2026-10-12 - City Council (Regular Meeting) (Part 2)

01:52We're going to resume our city council

01:53meeting again.

01:55>> I hurt.

01:56That's awesome.

01:58I love

02:01>> And

02:04I believe we left off with Alderman

02:05Channelmyers' question.

02:09Did he ask enough of it that you knew

02:11>> Yes.

02:12>> you prepared to respond?

02:13>> Right, but he's not here. Should I just

02:15Okay. For the record?

02:16>> Yep.

02:18>> We sent love letters to all the folks

02:20who weren't compliant and many of them

02:23with new information became compliant.

02:25They just simply didn't know.

02:26Um but there are a handful of people

02:28that know and choose not to comply with

02:31the the code. That's

02:34>> Okay.

02:35Okay.

02:35>> Happens in many endeavors in life.

02:38>> Alderman Savage?

02:39>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you

02:40excellent presentation and and yeah, I

02:42think you did a great job when we had

02:44the um

02:45the virtual meeting with all the

02:46questions. So, I really looking forward

02:48to the report.

02:50Um

02:51My question, I guess I've asked you

02:53something along these lines before, more

02:55kind of philosophy of plan zoning

02:57as far as

02:59you know, your slide talking about

03:01community fabric. Like how how do you go

03:03about balancing

03:05you know, cuz we've talked about in the

03:06comp plan as far as opening up some of

03:08our zoning to have more than just than

03:10just the the particular uses. Like

03:13instead of being all residential, all

03:14commercial, we'll have a couple like to

03:16build a 15-minute city, right? We need

03:18to have some other uses

03:20besides just residential in the

03:21communities like we used to have. And

03:22so, how do you balance that with

03:26with your idea of community fabric? Does

03:28that still open to the idea of having

03:30that the other uses within a exclusive

03:33zone?

03:35>> Yes, um

03:36particularly within residential zones,

03:37those uses that are compatible with the

03:39residential district but don't change

03:42the district itself.

03:44Um the purpose statements that are

03:46attend to each residential zone are

03:48pretty clear about what the City Council

03:50means when they say R1 or or or C1A,

03:54um

03:55they those purposes begin to change when

03:58the use is changed to a such a degree.

04:01So, we have blocks where over 50% of the

04:05former houses are converted to

04:06short-term rentals. It's not uncommon in

04:08in the three wards that were mentioned

04:10already or particularly in ward one,

04:12excuse me, but the higher concentration

04:14is also in the other. So, that's that's

04:16what we're talking about.

04:18>> Thank you.

04:20>> Alderwoman Shanahan,

04:21we had gotten cut off when you were in

04:23the middle of your question. Would you

04:24like to resume your question?

04:25>> Yeah, what's the primary reason given

04:27for non-compliance?

04:29>> Initially, it was that folks didn't know

04:32what the law was.

04:34The we don't and now

04:37we don't know what the primary reason

04:39given. It's

04:42People don't comply. They don't comply.

04:44They don't share why they don't want

04:45want to comply.

04:46>> Okay, for the sake of time, I'll email

04:48you for my other questions.

04:50>> Thank you. Any other questions?

04:52Anything else to present, Mr. Director

04:54Jakubiak?

04:55>> No, thank you.

04:56>> Alexis, thank you as well. Appreciate

04:57you both staying so late to help keep us

05:00informed and help us identify the path

05:02forward on short-term rental legislation

05:05and initiatives.

05:06>> Okay.

05:06>> Thank you.

05:07>> Mr. City Attorney, please present the

05:08next item on the agenda.

05:10>> The next item on the agenda is public

05:12hearings beginning with charter

05:13amendment CA426

05:16designating the City Attorney as the

05:17resident agent for the City of

05:18Annapolis.

05:19>> Okay. Uh there's no one that has signed

05:21up to speak on this public hearing. Is

05:23there anyone in chambers who wishes to

05:27address CA426?

05:30Seeing no movement moving forward in

05:32chambers, I declare the public hearing

05:34closed. Mr. City Attorney, please

05:36present the next item on the agenda.

05:39Next item is ordinance O-25-26

05:42mobile food service vendors historic

05:44district special events.

05:46Thank you. There's no one who has signed

05:47up to speak on this.

05:49Is there anyone who is in chambers that

05:51wishes to speak now?

05:53Okay, seeing no movement in chambers, I

05:55declare public hearing on O-25-26

05:57closed. Mr. City Attorney, please

05:59present the next item on the agenda.

06:02>> The next item on the agenda is ordinance

06:04O-26-26,

06:05special residential parking districts

06:07district lettering.

06:09>> Thank you.

06:10There is no one signed up for O-26-26.

06:13Is there anyone in chambers that wishes

06:14to speak now?

06:16Seeing no movement in chambers, I

06:17declare O-26 the public hearing on

06:19O-26-26 closed.

06:21Mr. City Attorney, please present the

06:22next item on the agenda.

06:24>> The next item is ordinance O-27-26,

06:26water service lines right of entry.

06:29>> Thank you.

06:30There is no one signed to speak up on

06:31this public hearing. Is there anyone in

06:33chambers that wishes to speak?

06:35Seeing no movement in chambers, I

06:37declare public hearing on O-27-26

06:39closed. Mr. City Attorney, please

06:41present the next item on the agenda.

06:43>> The next item is ordinance O-28-26,

06:45Department of Transportation fines and

06:47allowing fine waivers.

06:49>> Ms. Moyer, you've been very patient.

06:51Please approach the podium.

06:57>> [laughter]

06:59>> Hello, my name is Loni Moyer, Forest

07:01Hills Avenue, Annapolis 21403.

07:04Um here tonight to talk about this

07:06district and to ask all of the elected

07:08officials here

07:09before before you cast your vote on this

07:13uh ordinance to consider your job as

07:17elected officials and how it is

07:19different how it is different from

07:21administrators and bureaucrats.

07:23This this ordinance, as I understand it,

07:27takes away from you your ability to be

07:30helpful to your constituents when they

07:32come to you in a moment of pain.

07:35What I am not moved by is oh, there was

07:37no there are too many people were

07:39getting forgiven. Good, because if there

07:42were a thousand people who were forgiven

07:44parking tickets, that means there were a

07:46thousand people who came to their local

07:47government and actually got help and

07:50probably walked away feeling satisfied.

07:53It is a noble cause of local government

07:56especially to be helpful and to consider

07:59being helpful and responsive a value of

08:03their role as an elected official.

08:05We do not elect bureaucrats. We do not

08:08elect administrators. We elect

08:12We elect politicians and it is the

08:15bureaucrats' job to make sure that

08:18systems work. It's your job to make sure

08:20that systems work for us.

08:23And it may seem like a small thing or an

08:25irritating thing or something that has

08:27disorder because people come to you all

08:30the time and need things and we are

08:32pains in the elbow when we need those

08:35things. And they those things that we

08:37need don't fit in to a form or a format,

08:42but it doesn't mean we don't need them.

08:46And I would like you to consider

08:47something

08:48that if you pass this legislation, you

08:51are taking your position and you're

08:54giving it to administration and you're

08:56and you're not serving your community,

08:58you're making it easier for all of you

09:00to separate yourself from a pain point

09:03of your constituents.

09:05And you're making it

09:06easier for yourselves to say no

09:09and not be helpful.

09:11And what inspired me to come here and

09:13tell you all this was an incident that

09:16happened to me on the campaign trail.

09:18Two weeks ago, I was down in South

09:21County. Not a blue district, not a area

09:25where I expected to be recognized. And I

09:28want you to think and I was putting up a

09:29sign and someone came to me and saw it

09:31and said, "Hey, Moyer, you're not from

09:33Annapolis, are you?" I said, "Yeah." He

09:34said, "Do you know Pip?" So, yeah,

09:35that's my father. He goes, "Now, I you

09:37to think about this." My father was

09:3980-some years old, 83 when he died. He

09:42died 10 years ago. He was mayor in the

09:46late '60s and early '70s.

09:49That person said to me, just from seeing

09:51me put up a sign,

09:53"Man, Pip helped me."

09:56He didn't say, "Wow, Pip started

09:58Historic Annapolis." He didn't say, "Pip

10:00passed this legislation." He remembered

10:0350 years later that Pip helped me.

10:06That is a fine legacy for all of you to

10:09have, and I encourage you not to give up

10:12your ability as elected officials to be

10:15elected officials, and do not give away

10:18your ability to be helpful to

10:20administration. Thank you.

10:23>> Thank you.

10:26>> [applause]

10:27>> Is there anyone else in chambers that

10:28wishes to speak on this legislation?

10:32Seeing no movement in chambers, I

10:33declare the public hearing on O-28-26

10:36closed. Mr. City Attorney, please

10:38present the next item on the agenda.

10:40>> The next item is ordinance O-29-26,

10:43outdoor dining definitions,

10:44administration, and operational

10:46standards update.

10:48>> Thank you. Uh, Ms. Halik.

10:51>> I'm on the back.

10:53I'm on the next one.

11:05>> Ms. Halik, we can't hear you. If you

11:06wish to go to the podium, we'd be be

11:08happy to hear your testimony.

11:16You know, I see where your confusion is

11:17now. There wasn't a front and back that

11:19was so obvious to me, but now I see it.

11:21But, if you want to uh

11:23>> I'm on the back, and there was a whole

11:25list on the front.

11:26>> Okay.

11:27Are you not comfortable going now?

11:29>> Well,

11:29>> I called you. You're up there.

11:31>> All right.

11:34All right, let me just say my name is

11:36Heidi Hallac and I live in Eastport. I

11:39live at 512 Fourth Street. That puts me

11:42right next to the Fourth Street res uh

11:47in between the

11:49all of those restaurants that will be

11:52impacted in Ward 8.

11:55And and that's really important and

11:56that's why I'm here. I'm on the board

11:58I'm also on the board of the Civic

12:00Association and I'm not here to speak on

12:03behalf of that. That is the

12:04the past president. But I'm here to

12:06speak as a resident that is

12:09impacted by this proposed legislation.

12:12And I have to say I've been sort of

12:13quiet on restaurant um

12:17size and use, but I really felt that it

12:19was important to come here today to talk

12:21about this.

12:22The stand-up dining legislation,

12:26everybody I probably can agree that

12:28standing up and having a beer we don't

12:30want our

12:31our residents getting a ticket to have a

12:34have a beer while they're standing up.

12:36But there's a lot there's more to that.

12:39Restaurants have a seating capacity.

12:42And this the restaurants put out the

12:46number of seats and chairs that there

12:48are for the capacity. Whether it's this

12:50down the street at the Davis Pub, it's

12:53Forward, or it's Boatyard, or soon to be

12:56the other ones that will be taking

12:58advantage of this. There's this is going

13:00to have an impact at the O'Leary's

13:02restaurant, that the Ruth Chris, that

13:05there are going to be several more Atlas

13:08restaurants that we are going to see

13:09coming into the neighborhood and other

13:12investors. It's a prime area.

13:14If you want to

13:18this legislation says that you can't

13:20have any more

13:22uh

13:24drinkers customers than the seating.

13:27Well, that's fine, but the difficulty we

13:30have here is enforcement. And if you

13:33don't have that seat per customer, you

13:36have no almost an impossible ability to

13:39enforce the numbers. And why is that Why

13:42does that have an impact on anybody?

13:46During the day, most of the time, we're

13:48not at capacity, but there are surges,

13:51nice days in Eastport, and the numbers

13:55of people that are in these restaurants

13:58are much higher, much, much higher. I

14:01can walk in, and I'm not going to name

14:02names, and it's 1/3 higher. The traffic

14:07is harder.

14:08We're until we can address the the

14:11mobility issues, the parking issues, the

14:15noise issues, until we actually can

14:18address that, we have to carefully

14:20consider

14:22how much density in our restaurants do

14:24we want. And I'm saying in Eastport, but

14:26it's also downtown.

14:29There's a reason the Board of Appeals

14:31sets a limit on the number of seats that

14:35a restaurant can have, and that's a

14:36careful consideration. That is the

14:39effect on on deliveries, traffic, noise,

14:44all sorts of factors. If you take away

14:46this seating requirement, you're making

14:49an end run around the code and all the

14:52requirements of why we have to consider

14:55a number.

14:56>> Please wrap up.

14:57>> Excuse me?

14:58>> Please wrap up.

14:59>> If you add an amendment that says we

15:02encourage the fire marshal to increase

15:04the seating and capacity of these

15:07residents, you are making it even

15:10a greater end run around this. We ask

15:13that you carefully reconsider this, and

15:17if you do, enforcement is our biggest

15:19problem in the city, the lack of city

15:21enforcement is always been a problem and

15:24we have

15:26to address that.

15:27>> Thank you.

15:32I don't see Kevin Kolbeck. Am I just not

15:34seeing well?

15:36>> No, you're seeing very well. I was first

15:38on

15:38>> Oh, Kevin. Sorry. [laughter]

15:47>> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city council

15:49members. Thanks for having me. I'm Kevin

15:50Kolbeck. I'm a 30-year

15:5330-year resident of Eastport, 30 years

15:56at Davis's Pub, 20 years as an owner.

15:58Um

16:00kind of

16:01feel old. It's feeling older by the

16:03minute. Um I appreciate all the thought

16:05that's gone into 0926.

16:07Outdoor dining is is an incredibly

16:09unique issue born out of one of the most

16:11challenging times in the hospitality

16:12industry, COVID.

16:14We found out people like to eat outside.

16:16People like to drink outside.

16:18Um as hard as we try to file find a

16:22one-size-fits-all solution, we don't.

16:25I think the reality is small businesses

16:26are are failing quickly. The restaurant

16:29businesses are falling even faster.

16:31That's really hard.

16:32Um for me, some of the legislation some

16:35of the verbage in this legislation will

16:37create an undue burden on us in terms of

16:40asking our patrons to sit in the street

16:42cafe versus the private parking lots

16:45where they'll be allowed to stand and

16:46drink. That's really hard for us to

16:47enforce, right? I think if you put

16:49yourselves in the average Eastport

16:51restaurant patron that's in one

16:53location,

16:54leaves that location and walks down the

16:56street to Davis's Pub, their brain is

16:58not like, "Oh, we have to sit here,

17:00right?" That's then our job. So, I would

17:02ask you then to put yourselves in the

17:03shoes of that server. How do you

17:05articulate to that person that's just

17:06been doing something completely

17:07different somewhere else to have to do

17:09it our way down there to appease the

17:11legislation. That's really hard. We're

17:13in the hospitality industry. We try

17:15really hard to do the right thing.

17:17I feel like we've got a pretty good

17:18record considering two liquor violations

17:21in 30 plus years. Um, you know, we kind

17:23of stand on that.

17:25Bear with me one second. My phone uh

17:29died out here.

17:31Um, I think the other thing that we are

17:33really challenged with is and you wit-

17:35witnessed it firsthand tonight, the

17:36amount of disrespect, hate, and vitriol

17:39that people tend to throw at somebody,

17:41especially when they don't agree with

17:43what they're saying, is really hard on

17:45our staff. It makes it really hard for

17:46somebody who's 17 to 60 to say, "Hey,

17:50would you mind sitting down, please?"

17:52They get an earful. That earful comes in

17:54front of their friends, their

17:55co-workers, their other guests,

17:57sometimes their parents, their

17:58neighbors. That's really challenging.

18:00So, again,

18:01you know, I'm the first guy to say take

18:04it all the way, let's go back to where

18:05we came from. I think the reality is

18:07that's not a possibility. So, if this

18:09legislation is to move forward, I would

18:11ask that it be a one-size-fits-all

18:14in terms of standing

18:16um

18:16to move forward.

18:19Talk one last thing.

18:21And one thing that I, you know, Heidi

18:23mentioned it, Director Jakubiak

18:25mentioned it. You know, he made a great

18:28point about compliance. Like, they don't

18:30have an issue with the people that are

18:31in compliance, right? It's everybody

18:32else that's the issue and they're still

18:33trying to figure out how to enforce

18:35that. The enforcement mechanism on this

18:37is the really greatest thing and what

18:39concerns me the most is if you're

18:40hanging our liquor license over making

18:42us have somebody sit down when they're

18:44standing somebody else. That's really an

18:46unfair burden, an unfair task in my

18:48opinion for us.

18:50I'll wrap it up on the horn. Thank you.

18:52Thank you.

18:54>> Ms. Lawrence.

18:57Jane Lawrence.

19:01Jane Lawrence.

19:03>> [laughter]

19:10>> My name is

19:11Jane Larance.

19:13I live in 519 Burnside. [clears throat]

19:16And I have allergies.

19:19Um

19:20You've had a long night, so I tried to

19:23shorten this.

19:24I I support Alderman Thorp's

19:28attempt because it's a better outcome

19:30than what was proposed

19:33last spring. Thank you, Alderman Thorp,

19:35for

19:36briefing your constituents and listening

19:40deeply to our concerns.

19:43Um

19:45Half joking, last spring should have

19:47been called the outdoor drinking bill.

19:51Um

19:53Jo

20:00Our danger here is blurring the line

20:05between outdoor dining

20:08and outdoor drinking that's called

20:11seasonal outdoor

20:13>> [laughter]

20:14>> dining.

20:16Before we go down that road, I would

20:19hope we

20:20use tonight as um an object lesson and

20:25let's get the enforcement right.

20:28Let's get the lines right. For instance,

20:32um

20:33right now with social clubs have a

20:34separate confirmant.

20:37Their parking lots.

20:39What's the logic behind

20:42telling the EDC

20:45that if you drink outside, you have to

20:47be on [laughter] the patio?

20:49Why can't they drink

20:51in the parking lot? Right now, they have

20:53to get a one-day

20:55thing.

20:56Um

20:58Blurring the lines

21:00is also dangerous because

21:04like my example of social clubs, have

21:06you really like thought through all the

21:09consequences?

21:10And you know, we have our famous Donald

21:13Rumsfeld's letter in his drawer about

21:16the known knowns

21:18and the

21:19looking at you, Alden time, and the

21:21unknown knowns.

21:24This feels like a rush. This feels like

21:27a concept

21:29that

21:30should go to summer study.

21:33And I might point out that we went all

21:36through this last time

21:38before the Inquest Drive.

21:40It's a new bill.

21:42One line.

21:44Why?

21:45We went through a season. It worked

21:47pretty well.

21:49There are

21:51ideas. I love drinking outside.

21:54But

21:55but I also love the culture of

21:58restaurants

21:59and the culture of bars. And let's not

22:02confuse the two.

22:03Okay.

22:06Mayor Lipman, I came to see you with two

22:09other people about an issue.

22:11And you said, "What's the ask?" I'll

22:13help. Here's my three asks.

22:16Would you please ensure

22:19that if this bill is amended,

22:22there is chance for public testimony.

22:26Second ask,

22:28please focus on the liquor board.

22:31Maryland state law

22:33authorizes 23

22:36counties, one city,

22:38and the municipality of Annapolis have

22:41liquor boards. That's right.

22:44We have our own liquor board.

22:46How we do it?

22:47Not great. But in the interest of time,

22:51I will email you all. But just remember

22:53you have a board with no dedicated

22:58inspectors. You have 123 licenses.

23:02The

23:03The county has 600.

23:06The county has Let me get my notes.

23:10The county has a chief inspector

23:11>> Miss Lawrence, if you can please wrap

23:12up.

23:13>> and

23:15and part-time inspectors. So,

23:18where are you to get the enforcement

23:20right? Thank you.

23:21>> Thank you.

23:23Former Alderman Ross Arnett.

23:32>> Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

23:34My name is Ross Arnett. I live at 529

23:376th Street in Eastport, Ward 8.

23:41Uh I want to bring to your attention

23:43three concerns. One, inconsistencies or

23:46insufficiencies in the legislation as

23:49it's written now.

23:50Two, lack of effective enforcement in

23:53the legislation as it's written now. And

23:56the third one is, I know there's several

23:59proposed amendments yet to come.

24:01And uh I want to talk about that as a

24:04problem for us as residents.

24:06Um

24:07In terms of uh inconsistencies, I'll

24:10just cite two examples. Title 21-72

24:14defines standard restaurants as follows.

24:17Patrons are generally given individual

24:19menus and restaurant employees serve

24:21food or beverages at the same table or

24:24counter

24:25where patrons consume table or counter.

24:29Title 7-12, alcoholic beverages, defines

24:33a restaurant as a lunch and cafe or

24:35similar establishment in a permanent

24:37building where hot meals are routinely

24:40prepared, sold, and served at a public

24:44dining room with enough tables and

24:46chairs, not standing.

24:48There's many other examples, and I'll be

24:50happy to share them with my alderman as

24:53time permits.

24:54Um but the point is, I don't think this

24:57legislation is ready yet. It can be

25:00fixed, it needs to be fixed, but it's

25:03not there now.

25:05Uh,

25:05>> [clears throat]

25:06>> I've lost my place.

25:08Where the heck did I go?

25:10Um, the second issue is enforcement. Um,

25:15residents, businesses, and

25:18>> [clears throat]

25:18>> attendees at the mayor's office hours

25:20constantly complain about the city's

25:22lack of enforcements. You heard Mr.

25:24Jakubiak talking about this.

25:27The city council may enact strong legi-

25:30legislation,

25:31but without enforcement, it has no

25:34effect.

25:35>> [cough]

25:36>> The

25:36>> [clears throat]

25:36>> as the proposed ordinance assigns

25:38enforcement to both the planning

25:40commission and the alcoholic beverage

25:42control board,

25:44the planning commission is severely

25:46understaffed as we heard again from Mr.

25:48Jakubiak tonight, and the alcoholic

25:50beverage control board has no staff as

25:53we just heard from Ms. Lawrence.

25:55Enforcement is there left largely to the

25:58residents.

25:59We can contract part-time inspectors

26:03rather than hiring by the city, but we

26:06must enforce. The county has eight

26:08different enforcement liquor license

26:10enforcements. Final point, I understand

26:13that several council members plan to

26:15propose amendments. My alderman has

26:17already indicated several of them, which

26:20I do think are going in the right

26:22direction.

26:23When [clears throat] will these

26:24amendments be made public?

26:27Will the public then have an opportunity

26:29to comment then on them? And I would ask

26:32you to keep this public hearing open

26:35until after the amendments are be have

26:38been introduced so that we have the

26:40ability to understand them and make

26:44comments. Thank you. Unusually brief for

26:47me.

26:52>> Bill Reichardt

27:04Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council.

27:06I'm Bill Reichardt. I live at 717 Bay

27:08Ridge Avenue.

27:10Uh and I've been asked to speak on

27:11behalf of the uh

27:13board of the Eastport Civic Association

27:16this evening.

27:17Um

27:19when I come to these meetings over the

27:20year, I typically learn a lot and I will

27:23have to say I certainly learned a lot

27:25today.

27:27Um [laughter]

27:28we're all tired, we're all exhausted,

27:29but here we are yet again talking about

27:33outdoor dining.

27:36Uh

27:38the board of the Eastport Civic

27:39Association takes this seriously as you

27:41do.

27:42Uh and we know uh that there will be a

27:45series uh of amendments anticipated on

27:49this legislation because I do agree with

27:52my friend uh Ross Arnett

27:54who says this legislation is not ready

27:58for prime time. It can be, but not yet.

28:01Um

28:02and we also strongly ask

28:06for citizen notice and citizen

28:09opportunity uh to talk about any

28:11proposed amendment.

28:14What we're looking for here

28:16uh

28:17is a balance between the business

28:19interests and the welfare of the

28:20citizens in the community.

28:23And uh

28:24>> [clears throat]

28:25>> this issue of outdoor dining at at least

28:28I would suggest to you has always been

28:31a puzzle about the management of

28:34perceived nuisance.

28:36Um and how do we do that?

28:39And how do we allow businesses to be

28:41good businesses

28:43and how do we enforce what we need to

28:45enforce in terms of specific

28:46regulations, and how do we maintain the

28:49character of communities because at

28:52least where I live

28:54the restaurants that will be affected by

28:57this legislation

28:59are in residential communities.

29:03We are all together.

29:06So, the conversation up to this point in

29:08the legislation up to this point and the

29:10debates on this point

29:12in my view have been about 90%

29:16of business regulation

29:19and city regulations.

29:21What regulations are we going to put on

29:23the businesses?

29:25How can we be specific?

29:27How are we going to uh enforce that?

29:33And the 10% if you listen very carefully

29:37might be about

29:40the benefit to the community.

29:44Every piece of legislation I submit to

29:46you of this nature has to be able to

29:49answer the question

29:52why are we doing this and what is the

29:54benefit to the community?

29:57The citizens who live in that community

30:01aren't the business people.

30:03The citizens who live there every day

30:07and work there are not the legislators.

30:09You are.

30:11We don't write the regulations.

30:14So, the piece of this legislation

30:17that is very important to us

30:20is the enforcement piece.

30:22And that is not ready for primetime.

30:25That is not specific.

30:28And I want to mention just one other

30:29piece. Wrap up, Mr. Reichart. Yes, sir.

30:32Very quickly.

30:33Kevin Colbert

30:35uh at Davis's Pub brings up a very

30:37interesting point.

30:39A business on the same block

30:43where you will have people standing up

30:45drinking.

30:48You walk by them and you go down to his

30:50place

30:51and he's got to deal with his waiters

30:53and waitresses telling people you can't

30:55do that.

30:57I don't have an answer for that,

30:59but that's just a legitimate

31:01inconsistency.

31:03Um

31:04and there's a community interest in

31:05that. Thank you.

31:07>> Thank you. Ms. McDermott.

31:10>> [applause]

31:20>> Katie McDermott, uh Franklin Street,

31:23Annapolis, Maryland.

31:24Um good evening everyone. It's long,

31:26I'll be brief. Uh when I read this bill,

31:29I thought I heard it was about eating

31:31hot dogs and how crazy it was you

31:33couldn't eat a hot dog on the sidewalk

31:35and you couldn't drink a beer on the

31:36sidewalk. And that's not what this bill

31:39is about and the misdirection that we

31:41constantly get on outdoor dining is

31:43continues to be very disappointing. I

31:45really came to support this bill and

31:47Alderman Thorp's uh effort on it, which

31:49is highly commendable. I thought the

31:51thing that was introduced some months

31:53ago was just a pure mess and just very

31:55bad public policy. You know, standing

31:57up, getting drunk, drinking on Main

31:59Street, on our sidewalks, I'm sorry.

32:02That's a bad look for Annapolis. We're

32:04not Bourbon Street, New Orleans. Yet,

32:06some people seem to want us to be that

32:08way. I have public safety and public

32:10health concerns about how outdoor dining

32:12is managed. I would like to see this

32:14bill go a step further and resolve the

32:17issues of using parking lots for, let's

32:20get up at from 11:00 to, you know, 10:00

32:22a.m., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and just

32:25drink, drink, drink, drink. It's a

32:27extremely bad culture for Annapolis and

32:29I was a party girl, I loved my 20s in

32:31Annapolis. We didn't have outdoor

32:33dining, you know, we had a lot of great

32:34bars and I think I was in every single

32:36one of them.

32:37Uh but you know, at some point we got to

32:39grow up and growing up isn't expanding

32:41drinking all over the place. And I love

32:43Davis's pub, by the way, and I'm there a

32:46lot and I'm in a lot of these places a

32:48lot. Everyone will survive if you go

32:51back to not allowing drinking everywhere

32:54on the streets and outdoor dining in the

32:56street like preserve and some other

32:58places. And that Market Square is dirty.

33:02People aren't coming downtown cuz it's

33:03dirty and there's too much drinking. So,

33:07I'm kind of focused on that in this

33:08bill. I think big picture you've really

33:10got to send it back and clean it up and

33:12just realize that if you want us to be

33:15New Orleans, you know, the residents

33:17haven't agreed to that. We want some

33:19moderation and we want management of

33:21outdoor dining, management. And I know

33:23you're trying to do that and I commend

33:25your administration for trying to do

33:27that. So, I don't think it's ready for

33:29prime time, either, but I do think that

33:32Alderman Thorpe really took it a step

33:33forward and thank you very much because

33:36it prohibits drinking on city streets.

33:38Gee, that's a really smart thing to wish

33:40for. Thanks.

33:42>> Thank you. Anyone else in chambers wish

33:44to speak on this issue?

33:47Uh I am about to say that I'm going to

33:49be closing uh public hearing on this. To

33:51answer Alderman Arnett's suggestion on

33:53this, my my reason for doing that is

33:55this.

33:56The public hearing needs to close in

33:58order for it to go to committee review

34:00and that's where amendments are

34:01discussed and debated. If the through

34:04the committee process and the amendment

34:06process on second reader, if the council

34:09does consider and approves an amendment

34:11that does substantively change the

34:14legislation, at that point, either from

34:16the direction from the city attorney or

34:18from a vote of the city council, we

34:19could send it back to a public hearing

34:21if it's determined that there is a

34:23substantive change. And that's the

34:24better time to uh rethink about having

34:27another public hearing. So, with that,

34:29I'm I'm the public hearing closed

34:32on 02926.

34:34Mr. City Attorney, please present the

34:36next item on the agenda.

34:37>> The next item on the agenda is approval

34:39of the consent calendar.

34:41Items include journal of proceedings CCM

34:4491426

34:46regular meeting minutes CCM 92826

34:49special meeting minutes supplemental

34:51appropriations under $50,000

34:54SA 427

35:00ID 18626

35:03and that is the end of the consent

35:04calendar.

35:05>> Any objection to the consent calendar?

35:07Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve

35:09the consent calendar.

35:10>> I'll move.

35:11>> Thank you, Alderman Thorpe. Is there a

35:12second?

35:13>> Second.

35:13>> Madam City Clerk, please call the roll.

35:16>> Yes, sir. Madam Litman?

35:18>> Aye.

35:19>> Alderman Hatley?

35:21>> On the consent calendar, aye.

35:23>> Alderwoman O'Neil?

35:24>> Aye.

35:25>> Alderman Smith-Brown?

35:26>> Aye.

35:26>> Alderwoman Allsup Johnson?

35:28>> Aye.

35:28>> Alderman Shenemeyer?

35:29>> Aye.

35:30>> Alderwoman Conty?

35:31>> Aye.

35:32>> Alderman Savage?

35:33>> Aye.

35:33>> Alderman Thorpe?

35:34>> Aye.

35:35>> Thank you. Motion passes. Mr. City

35:37Attorney, please present the next item

35:38on the agenda.

35:39>> The next item on the agenda is business

35:41and miscellaneous item fund transfer

35:43$50,000 and above beginning with FT227

35:47general public works salaries and

35:48benefits.

35:50>> Accept a motion to accept FTE227.

35:53>> So moved.

35:54>> Uh thank you, Alderman Shenemeyer. Is

35:56there a second?

35:57>> Second.

35:58>> All those in favor say aye.

36:00>> Aye.

36:00>> Aye.

36:00>> Any opposed?

36:02Motion carries. Mr. City Attorney,

36:03please present the next item on the

36:05agenda.

36:05>> The next item is legislative actions on

36:07first readers beginning with ordinance

36:09O3026 landlord and tenant relations

36:11eviction.

36:13>> Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt

36:15O3026 on first reader?

36:17>> So moved.

36:18>> Thank you, Alderman Shenemeyer. Is there

36:20a second?

36:21>> Second.

36:22>> Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

36:23>> Aye.

36:24>> Opposed say nay.

36:26Okay. motion carries. I refer

36:29030-26 to the Housing and Human Welfare

36:31Committee.

36:33Mr. City Attorney, please present the

36:34next item on the agenda.

36:36>> The next item is resolution R37-26

36:38fiscal year 2027 fine schedule, eviction

36:41notices, and property disposal.

36:44>> Is there a motion to adopt R37-26 on

36:47first reader?

36:48>> So moved.

36:48>> Thank you, Alderwoman O'Neal. Is there a

36:49second?

36:50>> Second.

36:51>> Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

36:53>> Aye.

36:54>> Aye. Any

36:55>> opposed?

36:56>> Motion carries. I refer R37-26 to the

36:59Finance Committee.

37:00Mr. City Attorney, please present the

37:02next item on the agenda.

37:04>> The next item on the agenda is

37:05resolution R39-26

37:07fee waiver 2026 community meet and greet

37:10with Budweiser Clydesdale horses.

37:12>> Is there a motion to adopt R39-26 on

37:15first reader?

37:16>> Moved.

37:16>> Thank you, Alderwoman Shanahan-Rhimes.

37:17Is there a second?

37:20>> Second.

37:21>> Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

37:23>> Aye.

37:23>> Aye.

37:24>> All those opposed say nay.

37:27>> [laughter]

37:36>> Motion carries. [laughter]

37:39I refer R39-26 to the Finance Committee.

37:43>> [laughter]

37:48>> Mr. City Attorney, please present the

37:50next item on the agenda.

37:51>> The next item on the agenda is

37:52resolution R40-26 itinerant merchant

37:55sales in the historic district for a

37:57flea market.

37:59>> Is there a motion to adopt R40-26 on

38:02first reader?

38:03>> [clears throat]

38:03>> So moved.

38:04>> Thank you, Alderman Huntley. Is there a

38:05second?

38:06>> Second.

38:07>> All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any

38:09opposed say nay.

38:11Motion carries. I refer R40-26 to the

38:14Finance Committee.

38:16Mr. City Attorney, please present the

38:17next item on the agenda.

38:19>> The next item is resolution R45-26

38:22Annapolis City Council support for draft

38:24addendum two to amendment three of the

38:27Interstate Fishery Management Plan for

38:29Atlantic menhaden.

38:32>> Alderman Mautz, is there a motion to

38:33adopt R-45-26 on first reader?

38:36>> So moved, and thank you for your

38:37co-sponsorship, Mr. Mayor.

38:38>> Thank you. Alderman Mautz, is there a

38:40second?

38:42Thank you. All those in favor say aye.

38:44>> Aye.

38:44>> Any opposed say no.

38:46Motion carries. Mr. City Attorney,

38:48please present the next item on the

38:49agenda.

38:50>> The next item is legislative actions on

38:52second readers beginning with charter

38:53amendment CA-2-26 expanding the Board of

38:56Supervisors of Elections membership.

38:59>> Thank you. Is there

39:02Are you appointing someone?

39:0610:50.

39:12We we can at least start the process.

39:15Is there a motion to adopt

39:17CA-2-26

39:18on second reading?

39:20>> So moved.

39:21>> Thank you, Alderman Shandelmeier.

39:25And is I heard second. Okay.

39:28So,

39:29Alderman Smith Brown, do you want to

39:31introduce amendment number one to

39:33CA-2-26?

39:34>> Uh thank you, uh Mayor Ledman. Uh we

39:37have here amendment one, which is going

39:40to do four major

39:43uh updates additions to the original

39:44legislation,

39:46which was grounded in, I would say, a

39:50great forward uh step. Uh we have here

39:52membership composition. We are going to

39:55expand membership from there being uh

39:57five total members, uh one member from

40:00the leading party, uh second highest

40:03will receive one member, the third

40:05highest will receive a member, or if it

40:07is not uh does not meet the 10%

40:09threshold or recognized by the Maryland

40:12election law, uh we would have the

40:15option or the mayor would have the

40:17option to appoint any member from and

40:20affiliated member as well as the fifth

40:22being any registered voter. I would also

40:25determine our political parties,

40:27establishes how the board determines the

40:29top three parties by registration. It

40:31would also initiate a process change

40:33where which has already pretty much been

40:36in place where the mayor would appoint

40:39and the city council will confirm.

40:43It would also change the

40:45ability for the parties the central

40:48committees to make recommendations and

40:50not have a requirement for them to put

40:53forth names to fill our boards which

40:55expands it to be both central committee

40:58recommendations, mayor recommendations

41:00and even self-recommended persons to

41:03serve on the board.

41:06>> Thank you.

41:08So that's the motion for amendment

41:10number one. Is there a second?

41:16Um,

41:17any discussion?

41:20Open Huntley then Open Savage.

41:22>> Yeah, I do not support amendment one.

41:25I think there are some things in it that

41:28are beneficial but on balance I I really

41:30disagree with it. And the there's a

41:33couple different reasons but the biggest

41:34one comes down to this. My big worry

41:36with amendment one is that if this

41:39passes, we would have a situation where

41:42anybody can get appointed to our

41:44elections board just solely based on how

41:48they are registered rather than having

41:50to go through the party

41:52the process of being nominated by the

41:53parties. Meaning we could end up with a

41:56board in which five people who have been

41:59Democrats or Republicans, I don't care

42:00what party but say let's say Democrats,

42:04the board could end up being all five or

42:06sorry, at least

42:08four people who have been Democrats

42:10their whole life and then they just

42:12re-registered. Under our current system,

42:16they have to be approved by the party

42:17committees, and those party committees

42:19vet people to make sure that they are

42:21not just so-and-so who put an R next to

42:23their name even if they are a D in their

42:25heart or vice versa. And that's my

42:28biggest worry with Amendment 1 is that

42:30we could have a scenario where our

42:31elections board is

42:34is not partisanly balanced except in

42:37name.

42:39>> For the chair, Alderman Savage.

42:41>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Excuse me.

42:43Just to back up a little bit. This So,

42:45this recommendation came from

42:47the Charter Review Commission to expand

42:49the board. Um and I think Alderman

42:52Huntley and I

42:53the Election Board and Office of Law

42:55worked

42:56quite a bit on the underlying

42:57legislation. I I respect Alderman Smith

43:01Brown's work on this, but I I don't I

43:02can't support the amendment. And

43:05one of the primary reasons is that

43:08one of the intentions that I had with

43:09drafting this was to try to take

43:13as much to take partisan partisanship

43:15out of it as much as I could. Um that is

43:18why

43:20the the proportions that I proposed in

43:23the underlying legislation reflect

43:26the party basically the representation

43:28of the public of the voters.

43:31So, I wanted My goal is to get again the

43:33the members on the that board to reflect

43:35that distribution.

43:37Um the amendment

43:38undoes that.

43:40And so,

43:43you know, for example, with with as it's

43:44introduced, it would have the the party

43:47with most voters would get two seats.

43:51The party with second most voters would

43:52get one guaranteed seat.

43:54And then that fourth seat would go to

43:56unaffiliated voters.

43:58And then the last one would be kind of a

44:00wild card.

44:01Could potentially be third party if they

44:02meet the threshold,

44:04but also would just be an

44:06from the mayor.

44:07Um

44:08that set up ensures that

44:11no matter the party of the mayor who's

44:14in power, the board is always going to

44:16reflect

44:17the voters.

44:18Um

44:20so that's why I'm trying to carry this

44:23forward.

44:24Now, as far as some of the other other

44:26issues with

44:28the amendment, it was

44:31a lot of work was put into it, but

44:33it's a very comprehensive almost a

44:36a complete rewrite.

44:38Um and I'm just not sure it's gone

44:41through enough analysis. Um

44:44I counted at least seven drafting

44:46errors in it. Few examples, um the

44:49committee

44:50raised the third-party threshold to to

44:5210%, but the substitute

44:55amendment still lets only

44:56state-recognized parties qualify

44:58regardless of size.

45:00Uh so the threshold the committee the

45:02committee voted for does nothing, um

45:04because it didn't change everything that

45:06needed to get changed to carry that

45:07forward.

45:08It also says the council shall confirm

45:10the mayor's appointees.

45:13Uh it removes any deadline for filing a

45:15vacancy, and its transition section

45:18still has the council starting a

45:19process. The substitute actually takes

45:21it away from the council.

45:23Um so there's some other things. There's

45:25the charter amendment

45:27itself I I just think should not be be

45:30repaired on the fly like this.

45:32Um and I just think it moves away

45:35further from

45:37some of the intention.

45:38Um so I'd ask you please vote no on the

45:41amendment.

45:42>> Any further discussion?

45:45>> Okay.

45:45>> Oh.

45:46Yeah, I I have something else. Thank

45:48you. So the other uh thing I think that

45:50gives me pause with this and and what I

45:52think is really the

45:54I I think this is what people's decision

45:56point should be. If you look up the

45:58partisan breakdown in our city, we have

46:02a little more about 55% is registered as

46:06the

46:07number the the largest party, about 25%

46:11is registered as the second largest

46:13party, and then about 20% is registered

46:17as unaffiliated.

46:19And the other parties combined are are

46:22like 1 or 2%.

46:24As written in the legislation, I think

46:27what we are sorry as written in the

46:28amendment, what I think we would end up

46:30with is a scenario where the largest

46:32party

46:33>> [clears throat]

46:34>> take away all the shenanigans I was

46:35talking about earlier. I'm saying if

46:36this works as intended,

46:38the largest party would essentially end

46:41up with 40% of the vote on the board.

46:44The second largest party would end up

46:45with 20% of the vote on the board. The

46:48groups that all add up to 1% or 2% would

46:52get 20% of the vote on the board. The

46:54group that genuinely adds up to 20%

46:56would get 20%. And and so that just

46:59seems much less congruous to me than the

47:01way that we have this in the underlying

47:03legislation of it would be roughly 60%

47:0820% 20%.

47:11So it it does not line up as well with

47:14the percentages of how people are

47:16actually registered in our city.

47:20I think that's in my mind that is the

47:22decision point for for our council as

47:24much as anything else. Is do we want the

47:27Board of Elections

47:28to line up with the way people are

47:30registered?

47:32>> Thank you Alderman Alderman Atlee, any

47:34other

47:35discussion? Alderman Smith Brown.

47:37>> Sure. Um

47:39I I spoke a lot about this in our Rules

47:42and City Government meeting. Um I won't

47:44really dive too much, but a lot of what

47:47is written in the original legislation

47:49actually it's to be a little little

47:51hypocritical to say that it's not

47:53partisan when you find that two of the

47:55membership would be going to the top

47:57leading party in the city, which is a a

47:59Democrat as it stands, and one of the

48:01members would also be going by choice

48:04from the mayor. So, that's automatically

48:06three of the five members. So, to say

48:08that three of the five members under the

48:10original legislation is not partisan,

48:13but to allow for there to be only one

48:15designated member for the party that's

48:17leading and allow for one of those

48:18members to be a third party, and if not,

48:21then the mayor would have the option to

48:22have a person put forth and the

48:25additional member would be any member.

48:27That's three as well. So, there is no

48:29difference between the two. There even

48:32if there is some clerical errors in the

48:34legislation, this was worked through for

48:36months. There has been conversations as

48:38well with the law office, and as said by

48:40the chair of the Board of Supervisors of

48:42Elections, the chair who followed me as

48:44the chair of the Board of Supervisors of

48:45Elections, which I served on the board

48:46for 3 years to his chair, this was one

48:49of my priorities on the board, and I've

48:50talked about this with my members then,

48:52and I did vow that when I became an

48:54alderperson, I would spearhead this. And

48:57it's great to hear and see that we have

48:59two alderpersons who prioritize

49:01electoral reformation, which I mentioned

49:02in the the city uh council's Rules and

49:04City Government Committee meeting. I'll

49:06also point out that when you look at the

49:09legislation as it stands today, when you

49:11say that only party

49:14party members or party search committees

49:16should be able to vet a non-partisan

49:18quote unquote non-partisan board,

49:22what are we talking about? There should

49:24be an opportunity for people to

49:26self-recommend, an opportunity for

49:28people to say, "I want to serve on the

49:29Board of Supervisors of Elections."

49:30There should be an opportunity for the

49:32mayor and even council members to

49:34recommend people to be on the Board of

49:35Supervisors of Elections. The party is

49:37not the say-all, be-be-all, end-all for

49:40choosing members to serve on the Board

49:42of Supervisors of Elections, which is

49:44meant to be reflective of the entire

49:46city. And so, that also does not make

49:48sense, that response. I'm sure that

49:50there are many errors, and I won't call

49:52them out in the original legislation

49:54which was meant for it to be updated in

49:57the

49:59amendment which we did do myself and

50:01others. So, I can answer any questions

50:04that are direct but for us to say things

50:07that are untrue, I'm not going to stand

50:09by.

50:13>> [clears throat]

50:13>> I'll point out that if we did a

50:15did approve this amendment

50:18the next step would be asking the city

50:20attorney for guidance and you all as

50:22council members to vote on whether there

50:23are substantive changes and if that is

50:25in the affirmative, we would have a

50:26public hearing as I just referenced on

50:28other legislation.

50:31And that would be also an opportunity if

50:33we follow that path to correct any

50:37typographical

50:39particular word choice issues that could

50:41be brought back and for correction at a

50:43later point.

50:44>> Thank you, Mayor. I really do urge the

50:46council to support this amendment

50:49and I do believe it still stands by the

50:51core of what the legislation states.

50:54One of the main pieces I think we need

50:56to do is not have in code a skew towards

50:59a party representation

51:01and be more transparent about the fact

51:04that our party is leaning Democrat. So,

51:07why not have all three of those selected

51:09members only have one member and the

51:11other one being unaffiliated and the

51:13other being a selection by the mayor.

51:15And when you look at the city council in

51:17years past, the city council has not had

51:19a say in this. When you bring it to the

51:21floor, when the members are presented to

51:22the city council, we will have the

51:24opportunity to say yes or no. We can say

51:27that we support the the candidates that

51:28are put forth recommended by the mayor

51:30and the mayor then has more persons to

51:32select from. Right now, it's very

51:34limited to four people. If you look at

51:36the last and and I can ask this

51:38question. If you look at the last

51:40appointment of the Board of Supervisors

51:43of Elections, I recall there There three

51:45members that the the Annapolis Central

51:47Committee put forth, they were black

51:49women.

51:50There was one member that I don't

51:51believe was may have been put forth by

51:53the Central Committee, but that was a

51:55white male member.

51:57When you look at that, the mayor

51:58selected the one member

52:02and the other three members which were

52:03recommended by the Central Committee

52:04were not regarded.

52:09Why is that?

52:12Why were they not regarded? If the

52:14Central Committee put those names forth.

52:19>> Alderman Elliott, you already spoke

52:19twice on this.

52:21Alderman Savage, this is your second

52:22time.

52:23>> Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

52:24Um

52:25well, so we're just your other comment

52:27as far as

52:29your assertion that your amendment takes

52:32I'm sorry, my assertion that the

52:33legislation takes partisanship out of

52:35the decision. I'm saying that because

52:37again, it the language has to be based

52:40on the proportion of the actual

52:41registered voters and I understand the

52:42registered voters are partisan. However,

52:45you would take that out and have the

52:48the

52:49nominees basically that would put the

52:52authority in the mayor's

52:53mayor's seat and then ultimately ours as

52:56you said, Council would have to affirm.

52:59But that makes it again a part that's

53:01going to make that a partisan

53:02conversation on our end as far as

53:05and the mayor's end as far as how many

53:08political

53:09which parties does he want to nominate,

53:11which ones do we want to confirm.

53:13I'm trying to take that out of our hands

53:14by saying no, it's just going to reflect

53:15the parties. So it doesn't matter again,

53:17who's in power or who's on the Council.

53:19We're going to get we're going to know

53:21what the makeup of that body is.

53:23That's why I said it kind of takes out

53:25the partisanship. As far as um

53:29the self-nomination, there is a

53:30provision in the in the actual written

53:32legislation for self-nomination.

53:35I it's in your amendments, too, but I

53:37think you're mischaracterizing it to say

53:39that it's not in the original

53:40legislation. There is that ability to

53:42self-nominate for some of those seats.

53:46>> I'm going to ask the city attorney for

53:47clarification on an interpretation

53:50on the Smith-Brown substitute amendment.

53:52The page that's labeled as page four of

53:55nine is the section that Alderman

53:57Huntley was referring to about one

53:59member shall be shall be selected from

54:01the political party with the third

54:03highest number of registered voters in

54:04the city of Annapolis.

54:06This political party shall and then it

54:08gives uh

54:09two options.

54:11What I'm looking for clarification of

54:12and I think it's

54:14I think it's there is

54:16is Alderman Huntley correct that this

54:18would allow

54:20one of the five members to be

54:22on the not only allow but it actually

54:24would force one of the five members to

54:27represent a party that

54:30as Alderman Huntley indicated might have

54:321% or less of representation among the

54:35voters.

54:40Make question make sense?

54:42>> Yeah, let me take a look at the language

54:43and in the meantime I would ask the

54:44sponsor of the amendment to address

54:47that.

54:47>> Absolutely. So, the original amendment

54:51had 3% because that's what the code

54:54observed as being recognized for being a

54:57political party in the city. It was

55:00updated and I appreciate Alderman

55:01Thorpe's recommendation to have 10%

55:04which is in the original legislation.

55:07It

55:08the 10% as proposed by the law as well,

55:11they shared with us that this would mean

55:14that if the party did reach that 10%

55:17threshold that they would be considered

55:19to be and

55:20be one of these members. It does not

55:22mean it's formed and recognized as a

55:24political party in accordance with

55:26applicable mayor election laws. That was

55:28not intended to say that any person or

55:30any member

55:31um

55:32any party who

55:35did not reach that 10% threshold would

55:37have the opportunity to serve as a

55:39member. I also want to point out though

55:41that when you think about this, it is

55:43our responsibility and the mayor's

55:45responsibility to do the research and

55:46the work to ensure that the membership

55:49is equitable, diverse, and that

55:53they speak with the proper parties to

55:55ensure that representation is there. So,

55:58to say that, you know, the the current

56:01legislation is going to limit or or

56:06ensure that it's equitable for all

56:08parties, this process will do the same.

56:11Because the mayor who's representative

56:12of all the residents of Annapolis should

56:14have in their mind what

56:17membership should look like on the Board

56:19of Supervisors of Election with our

56:21input in place.

56:24>> So,

56:26just parsing the language, to me it does

56:29with the or and if you compare it to the

56:33prior language,

56:35the prior language, as I read it, it

56:37says in effect, and it applies to the

56:40the fifth member, it says that it's the

56:42political party that has the third

56:43highest number of registered voters in

56:45the City of Annapolis provided that this

56:47party represents at least 10% of the

56:50total registered voters in the city at

56:51the time of the most recent city general

56:54election. So, there it it's the third

56:58highest provided that they have at least

57:0010%. In the in this in the new language,

57:04I don't know whether this was consistent

57:06with the sponsor's intent or not, but

57:08the way it's drafted, I do think it's

57:10susceptible to a reading that

57:12um it you know, you could have a

57:14situation where that um

57:17political party with the third highest

57:18number of registered voters represents

57:20at least 10% or it just otherwise just

57:24be formed and recognized as a political

57:26party. So, it doesn't necessarily

57:28require that 10% um

57:31in subsection two. Though, I don't know

57:33whether that's consistent with the

57:35drafting intent.

57:36>> Yeah, it was not consistent with the

57:37drafting intent. I think the drafting

57:38intent was that it had to and this is

57:40why we changed it to the 10% was that

57:43they had to meet the 10% threshold in

57:45order to be

57:47a record party option for membership.

57:52>> Alderman

57:53Smith Brown just

57:54>> Yes, so I think that two should be

57:55stricken. I don't believe that it should

57:56be

57:56>> Or perhaps changed from or to and.

58:02>> Absolutely. If that makes more sense. I

58:04think that makes more sense.

58:06>> Um

58:07Alderman Smith Brown, I'll ask if you

58:08want to make the motion to amend your

58:11amendment to change that or to an and.

58:13>> Absolutely. I move to update this

58:15amendment to change the or to an and and

58:17I appreciate that.

58:19>> Is there a second?

58:20>> Second.

58:21>> Any discussion on this amendment?

58:26All those in favor of that particular

58:28amendment say I.

58:29>> I.

58:30>> Any opposed say no.

58:32>> No.

58:33>> I'll do a roll call. I think I motion

58:35carried but I just want to be sure.

58:37>> We're voting on the amendment as a whole

58:39or

58:40>> Just just the amendment to change that

58:42or to an and. That's the only thing

58:44we're voting on right now.

58:45>> Thank you.

58:50>> I.

58:56>> Uh abstain.

59:05>> Smith Brown.

59:05>> I.

59:09>> I.

59:12Alderman Meyer.

59:12>> I.

59:15>> Alderman Natty.

59:18Regas Alderman.

59:19>> Thank you.

59:21>> I.

59:24Alderman Toole.

59:25>> I.

59:26>> The motion carries. I will resume the

59:28discussion on the underlying amendment

59:31one now as amended. Um, I think Alderman

59:34Thorpe.

59:35And then when we're done with all the

59:37others, I'll come back to you, Alderman

59:38Huntley.

59:39>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

59:41I just want to point out we had a

59:42extensive conversation on this in the

59:45Rules Committee. I think it was 30 or 45

59:47minutes, and I really want to commend

59:50Alderman Smith Brown for the amount of

59:52work he put into it, and the discussion

59:54about partisanship and removing

59:56partisanship. I think I he really

59:58addressed that specifically, as well as

1:00:01other issues to go through the whole

1:00:03legislation to make it fair. Um, and I

1:00:06again, I just really commend you for the

1:00:08amount of effort you uh commend him for

1:00:10the amount of effort he put into this,

1:00:12and I wholeheartedly support this

1:00:13amendment.

1:00:16>> Others? Alderman Huntley.

1:00:18>> Well, in response to what Alderman

1:00:20Thorpe just said, this is the perfect

1:00:22example in which pretending partisanship

1:00:25does not exist is going to lead to a

1:00:27more partisan outcome. It will be a

1:00:29terrible outcome if what comes out of

1:00:31this is that we have five people who are

1:00:34the things that were we just uh laid out

1:00:37as what should be their affiliation in

1:00:39name only. We want people who are

1:00:41genuine Look, tonight I just I'm getting

1:00:43a little bit out of whack here, but the

1:00:46chair of the Montana Democratic Party

1:00:48resigned tonight because what happened

1:00:50is they had a candidate running as a

1:00:52Democrat who was clearly not a Democrat.

1:00:56And he was said, "I'm not going to stay

1:00:58part of this party and keep supporting

1:00:59this person." We want We do not want

1:01:01that to happen on our Board of

1:01:02Supervisors of Elections. We want people

1:01:05who we have a vetting process. This is

1:01:07not a person is not just uh Republican

1:01:10in name only or Democrat in name only in

1:01:12registration only. We want a process by

1:01:14which we can tell, "Is this person

1:01:16genuinely in going to give us a

1:01:18diversity of values on the in the

1:01:21board?" And secondly, I feel like maybe

1:01:24I didn't make it clear point earlier

1:01:25about all the percentages. Bless you.

1:01:28But

1:01:30again, the the choice is

1:01:32should the in effect majority party get

1:01:36a minority on the Board of Elections or

1:01:39should the majority party have a

1:01:41majority on the Board of Elections? And

1:01:44I think in a city you where 55 56% of

1:01:48our people are of one party, it makes

1:01:51sense to have that. We do not want a

1:01:53scenario where

1:01:55uh we're we're ruled by the minority.

1:01:58That just seems pretty obvious to me.

1:02:00And that's that would be the effect of

1:02:02this amendment, period, full stop.

1:02:05>> Thank you for your comments, Alderman

1:02:06Holyoke. I'm I don't agree with how

1:02:08you're reading this. As I read this

1:02:10amendment, you'd have, using today's

1:02:12numbers in this body, um not that this

1:02:15body's the wrong um

1:02:16phrase, but just this this population,

1:02:18you'd have one member, the first member

1:02:20be a Democrat, you'd have the second

1:02:22person be a Republican, you'd have the

1:02:24third person uh not qualify for a third

1:02:27party, so um

1:02:30most likely be uh end up being a

1:02:32Democrat. You'd have the first person be

1:02:35unaffiliated, and then you have one

1:02:37person any registered voter, so

1:02:39potentially a Democrat. In that

1:02:40scenario, you'd have three Democrats,

1:02:42one Republican, and one unaffiliated.

1:02:44Not the five Democrats that I think I

1:02:46heard you articulate.

1:02:48>> But I think Sorry, please. Alderman

1:02:50Holyoke,

1:02:50>> Yes, thank you, Mayor Lipman. Uh the

1:02:52other point that I think needs to be

1:02:54brought up is

1:02:56we are assuming that all people within

1:02:59the Central Committee are fully

1:03:01Democrats when they're not.

1:03:03>> Wow. They are now.

1:03:04>> So,

1:03:05>> [laughter]

1:03:05>> and that took months to even reach that

1:03:07consensus because members of that

1:03:10Central Committee weren't bold enough or

1:03:12even courageous enough to speak up and

1:03:14stand out and say that this member

1:03:16should not be on the center committee.

1:03:18It should not have taken that long.

1:03:19We're only a month away from the

1:03:20election.

1:03:21So, that is not even a a right point to

1:03:24say.

1:03:27>> Call the question.

1:03:28>> All those in favor of Alderman Smith

1:03:30Brown's Amendment number one as amended,

1:03:32please say I.

1:03:33>> I.

1:03:35>> Any opposed say no.

1:03:36>> No.

1:03:37>> Believe the eyes have it.

1:03:39If anyone's

1:03:40I'm moving on unless anyone's called for

1:03:41a roll call.

1:03:45I.

1:03:48>> I.

1:03:50>> Alderman O'Neal.

1:03:51>> I.

1:03:56>> I.

1:03:58>> Alderman Alsup Johnson.

1:03:59>> I.

1:04:02>> I.

1:04:05>> Alderman Contee.

1:04:06>> I.

1:04:12>> No.

1:04:16>> I.

1:04:17>> The motion carries.

1:04:19Next, we have the question of whether

1:04:20this was a substantive amendment, and

1:04:23this is a council question, but I'll ask

1:04:25for where the city attorney to give us

1:04:26guidance.

1:04:28>> Sure. Um so,

1:04:31since this is a council determination,

1:04:33I'll provide you just with the basic

1:04:35standard that applies to substantive

1:04:38versus non-substantive.

1:04:40And um just to paraphrase, this is the

1:04:43applicable standard from Maryland case

1:04:45law.

1:04:46Um unless a county charter ordinance or

1:04:49rule specifically provides to the

1:04:51contrary, only those changes to an

1:04:52ordinance so substantial as to change

1:04:55its basic character are regarded as

1:04:56material enough to require that the

1:04:58public hearing process be repeated.

1:05:01That's That's the basic standard. I can

1:05:02provide further guidance. I think the

1:05:04touchstone here is you look at the

1:05:07advertisement that was placed in the

1:05:10paper. I think that's a a fair place to

1:05:12to look. And it describes the the bill.

1:05:15This was how it was advertised to the

1:05:17public for the purpose of expanding the

1:05:19Board of Supervisors of Elections from

1:05:20three members to five members, stating

1:05:22how nominees would be selected by

1:05:24political party nomination and

1:05:25self-nomination, changing when the City

1:05:27Council appoints members, adding steps

1:05:29for filling vacancies, and generally

1:05:31related to the nomination and

1:05:32appointment of members of the Board of

1:05:34Supervisors of Elections. So, to the

1:05:37extent that these changes are still

1:05:38within generally within that scope,

1:05:40>> scope

1:05:41>> I would suggest that it's

1:05:42non-substantive. To the extent that you,

1:05:44you know, feel that we are now well

1:05:46beyond that scope, then you would

1:05:48consider it substantive.

1:05:51>> Is there a motion to vote on whether

1:05:54these amendments to CA 226 are

1:05:57substantive?

1:06:00>> So moved.

1:06:00>> Second. So moved.

1:06:01>> Okay. Is there a second?

1:06:05>> Second.

1:06:06>> Okay. Any discussion?

1:06:08Councilman Savage, please keep it brief.

1:06:10>> Yes, I just So, now that we have more

1:06:12time, I will send this to law office,

1:06:13but there are errors in the amendment we

1:06:15need to take care of before this gets

1:06:17resolved. I'll send them along.

1:06:20>> Further discussion?

1:06:21>> Yes, uh Mayor Litman, I would love to

1:06:23have had these uh

1:06:25these observations in the Rules and City

1:06:27Government meeting where we spent over

1:06:2940 minutes talking about this, and the

1:06:31member who is sharing that these errors

1:06:33are in it was present at that meeting.

1:06:35So, that would have been great. I do

1:06:36support always public input and public

1:06:39hearing. So, I mind going toward a

1:06:41public hearing. I think that would be

1:06:42amazing to just continue the

1:06:44conversation cuz this is going to uh

1:06:46transform our city elections, at least

1:06:47taking one step forward in that.

1:07:04>> Um [clears throat]

1:07:05with the consultation of the city

1:07:06attorney about best practices on

1:07:08resolving these sort of technical

1:07:09amendments, um I would like to

1:07:13I'm going to make a motion to amend, but

1:07:16I'd like the city attorney to articulate

1:07:18what that motion is, please.

1:07:21Or that to be clear, I'm not asking for

1:07:22the motion. I'm going to ask him to

1:07:23articulate it and ask one of you to make

1:07:26the motion.