budget for traffic safety and parking improvements. i'm sorry i'm rushing but i really i realize i have a little time with respect to fee and fine adjustments we have five points outlined in the proposal the first is we support an increase in short-term rental program fees we know the city staff is working hard on this right now so we don't have a specific number that we'd like to put forward but we do wish that the amount uh finalized by the the council and the mayor is sufficient to support the entire program. We also want to increase the fine for operating an unlicensed short-term rental from 200 to 500 dollars per day rented. I will end my testimony at that but I do want to say Alderwoman Conte we are very much supportive of a couple of amendments which you'll see written out at the bottom here most particularly for the Eastport Rec Center and for the Eastport Community Gardens. We thank you for your work in that area. Thank you all.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Before I close that, I would like to accept into the record the letter from the Planning Commission dated May 8th, 2026, signed by Alex Pline, the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The letter is available on the website. I declare the public hearing on 0826 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is Resolution R-10-26, FY 2027, Annual Fees Schedule.

Is there anyone present who would like to speak? Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing on R-10-26 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is resolution R-11-26, FY 2027, fines schedule.

Is there anyone present who would like to speak? Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing on R-11-26 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is Resolution R-12-26, FY 2027, Position Classifications and Pay Plan.

I think I know the answer, but is there anyone present who would like to speak? Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing on R-12-26 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is a new public hearing beginning with ordinance O-9-26, updating the standing committee's section of the city code.

Is there anyone present who would like to speak? Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing on 0926 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is ordinance 01026, reducing the Human Relations Commission membership.

Is there anyone present to testify on this topic? Yes, sir.

My name is Chuck Hurley. I'm a resident of Park Place and Ward 1.

I'm sorry, sir. Could you state your address, please?

5 Park Place. Thank you. Okay. And Ward 1. I'm an old Quaker. I've been on the Human Relations Commission for 10 years. We have never had 15 members. I would love to have 15 members from every representation. Of course, I agree. It would be great to have representation from all the wards. We haven't had a quorum for more than a year, and we've had three valid complaints of pretty serious issues. that we can't address. And if we are gonna, and I wanna thank the mayor and Laura for the, this has been long overdue, this discussion and the issue of how to better run the commissions and the boards. So I do thank you and Acting Mayor, I think you did contribute or nominated a member and that's rare. I know of only one other member here that has really expressed support and interest in a number of our issues, and Alderman Schandermeier is that person. But we really do need some help recruiting members. The Union Relations Commission was established in 1964 at the very height of interest in civil rights. I wish it were the same today. And the amount of discretionary time that people had in 1964 is probably larger than they have today. And we would welcome, we would strongly, by the way, I'm speaking as an individual since we don't have a quorum, but I would very strongly support the reduction in quorum so we can act on some of the important complaints that we've received.

Thank you. Thank you, and thanks for your service on the commission. Anyone else present who would like to speak on 01026? Seeing none, I declare the public hearing on 01026 closed. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next agenda item?

The next item on the agenda is legislative actions on first readers, beginning with Ordinance O-1126, allowing long-term room rentals in private homes.

Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt O-1126, allowing long-term room rentals in private homes on first reader? So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Schandlmeier. Second. Thank you, Alderman Savage. Do you have a comment? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Acting Mayor.

Yeah, just a quick comment. I will have an amendment forthcoming where I've been working with the sponsor on as well that's going to tweak some of the timing so that's, so that they can, so they're not waiting too long of a period for some of the information they need from the state. And so I'm working, trying to figure out a provisional approval which will allow these to move forward more quickly. So that's forthcoming.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, I refer 011-26 to the Planning Commission, the Economic Matters Committee, and the Rules and City Government Committee. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is Ordinance O1326, Permitting and Zoning Stadium Accessory Structures.

Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt O1326, Permitting and Zoning for Stadium Accessory Structures on first reader? So moved. Thank you, Alderman O'Neill. Second. Is there a second? Thank you, Alderman Chandler. Any discussion? Alderman Chandler.

Please add me as a co-sponsor.

Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, I refer 01326 to the Planning Commission and the Rules and City Government Committee. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is resolutions beginning with R1726, fees related to O1126, allowing long-term room rentals in private homes.

Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt R1726, allowing long-term room rentals in private homes on first reader? So moved. Thank you, Alderman Schandlmeier. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, I refer R1726 to the Finance Committee. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The next item on the agenda is Resolutions R1826, Human Resources Director Charles A. Hall, Jr.

Thank you, is there a motion to adopt R1826, which is the nomination of the Human Resources Director, Charles A. Hall, Jr., on first reader? Second. Thank you, Alderwoman O'Neill. Is there a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Mr. City Attorney, would you please present the next item on the agenda?

The agenda is completed.

Thank you. Is there anything else for the good of the order? Yes, sir, Mr. Huntley.

Actually, can Alderwoman O'Neill go first? I got to pull my notes up.

Raise my hand.

Oh, but you always go. Anyone else? All right, I can go if you need me to. Yep. I just wanted to call out National Night Out, which will be occurring in August of this year. And it's not necessarily something that think our, I'm sorry, National Neighborhood Night Out. And it's not necessarily something that the city government itself will be you know arranging something for but i think it's something that we as leaders in each one of our communities can really help uh get well actually i think our public safety team does do something for it typically but um it's the first tuesday in august and i'm encouraging all my colleagues to use this as an opportunity to really build some community in their neighborhoods and make it a way that we can all get a little bit more connected so um i I was really excited to hear about the origins of this as somebody who cares a lot about helping our folks get more connected and wanted to just put it on everybody's radar, first Tuesday in August.

Thank you. Anything else? Alderman Smith-Brown.

Thank you. Speaking of National Night Out or Neighborhood Night Out, definitely want to give an appreciation to Joe Tulin, who reached out to myself and the mayor this weekend to let us know of a tree that fell off of Admiral Drive in Ward 3. And I, of course, went out there as soon as I could. And the real tie to National Night Out is to our police department across our county and our city. officers came rolling up and they literally took their bare hands and got that tree out the way we didn't need public works to come out so we saved some money there i just wanted to shout out to our public safety departments and all the work that they do outside of the realm of the average regular every day thank you thank you anything else okay there be no other items on the agenda i would entertain a motion to adjourn

So moved. Thank you, Alderman Chandlemire. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?