Municipal governments can improve fiscal health by strategically paying off high-interest debt services, which frees up funds for capital projects and reduces annual budget pressures. In this case, the city proposed paying off approximately $3.5 million in water and sewer debt services, which would reduce annual debt service from $900,000 to $200,000, saving $700,000 in interest payments and providing $300,000 for capital projects. This approach allows municipalities to maintain budget flexibility while addressing long-term infrastructure needs.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Mayor & City Council Workshop May 6, 2026Añadido:
Good evening everyone. and welcome to the mayor and city council workshop Wednesday May 6 2026. If you'd please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America and to theublic for it stands indivisible.
Up first, we have review of the minutes from April 8th, 2026 and April 13, 2026 regular meetings and the April 22nd to 2026 special water meeting. Is there any comments, questions, concerns on the minutes?
Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to the appointment of acting police chief.
So, I'm going to make a oddish request to council and that is for a motion and vote tonight on the appointment of acting police chief.
However, the appointment will go into effect June 8th of 2026. So, I'm looking for a >> what date?
>> June 8th of 2026. So, that'll be the chief's last day. So, we'll have kind of a little exit ceremony at the council meeting and then Jesse, our appointment candidate, would would transition straight into that essentially. So, there's no lapse of coverage on the chief part. Um, so I'm going to ask for a motion in regards to that. And again, a motion for appointment of acting chief for Jesse Castellar with a start date of June 8th, 2026.
>> All right. I motion uh for appointment date of June 8th for Jesse and Ni.
>> Looking for a second.
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> I give it to I'll give it to Nick.
>> Um any additional comments, questions, concerns by council.
Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> All those opposed name.
>> Carries. Jesse. Looking forward to having you as our acting chief in June.
and chief, we'll we'll make sure to give you a ceremony too in June. Again, appreciate your service here as well. Uh proceeding forward to the council member statement regarding conflicts of interest on agenda items. Is there any council members who would like to make a statement tonight?
Hearing uh hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to the public comment pertaining to agenda non-aggenda items. To comment on a specific agenda item after has been discussed by council, please sign up with the city clerk and you will be asked to come forward at the appropriate time. Is there anybody in the audience who'd like to make public comment tonight?
Yes, there is one member of the public >> want to make a comment.
>> He's giving me a no. So, I'm gonna proceed. But it is good it is good to see you here. Thank Thank you for coming out. Um proceeding forward to consideration or review. Does anybody need a moment to consider or review anything that is in the council packet before I start getting into it?
>> Uh yeah. Uh the bicycle ordinance that's in here, is that changed at all?
>> Nope.
>> No. Okay.
>> We didn't change anything in police department, right? I think it Yep.
same one that you sent over. Um, >> this is the one with the new This is the one with the new lowered time frame >> or disposal.
>> Yeah, I want to say so double check it real quick just to make sure it's the one I think it is.
Okay. So, this one has 180 days.
>> That's that's how I originally wrote it.
Like I didn't rewrite it to to take it down because we didn't really discuss it. Um Okay. Well, I mean, we talked about bringing it down, but for like a second, but there was no discussion after that.
>> So, I guess want to discuss that. We'll just once we get down to it, we'll discuss it some more. Um, what did we do? Introduced that last month, right?
>> Yeah, that sounds right.
>> Yeah. Okay. Anybody need anything else for consideration review?
>> Proceeding forward resolution, ordinances, and agreements. Uh, first up, we have ordinance 07-2026 fiscal year 2027-2028 operating budget.
that up in my packet.
So, I will open the floor to discussion.
Who would like to start for tonight?
And I know the packet includes the memo that I have on the budget, what all additionally has changed, what hasn't.
Um, just to go over it briefly. Um, >> has anything changed from Friday?
>> Nothing's changed from Friday. So, it is the exact same thing that was sent out originally. The only thing Yeah, nothing's changed in it. Um, >> so again, my proposal for since the water meeting is a little bit different from what we talked about the water meeting. My proposal is to council to make a or to adopt a resolution that will allow us to pay off the debt service, two of our largest debt services in the water and sewer line items.
And paying that debt service off will balance the current water structure as well as leave 300 after towards capital projects for this fiscal year. $300,000 that is. Um there again, that's the only thing that's really changed from when we talked about the water meeting essentially.
>> Were were those numbers in the packet somewhere? Like uh >> they're not necessarily >> I know we talked ballpark numbers. Yeah, they're not necessarily in the packet because it would be it would be basically paid before we even get into the budget season.
>> Okay.
>> So, it' be a resolution and we'd pay it before we get into FY 27 essentially.
>> Okay.
>> So, it I think it comes out to uh Jim, do you remember what that total was?
>> What we'd have to pay off for those two debts. I thought it was in like a >> I think it I think it was a three and a halfish million dollar debt.
>> It might be it's either 3.5 or three >> 3.6. I don't have that in front of me.
Uh >> is it ballpark right though? Like three and a halfish.
>> Yeah, >> that that's >> it should because we just we just we have a payment that's already getting paid right now.
>> So yeah, I think it comes out to about three and a half essentially.
>> Yeah. And there's no penalties for paying it off early.
>> No, not when Barry looked into it. Not this year.
>> Cool. So >> again, that'll allow us to have a little bit more flexibility for water budgeting in the next fiscal years as well. Um, again, I know in my memo included in the packet, you'll see the objective of this administration at least is to make sure 300,000 is either going back towards capital projects or into that fund, whichever is happening.
So, when looking at the capital projects, the only thing that kind of sticks out there would be the U water tower. And again, due to its amount, no matter how much we try to put back there, the city's going to end up having to take a loan for it or unless there's some kind of major grant funding in relation to it, you know, that those are the options that are going to come when that comes due. And I think we put that to >> What do we put that to now?
>> You have that deferred to 32.
>> 32. Yeah.
>> Yeah. That was that was mainly what I wrote down in advance was just, you know, what's our long-term plan with the utility fund? And I know we're we're from what I was pulling, please correct me on all those data, that we're pulling about $1.64 million in our fund balance to be able to get everything shored up with debt services and to bridge the gap. Most of this is coming from reserves. So th this isn't even brought the debt service that we're looking to pay off isn't in this budget.
That's what we were talking about a second ago. So the actual debt service we have to pay off is about 3.5 million.
The what we're paying out of this budget is what's going towards capital projects. So the capital projects I think when we >> you had an allocation for the debt service in this budget plan, did you not?
>> Yes, there's still there's still an allocation for it.
>> It's not all paid off now, right?
>> So the debt service that is in this budget is just the debt service that's left after we've paid off the debt service that we're proposing, the 3.5 million.
>> I guess my my main thing is that we're >> debt service.
>> Yeah. So the the 3.5 million is how that number came down from I think it was up to like 900,000 is what the debt service was. And I think it's down to what?
And then the debt service now is down to 200,000. So it went from 900,000 to 200,000. That's because again my ask from council is going to pass. It's not going to be here. It's going to be in June. It's going to be a resolution to allow restricted utility funds to pay 3.5 million of debt service. And that that brings us do you remember what that brings us down to Jim after that payment? I think we had 11 and the utility fund and then 3.5.
Let's see. We were talking about paying off the infrastructure loan refunding which was 3.23 million and I believe it was the drinking water bond of $611,97.
I believe those were the two that we were going to pay off. So >> be the two larger ones. The total right now of the uh debt is uh 6 6,689,252.
>> So we'd be basically cutting that a little under half.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Because if you're if you're counting the capital projects this year, I know what you're saying, right?
Because if you if you're counting the debt service, we're paying the capital projects this year. Yeah. It would bring it down to about that amount.
Hey, >> with with dipping into the reserves to pay that off, what are we saving on the interest payments on that?
>> 7 $800,000. We're paying credit card rates for it. Like, it doesn't make any sense.
>> That's what it frees up $700,000 essentially.
>> Well, we we'd be literally paying double >> uh the amount of the the balance over the over the next five years because I I think it was a bullet to to five years, right? Like it >> Yeah. So, uh, one of them goes to one of them goes to FY2029, one of them goes to FY2020 or 2032. So, again, you're talking 5 years, and those payments are about $700,000 a year between the two of them.
>> So, again, if you pay that off, that leaves us with being able to put DPW back to some of its proposed funding for materials and supplies, which means again that puts us in the safe range for permit and everything like that, as well as at the end of it puts about 300,000 back towards capital projects. And I think that's after the debt service if I'm recalling correctly.
So the the debt service the annual principle and interest on the drinking water bond that's the 611,000 one is 224,290 and the infrastructure loan refunding that's the 3.2 million that was 616,000 a year principal and interest.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you Jim.
So again, not only is that going to help u again with our budget this cycle, but it's going to allow us if if there is any changes that have to be made in the future, those changes should be significantly smaller from what we are looking at currently. Um because as was mentioned, I think in the last meeting, we looking at about a 20% increase across the board is what you would have had to have done to make up that debt service.
So again, that is the current proposal for the budget with the water and the sewer is again to pay that debt service. Um, you know, the understanding from council would be is if they adopt this budget in June, it there's going to be a resolution to go ahead and pay that uh pay that debt service and that would create the budget that we have now essentially.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think we should definitely pay off the the debt service, the savings alone, and the the effective rate. I think I've already told you a bunch of times. It makes sense on on that ground. Um uh ho how much what's the five-year capital plan and roughly how much were we were we looking to spend on capital projects and utility? I I can't find that page.
>> I don't I'm not sure.
>> I don't remember the total. Um, again, if you exclude the water tower, which costs about as much as the other projects we had combined, it was enough that we would have enough in the current reserves, you know, before you even get to the money that we're putting back towards capital projects to be able to pay for the next 5 years of projects. Again, excluding the water tower.
>> You say in the current reserves, are you talking about the cash on hand?
>> Basically, yes. So do would we be acrewing uh so if if we have say I don't know I was making up a number $3 million worth of capital projects over the next five years would would our acrruals uh in that time make up for it or would we ultimately be drawing down our utility fund to >> so like you're talking like if the interest that we'd be making over the money keeping it there >> not interest so so I'm assuming all the interest is is wiped to zero right I'm I'm I'm just trying to think about the the the cash flows in in the system, right? So, if if we the system is making >> Yeah.
>> million dollars a year, but every year we have $500,000 of of capital projects, like does the system over the the course of of of those five years at our current rates pay for or like do we recover the cost?
>> No, you're saying does that basically the 300,000 that's going back to capital cover the cost for the capital products over the five years? So I would say no.
And part of the reason why reserves and part of the reason why it doesn't currently is because we don't know what the grant funding is going to look like on some of those projects.
>> So currently the answer would be no. And to again the hard part would be to budget around what we know the actual project's going to cost because we don't know what it's going to cost until we get around to the project and have the grant funding lined up for it essentially.
But that's I mean that's kind of like all of our projects you'll see in the in the uh capital improvement plan. Um you'll see essentially where projects that we already have that do already have that grant funding is actually lined up in there. Um but again the projects that are in you know 2028 etc 209 2030 we haven't got grant funding for those yet. So again currently the 300,000 would not and that's because grant funding hasn't been applied to projects. Um, >> so do these if we don't get grants to pay for for the projects that are are in the pipeline, does that mean that they get deferred uh for longer or does that mean we do them anyways and and just draw down on reserves?
>> It could be basically either. Um, >> I thought we wouldn't have even enough reserves to deal with that problem.
>> We do for everything but the water towers.
>> The I'm coming up with $14 million minus the water tower, $8 million. And then of course grants would help with that. But I mean the water tower is at least eight or sorry at least six. Yeah.
>> And we have nothing allocated for that.
We're just hoping we get grants.
>> Yeah. If I'm remembering correctly, our current projects alone have grant funding even the stuff that's coming up this year.
>> Yeah. No, it mitigate it mitigates the 14 down to a more more manageable number. But it doesn't look like we have anything like is the plan we just if we can't get grants, we're just going to take out a loan and we back to square one in five years.
>> It really just depends. I mean, the question would come down to whether to raise rates to fund the fund the project itself or whether you're going to take out loans for them. It comes down to council's decision on what they'd want to do in that regard because it's kind of like think to um who's the other one right now that's doing it? Is it Manchester? Again, they're doing a specific loan that then gets tacked onto the water bill to pay for that specific project. And again, some of these projects, there's no way you're going to raise rates specifically to account for projects all the way to 2032 unless you guys are going to do a massive rate increase.
>> I don't think anyone's proposing anything like that. I just, you know, is there is there not a way that we can't start chipping away at those big expense items rather than just >> I'd argue that this does that because not only is okay because after we pay this uh after we pay these two loans off again, not only are we down on the uh interest that we're paying on them, but we also are still getting interest on the cash reserves that we have as well.
Even after all of that, we were still down previously.
So again, we're chipping away at it. I mean, it's not a significant amount.
We're not paying for all those projects just by the amount amount of money that we're putting away. But I'd say a combination between cash on hand and loan funding is what we're going to have to do for bigger projects. I mean, it's t Jim, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's typical for the larger projects that we see here at the city as far as water and sewer goes.
>> We will often slide a project farther into the future if we don't have financing lined up, if we don't have either a a grant source or we're not able to pay cash. Uh historically we have borrowed uh not recently though. So certainly we're trying to minimize our borrowing for the capital projects. So we would most likely be recommending pushing things out farther into the future if we're not able to get grant funding for some of them.
>> And that's I mean that's kind of like exactly what we did with the water tower for instance. Um that was pushed further into the future. It's something me and the city manager talked about as far as we haven't had a unless it came back since the last time we talked to him was a recommendation that we have to build that tower is for pressure reasons um or for safety reasons. So I don't think we have a current mandate to build that tower as far as I have you got that back from the engineer since the last time we talked.
>> No.
>> So we don't have any issues if we had to have one of the water towers offline that it wouldn't interfere with firemen and their need for water.
Jim, do you want to answer?
>> He's been able to maintain system pressure on one of the two storage vessels.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And that's uh that's kind of why the water tower is deferred is because when talking with the city manager, for instance, is if our engineer isn't coming back that we need that water tower for pressure just yet, you know, that is not an immediate project that we need lined up currently. Um so again, that's the deferral for the water tower.
I think we sit in a comfortable position for the other projects. And again, while they while they're significant in amount, they will be chipped away through grants and whatnot. and again not only by the grants but our contribution back to the water system over the next couple years here. So, um, and again, I know water's one of the bigger things, uh, to talk about in the budget. You know, some of the other things we did, and I do want to bring it up, is, um, when looking at staff salaries, we had, uh, the executive assistant, Mackenzie Alvin, she went through and did some studies compared to, uh, multiple other municipalities to see how our staff were sitting currently. um when she did that comparison and what uh she compared it with the CPI, right, Jim?
Yep. Okay. And when comparing it with that, basically it came it came back that our mark of what we were looking for of that $2,500 is basically the exact mark that we need to bring people back up into alignment of pay essentially.
>> How does that correlate with cola?
>> Uh that are we under that what we need to be for?
>> Yes, we are we are under. So that's essentially what it is. What are we proposing as a percentage for >> the cola is staying the 3% but we're adding $2,500 on >> if we're under then what are >> onto our base salaries. If we're under where we're supposed to be, what are we?
>> That's what we're That's what we're doing.
>> Three%.
>> Soanded raises are basically 3% set every year, which hasn't kept up with inflation% like this is a catch up.
>> Correct. Which is why I'm saying shouldn't it is it more than 3% if >> Well, that's what that's what the 2500 is. So the 2500 is catching it back up.
>> You're giving me a raw number. I was looking for percentage, but I can I can do the math here. the the percent again the 2500 is what catches it back up to be able to continue to do the 3% essentially >> 2500 is being added to the steps >> y so it's essentially being added to the base to accelerate them to basically accelerate it we're not we're not doing a flat percentage increase because that doesn't have the same effect as to what we're looking for >> um doing the 25 again it's similar to what we're doing at the police department for instance is again raising that starting salary to 60 um municipalities around us are catching up to us and some are even past us currently I think it was Mount Air for instance. I think they're at >> How how did we come up with that number?
I mean any other municipalities in the county?
>> Well, currently the county is even higher than the 60. Um the municipalities for Mount Ary for instance is about the 57. I think it was 57 when Mackenzie looked into it. Um but 60 is essentially what the police department and the officers have have said that that is what they are looking for for their starting salary in that department. Um and that is to keep us not only competitive but retention wise for the officers. Um, again, >> what city are we benchmarking? I mean, Mount Area is probably not the best benchmark. Are we >> Well, there's only >> Are we Westminster benchmarking this?
>> Westminster's ahead of us. They're correct. They're around 625 63.
>> Go on, McCarron.
>> I I'm just looking at parody compared to the other police departments.
>> What >> seems like we need a survey or comparison to like to our to our neighboring municipalities and see where we stand.
That's what the That's what the mayor's saying with Westminster.
>> And that's that's what I'm saying is again, Mackenzie did a brief one. Um, police even >> expect to pay what the county pays or what >> No. Oh, again, I'm going to tell you even the 60 isn't close to what the county is paying currently. And even the 60 isn't comparable to what Westminster is paying, for instance. Um, I'm going to tell you, we're in a we're a very unique police department in that there aren't many municipalities that even compare to what we do currently. We offer 247 coverage and I think uh I think most of the municipalities in Carol County are still working at trying to get 247 coverage. Um so again how we compare I guess to the local municipalities in Carol County is you know unless if you take out >> differentials double. So >> yeah the shift differential is uh is relatively small apples as far as the doubling. Again that's just basically the guys who work night shift. It's going from $1 to $2. Um, but I think that came out to a total of $23,000 added to the budget.
>> Well, of all the things in the budget, that's the only thing I've really had any kind of real problem with. It seems like we're not that we're just throwing money at the at the case there's a problem. Not that not that there is a problem. think we need to be >> it was I mean I would say it was essentially brought to me to by staff that we would have officers starting to look to leave the department if we didn't catch up our salaries and again that is something I'm going to tell you that's something that happens everywhere in police departments is officers do look to other areas that have higher starting salaries >> I thought we we talked about there being like a queue or like a small wait list for we had we had a queue while we had open positions but a lot of that also is that I'll tell you I'll tell you as again council and I'll tell you myself as well ran on a $60,000 starting salary for the police department. And that's part of why people have been expecting, I guess, our police department to come up to, I'd say, par with what we're looking at regionally. So again, while we have while we have people available for the positions, we have people in there. Now, I would say that you will start to lose officers if there's not an adjustment.
Again, I think uh I think when comparing it again, Mount AR is really the closest unless you guys do you guys know of a Carol County municipality that's closer to us than I guess Mount Ary. I mean, Westminster wouldn't be a real good comparison. Again, they they are ahead of us anyways, but Mount Ary is ahead of us as far as starting salary. I think they're at 57.
>> That's the way it should be. I mean, that that's >> makes sense. I mean, Westminster's a lot bigger than we are. Yeah, he's got a bigger is a bigger town than we are.
What do you mean?
>> Do we have any idea what Sykesville is?
>> I recall checking, but >> yeah, I don't recall Sykesville off the top of my head either.
>> County, PG County, it's about 71. Anna County, it's 712.
Thanksville.
>> I mean, I'd benchmark ourselves slightly below Westminster. I think that is the most appropriate one to benchmark.
>> And that's what I'm saying is >> so if they're at 62, we should be at 60 or 61.
>> And that's what I'm and that's exactly what I'm saying is, you know, if we benchmark it off of the 625 that Westminster's around, come down to the 60, that puts us, I think, right around in line of where we should be as far as the offerings go.
>> Now, I don't know this question, but this came into my mind the other day when I was looking at the police budget.
Are we able to give any additional incentive for those who live within town because those people pay property taxes, which would recycle their own salaries?
I think that's something we'll probably talk about in the future as an added perk to as an added incentive to the police department >> again for this for this year is mainly to hit off what we could what made sense I'm going to tell you at the police department wise I think we have it's just major Mitchell who lives in Tonytown right >> so he would be 61 >> 61 yeah >> I feel like that's behind for Sykesville >> I'd say their area of where they're located and what they have there yeah probably >> so why why are we not at 62 or 61 then based on what you're describing Um, >> why are we not >> I would say than 60 >> what we have available in the budget.
>> My answer we are we are about $4,000.
There's a $4,000 gap between what we're currently budgeted and $4,000 where budgets going to capital after everything. So there is not much wiggle room currently.
>> Sorry, wiggle room for what I was looking up >> if to adjust it higher for instance.
>> So he's got money for the 60 but he doesn't have money for the 61. I mean he worked hard >> really hard on this. This was impressive work between the department heads, the mayor, city manager.
>> Brings it up from the starting of what was it 52 54 >> I mean >> 50 so 525 >> we're very behind on the salary for >> so when this started in 2023 and again I'll tell you one of the things I ran on for instance was a $6 starting salary.
The police department was at 498 so they're at 525 now after the colas and whatnot. Um so again the 525 to the 60,000 I think retains you officers for the future.
>> And then not only that um I think we need to make sure that we're paying our officers reason or well in in in a >> ideally I mean I think we think all of our staff should be paid well.
>> And I will say there is uh while Sykesville might be at 61 for instance there's other things that we've included in here that are additional incentives in the police department. Again the additional four hours as additional pay.
Um it's and then we have what the shift differential and so >> I know I know our residents appreciate the coverage. Um I'm totally favor of the 60. I would just say we should entertain in the future exploring how we get to 61 62 because by the time we get to 62 Westminster will go up to 64 probably.
>> I mean I I don't I don't disagree with that.
>> So not for tonight's discussion but in the future I'd like to be able to explore what we can do to get that more in line in the future.
Okay.
Um, any additional comments, questions, concerns on the budget? Cam, >> camera revenue >> is budgeted at 450. We have three.
>> What basis do we use to assume we're going to generate $450,000 in revenue from tickets?
>> That is a conservative, very conservative currently. So, >> we've had the speed camera live for what, six months?
>> No, >> not even six months.
>> January went live.
>> January. So, we've had four months of data. How much are we recovering? Well, there's a there's a delay between what we get when we get it and whatnot. So, I think we we're at what, three? We've received three >> or Yeah.
>> partial of January.
>> Yeah.
>> So, >> how much how much was received so far?
>> Um, so the first partial was what? 40 30 35 38 maybe.
>> The second one was 70 and >> Yeah.
>> What time span was that over?
>> $100,000 in a month.
What? A month >> for the 77?
>> Well, I know two things happen. One, more people's speed the ticket price goes up, but also I know that it deters people from using it. So then I would imagine ticket revenue would go down because people are going to be less likely to speed over time.
>> It is eventually going to go down.
Again, the the problem I'd say is uh what we're facing right now is again from where it started from where we're at now. And one of the reasons we went with a more conservative at 450 is also just because uh you got to remember people do have time from when they get the ticket to when they actually have to pay. Um I think you're going to see more people paying as that deadline comes up on their citations for instance. So you're going to see it coming in batches and waves. Um but again I >> either way you don't want to overestimate this this revenue and >> and again part part of it was also based on what we're seeing paid for the citations versus the citations that were actually issued at the police department. So the numbers that they are still seeing daily versus what we're seeing and the numbers that we're getting back from the actual red speed company as far as what's being paid.
>> So what's our what's our plan if the revenue comes in lower than projected >> um >> address that shortfall if that happens.
So we just have to do a budget amendment mid year >> essentially. But I'm going I'm going to tell you this year it's not going well.
>> All right. On the flip side, what happens if the revenue is higher than expected? What are we planning to use to allocate that revenue towards? It goes back into the capital budget. Um >> I thought we can only use it for very specific items.
>> Can but that's what it goes back in the capital budget for reuse essentially into those specific items. For instance, there is a budget from the monies that we have currently that are coming in for this year are capital capitalized for 300,000 to go towards a if you look at the capital improvement projects for speed safety um everything from rapid flash and beacons to raised crosswalks to um >> it's segregated cash for the purpose of public safety stuff. Right. is basically it can be used for any public safety pedestrian safety measure >> but the demand for the revenue is going to be greater than whatever it could generate so we'll be able to allocate always >> yeah our something that needs >> I have mixed feelings about that camera it's >> public public safety is one of the biggest parts of our budget essentially >> and again it's not and part of that actually is the uh there is an additional civilian assistant for public safety which is going to be funded through that as well and that'll be processing the citations that'll They'll be working front office basically a second person in the front office for the police department and that's something that's been in the talks for a while.
>> Okay.
>> Y >> but part of their part of their position will be processing those citations. So part of their position will be paid through that as well.
>> What uh what revenue what uh what reserves will we have um in the general fund and utility fund?
>> Jim, what we went over utility fund earlier, but Jim, do you want to go over the u what we have there? I don't have it in my >> 14ish.
Okay, I scrolled past it. Sorry. What was the question again?
>> Yeah, just what is our reserves going to be with this budget in the general fund and what will our reserves be in the utility fund?
>> I'm not going to be able to give that to you tonight, but I will have it for Monday.
>> Sure.
Also, I will say when we uh when we were doing the police salaries, we did have three different tiers. We had the 60,000, we had a 615, and we had a 625 just to see what it would look like when we plugged all those in. So, again, we did attempt larger there. It just came down to budget constraints essentially.
>> I just would want the best police people taking care of a res residence and when you offer a salary that's attractive, you get the best typically. That's why I was asking.
>> Yeah, >> I appreciate you. Like I said, I can tell you, the city manager, I could imagine multiple people at city hall have really put their effort into this.
So, thank you.
Additional comments, questions, concerns on the budget.
Hearing none, I am proceeding forward.
Up next, we have the fiscal year 2027-2028 tax rate. Um, again, rates are staying the same. That is the proposal. Is there any additional comments, questions, concerns from council on that?
Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to ordinance 10-2026 accessory dwelling units.
>> All right. Can you give me an overview of this?
>> Jim, do you want to do you want to give an overview?
>> What's the problem? What's the problem that this is looking to fix?
>> It matches some of the state stuff that's coming down.
>> This is a state requirement. uh by October we are required to allow accessory dwelling units essentially in any zoning district that allows single family detached homes. So uh this is really just about complying with uh with state mandates. Uh planning director Gray has shared his draft ordinance with the Maryland Department of Planning. uh they came back with from the original estimate with some change or the original draft rather with some changes regarding parking that better aligned with the state's requirements. Uh so we're asking special counsel to review this one. Uh but again, we're required to act before October to allow these >> define accessory dwelling unit real fast. I think it's I know it's in somewhere. It's basically uh folks have used the term uh you know granny flats, things like that in the past. It's it's essentially a dwelling unit self-contained. Uh that means it has uh cooking, sanitary, and living facilities that are separate from the main dwelling. It can't exceed more than 70% of the principal dwelling on the site.
It could be a detached structure or it could be within an existing dwelling unit. It could be within an existing accessory building on the site. Um, so there's all sorts of variations of it, but generally it's capped at at no greater than 70% of the size of the principal dwelling on the lot. And um that's and again, you know, it needs to have those those those three main things um you know, living, sanitary, and cooking facilities >> meant to help address the housing crisis in Maryland >> essentially.
>> And I think the idea is that it could assist with the the price of housing as well. uh but >> increased supply >> building code mayor >> may ensure that they're not going to be terribly inexpensive.
>> Any additional comments concerns on accessory dwelling units.
>> There may be further changes to this after the uh after special counsel reviews. So, if there are, we'll certainly uh track those changes for you before it's uh up for approval next month. And this will require a public hearing because it is a zoning ordinance. So, right now, we would expect to have that hearing um at our um at our June meeting or June workshop.
>> Sounds good. Any additional comments, questions, concerns on accessory dwelling units?
Hearing none, I am proceeding down to the resolution 2026-04 capital improvement program for fiscal years 227-2032.
Is there is there any question, comments, concerns from council on the capital improvement program?
I'm going to be digging into it more between now and I mean there there's there's a lot in it and it's kind of the same thing that happens. It really depends on funding grants. Um again whether we want to take out loans for bigger projects. A lot of the parks and recck stuff is all uh is all based on some of the park redoing some of the parks throughout the town.
Um, again, one of the big capital, one of the big capital projects this year is the memorial memorial park expansion that came um as part of the FY25 budget and came into the FY what or was the FY26 budget came into the FY27 budget.
So again, that transferred over to this year. Um, again, a lot of stuff in parks. Um, >> when are we thinking we'd be moving forward with the well 11 fastest?
>> Jim, >> CDM Smith, our consultant engineer, is currently working on an RFP request for proposal for the treatment for uh for that well as well as the uh well at THS Park. I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well 14 um also has some uh PAS. So, we're rolling them into one project and uh I I don't have a date that we expect the RFP to go out right now.
>> Thank you.
>> Any additional comments, question, concerns for the capital improvement program for fiscal years 2027, 2033, 2032.
>> There's one more. I got to find it. It's the uh it's the one for that residential where we're taking we're ripping up the streets to replace their piping. Trying to find where that is again.
Uh, George Street and Middle Street would be the more immediate ones.
Oh, I was thinking of Tanny Village.
Okay, that's that's 2030. We're doing that.
>> Yeah, the two immediate ones like Jim said are George Street, Middle Street.
>> That's the big ticket item. All right.
Thank you. Any additional comments, questions, concerns on the capital improvement program for fiscal years 2027-2032?
Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward. Um adoption ordinance 08-2026 bicycles going again. We had this in April. Um I think the only concerns of note I had and I know um police department have anything they want to talk about on it tonight before I start.
So on the I would say on the 180 days I'd recommend bringing those down to about 90. Um, we had a we and I'm going to tell you we haven't taken bicycles in Tony Town for a very long time, but uh there was a point where we basically had to clear out a garage of bicycles. A lot of the times bicycles are abandoned here there whatsoever. Um, they do get posted up, you know, come grab them, whatever, but we end up just they just end up in there. Um, so we want to make sure we're getting those out so they just aren't taking up storage space at the city if nobody's coming to claim them within, you know, the 90 days that they're or the 180 that is proposed. I propose moving it down to 90.
Again, that's just if nobody's coming to claim an abandoned bicycle, I don't know if we got to keep it for half a year in our buildings.
Um, that's that's a big concern. Well, not a big concern.
I think the other one would be I think that's what I got mainly is mainly just the time frame on it. Um, Jesse, did you want to talk more on your >> I was gonna say I I had my own stuff, too.
>> I'll let I'll let you go.
>> Um, >> I'll let him go before you come up.
>> Uh, a couple things. I mean, I I recognize the the the fact that we need to define electric bicycles, although it seems that bicycles are in the name, so it should have fell under that, but we'll roll with it. But other than that, I' i'd like some uh some clarification on enforcement because this seems fairly performative at the moment.
because we don't h how would we actually in enforce any of this? Like today I had an for I had an ebike uh um coming on Robert's Mill and I stopped at the stop sign and then I I proceeded into the intersection. He was coming on Robert's Mill and he just kept right on trucking and if I had been any slower he'd have run into the side of me. Um, I'd like to see more uh more community education on bicycles because it seems from people that I've talked to that that doesn't seem like it's happening as often as it as it did say when I was a kid back in the stone age. Um but um so like like school presentations pres um presentation like at at the carnival like when when we've got tents set up offering offering the quick bike safety of hey you have to have a helmet have to have this at the the whole nine by the way follow the traffic laws um >> are the traffic laws.
So, uh, so yeah. So, I I' I'd personally I'd rather see more on that front, um, than than listing out all of the enforcement that I'm not sure we can actually do.
>> Community engagement versus punitive is is definitely the right.
>> If we can enforce it, we probably shouldn't b it.
That's that that's kind of where I'm at is what I I like I said, I get I get that we should we should have our stuff to to where it it matches where you have to have a helmet if you're 16 and under and that sort of stuff. But again, I just I'm I'm I'm at a loss just because we've we we still have a lot of complaints about >> another element that hasn't been addressed, at least that I don't know where it is. If it has, is electric scooters there. That's just as bad as the bicycle.
>> Actually, that's that's in the >> scooters is going to be in another section. I already I talked to them about that.
>> Is a section literally before this one in the code. I I had I had the same thought and and asked the same question.
>> I think this is going to be the model and then it'll get applied to scooters.
>> This is happening first, then scooters is coming down the pipeline.
>> All right.
>> Yeah, that's and because I agree they they need to be they need to be covered.
But >> we don't need to give them a blank check cuz they're they're worse than the bicycles.
I've also followed a couple that were doing 25 or so easily uh going up uh going up O'Brien towards Keenan. So, >> and I've seen them back this >> they go right through stop signs and it's it's you know I'm not here to say we're going to be able to enforce that part. But I would love to see these kids with helmets on because it's just it's a ticking time bomb.
>> I saw electric bike and on the way over here tonight electric bike went through that intersection up there. I know he was going over 30 mph. I know he was.
>> Just to be clear though, just because we make the rule, that doesn't mean the kids are going to follow it.
>> Yeah. I'm going to be very clear that I'm I'm going to tell you guys something again. If they're not wearing helmets now, I don't think it's because they don't know they should be wearing helmets.
>> And when the officers do stop them, they do try to educate them. It doesn't mean that they're going to listen >> or get their attention. And again, that's, you know, I think the question from the administration would just be how far does council want to enforce it?
Because I mean, that that is the real question. I'm going tell you, my guys at the police department, that's what they're asking is how far does council want to enforce this? Because it's kind of, you know, going back to some or other ordinance, just to give you guys an example, we have an ordinance that says you can't have uh basketball hoops facing the street. So, you know, what we do here is mo most of the time when we enforce an ordinance, it is based on public health, safety, and whatnot. It isn't just going around trying to ticket everybody on everything because if we did that, just about every house in this town has some kind of ordinance that they're out they're out of compliance with. I think we all know that. Um so again, that that isn't the goal of our enforcement or our ordinances. It's really to proh protect health, safety, wellness, the town, etc. Um but again, when it comes down to some of this stuff, it just depends on how much the elected officials actually what they want that enforcement to look like. Um because again, if the guys go start ticketing all the kids without helmets, I might tell you there's going to be some angry parents, very vocal angry parents talking about helmets and whatnot. If we start taking bikes, same thing. There's going to be some very vocal parents about taking bikes. Um >> one of them, >> you know, we saw that when we did when they did the hoops back in the day, it was a very uh touchy subject matter. And again, in a small town where we're trying to advocate for kids to be outside and be safe and whatnot, um >> screens. And again, we want them to be safe. Just I don't think, you know, telling them, >> and again, we I think we do. I know Haley's been working on some public engagement as far as bicycle safety and whatnot goes.
>> It just I'm going to tell you a lot of it isn't that they don't know they shouldn't be wearing a helmet. They know they should be wearing a helmet. Um it's just that they don't they don't care.
And they could I mean, for all I know, they get on the yard, you know, mother's like, "Hey, I see you got your helmet on. You know, you're good to go." They get on the yard. They take their helmet off, they throw it, and you know, they get on the scooter and they go about their merry way. Um, just, you know, just be aware if if council really wants that to be enforced further, you know, I think the directive needs to come from the elected officials. Hey, well, we want you guys to start getting people without helmets. We want you to start taking their bikes to set an example, whatever. If that is what council wants, just be aware there is a flip side to that that there's going to be some very vocal, angry people.
>> We have a place where these kids can even use it. I thought we outlawed it or it was outlawed for like all of our parks. So, they can't even go to our parks to to do this stuff, right? They have to more or less be on our streets.
It's not out. It's not yet. So they can go on like Memorial Park and >> technically you're not supposed to be on the street doing damage.
>> I was going to say bicycles bicycles are supposed to be road. They're not supposed to be sidewalk. Scooters >> on the road. They're subject to all >> Yeah. They should be subject to set of stuff.
>> I just make sure we they have an outlet that they could be safe in.
>> Um >> and this is I think actually part of the conversation is I I can't remember. I think ordinance says they're not supposed to be on sidewalks. I thought I thought you weren't >> reckless manner. Okay. So, >> yeah, we got to I mean I think we got two separate things that are actually going on. I will tell you I've had people with concerns about how they're being rode on the sidewalk and at the same time I have concerns from people how they're being rode on the road which is it's again two separate set of rules really. Again, the road one technically those apply to all vehicles that are on the roads uh traveling and whatnot. and then the sidewalk ones is I think what we're mainly trying to address here I thought but again this is a very convoluted uh it just depends it depends what the elected officials want >> Rachel do you have let's leazison do you have any of the data like on how many things we've pulled over because I mean based on the rules they can't do anything >> no but I mean after talking to multiple officers about like how many times they've pulled over children on bikes it's a lot and even I was talking um officer Eckles and I asked his opinion on it and um he stated that he's pulled over the same group of kids every single >> So this isn't a matter we're trying to find kids. This is just we have no tools to respond when it occurs.
>> That's what we're working on is getting what tools we should be able to use and because I mean they can warn them. They give they educate them anytime they do pull over children um or stop them to talk to them. And it's not that they're not educating them on, hey, you should be wearing a helmet, but when they don't have anything they really can do to enforce it, >> then again, it's not it's it is not popular to impound bikes. Um, >> nobody wants to take all the officers will tell you they don't want to take a bike.
>> I am I am vehemently against taking a child's bike because they don't have a helmet on. I understand it's annoying, but like that is >> bananas. They do say in the past that when they have taken bikes, it was for them riding recklessly.
>> Dangerous stuff. Dangerous behavior in and out of traffic. Totally get that.
>> There's been multiple instances of the same kid getting hit in traffic.
>> Um, >> so I think at that point they do need their bike taken away.
>> Yeah. No, dangerous dangerous behavior that or or behavior that that is or can can very likely cause harm to to themselves or to other people. Fine. I have no problem with that. And I'm pretty sure that's that's how I I I I drafted this drafted this.
>> Um I'm I'm just gonna say if we're talking about taking away kids kids bikes or or whatever because they're not wearing a helmet, I'm going to scream about that from the mountain tops for years.
>> And and the cops will the officers will tell you that's not why these bikes were taken.
>> And again, I'll tell you >> and I understand Timmy the Terror is is is going to be Timmy the Terror, but let's just >> they're talking about kids zipping in.
So Nick, just to just to confirm though, if we both agree to to pass this, you're going to be with me on revoking this ordinance if the kids' bikes are taken away >> for helmets. Yes.
>> Let me let me let me >> Okay. Thank you. Just make sure we're in agreement on that.
>> I do definitely think you'll >> if I find out about that, I'm I'm burn.
>> I will be right there with you.
>> Let me let me say this clearly. Again, the administration follows essentially we enforce to the level the elected officials are willing to enforce. Again, my again, not only the police department, but even the code enforcement. It depends on what the elected officials are willing, the lengths they're willing to go, and the level of enforcement they're willing to do because we have many ordinances that cover a very broad range of things. And they can be be applied to many, many different things. And I'm going tell you, there's there's not many households that I could pass in town right now that doesn't have some kind of ordinance that they're in violation of. And the reason why we don't go and do it to every single household and the reason why we do it on a complaint basis is because the belief at least from my administration is that we enforce based on public health, public safety, and again public needs of the city. It isn't just to be specifically stringent to the ordinance. Um unless council objects, I'm going to do something a little ordinate. Um we >> Yeah, feel free to come up.
>> My opinion, I've been listening to all this. Bill Eisenberg, East Baltimore Street, been a long time funny town.
>> All the comments that I've heard up here on the mayor said about how upset the may about the parents would be, ownership should be on the parents.
>> Yep.
>> You know, if if what she said about well multiple times the officers stopped these same kids, well, where do the where do the parents come involved? They should be taken to the parents and say, "Look, the safety of your child or safety of the cars around them, >> the public >> should be they're responsible. Shouldn't be up to these officers. They have enough. They're inundated by so much in this town anyways. So why are we taking all this time? It should be some education.
And if it's come three strikes or whatever you want to do with these kids, so be it. Let the parents be upset >> with their child.
>> Not with us, not with you guys.
>> I'd like for parents to come out and publicly complain that their kid got a citation for not wearing a helmet.
>> I just don't get that. It's like it's the society that the parents are buffered. It shouldn't be that way.
>> So I'm I'm pretty sure the way that I I thank you very much. the ability to site and and educational material. So like I I I the way I have interpret this and and wrote it was was to basically cover what you're talking about just it couldn't take away the bike for a helmet specifically.
>> Should you look at the parent to take that bike away?
>> I agree.
>> I know when they do when the officers do pull over a a kid for instance for their and and sight them they do make the parents aware.
>> Yeah, they do. So if it's a citation, right?
>> Yeah. So citations go to the parents.
>> And that that's the other thing is again depending on the activity involvement that's going on, the police department do make contact with the parents in regards to some of the activities. Um and again that's just what it what it comes down to is is it really just comes down to the amount of enforcement that everybody's willing to do. Um we're you know it says we can take bikes currently in code. It literally says that in code that we could do that now. However, since I've been here at least, I don't know of many bicycles or ebikes that we've taken. I mean, has have we have we done that since I've been here?
>> So, again, our our approach has been mainly make contact with the kids that are doing the dangerous behavior, educate them where we can, and again, if they're doing extremely if they're doing something where parents need to be contacted, we are making parent contact.
Um, I think a lot of this comes the right approach.
>> Do we do we have numbers on citations >> like citations to the for those?
>> Um, I I was going to say because that's I mean it's it it kind of dovetales with what what I've been I've been asking for in the background um of map. Yeah.
>> Not, like I said, not necessarily even a heat map of of where things are happening, but just like general areas of enforcement that have gone on like we we were we were on Roth and we picked up five people doing stop signs there or we did um but yeah, I just we get we get the raw data every month of such such and such citations were written, such and such warnings were written, which thank you guys for that.
>> Where's it going? Where because that's because one one of the big complaints that I still hear is >> well what what what's going on in in our community to to to help the these things out. So that's so that I' I've been curious about that for a couple of months now. So I've been I've been trying to push for that. And uh you know just to make note on that one thing I I will say is you know I I see on Facebook of you know they're not they're not uh I don't know enforcing on this street or that street but citations are up from 2023 forward almost double of what we were doing. We are issuing citations. We are doing traffic control. Um again the kids part is a little bit trickier because obviously >> their job entails more than patrol.
>> There is many kids riding ebikes at this point. Every Christmas it increases. So, >> mayor question to kind of put some of my fellow councilmen at ease. I mean, are we able to pass it as is with your recommendation of 90 days, but have it where it's it auto expires after 6 months and then we can just revote it permanently, you know, if we have concerns because I want to make sure that our police department has the tools to assess the problem.
>> So, the the 90 days that I was suggesting was the 90 days to bring the 100 >> No, I I know the 90 days to to bring it down from 180. I agree. Is there a way we're able to say like, look, we're going to have this ordinance in place for six months and then we'll revote on it permanently to kind of put some of my peers at ease.
>> So, you can't you can't necessarily temporarily put the ordinance.
>> I can't put an automatic expiration date on ordinance.
>> No, but I mean, we could just add it to that in six months. It could be added back to the council. Again, it's an ordinance. You guys can change it. You know, all you need is seven days between the introduction and the passage. So if you guys want to change it, it is the council's prerogative to change ordinances rather rapidly as opposed to like uh charter for instance. So resolutions for instance, you can do same day the the you know the code you got a 7-day waiting period after introduction. But my suggestion would be if you adopt it um you know you guys can ask me right now you know motion to adopt with a reevaluation 60 in six months to be added back to the agenda for council to talk again. Um that could that would be basically the process of the you know temporary and revisit.
>> I mean yeah so >> um yeah I know we talked we talked about this a little bit more than probably need to. Jesse did you have any additional comments? I know >> I'm you said you have notes though. I'm curious what those notes are.
>> Can you come up to the mic?
>> Come up.
The only thing that I saw uh was for the uh the helmet issue. Um there's no consequences after just like in here you have you have a warning like a verbal warning and then you have a nonsitation warning.
I don't know what that is. And then there's there's no there's no formal consequence. So, uh, we need like predictable consequences to build over time so they enforce the enforcement actually works. So, >> so what kind >> what are you looking for?
>> I think I think he's almost asking for like um, you know, after we've done you know, three warnings, it's time for >> Yeah. Once we've done three or four warnings, the last thing we want to do is take a kid's microwave. But they're only going to learn if you enforce it and the enforcement actually means something. At that point, I would I I would change it to to fine citations.
>> Yeah, that's what I would recommend as well.
>> That's perfect.
>> What happens if they don't adhere to fine citations?
>> What happens to any >> I mean, you're opening up a can of worms. It's going to be greater than what we should talk about tonight.
>> For helmets specifically, I don't think we should be confiscating bikes. I be I'm fine with a fine after, you know, whatever two, three, whatever. I I I don't think we should be taking kids bikes for home.
>> So, in the past week, I've witnessed Well, I didn't witness it happen, but I came out about 30 seconds right after it happened. A kid hit a woman with his bike. No helmet, no nothing.
>> And he's known for not wearing a helmet.
So, like what happens that car and go splat across the road with no helmet on?
>> Dangerous behavior. Fine.
>> That is dangerous behavior. I would consider it.
>> Just just the helmet.
>> No. If you're told multiple if you're caught multiple times in instances of not wearing a helmet, I would consider that to be dangerous.
>> And we'll continue to educate them. It's not like we're just going to go up to them and be like, you know, we're going to take your bike away. The consistent warnings and then the citation and then eventually just it'll lead to something more permanent than just >> I mean, I'd almost be in favor of >> I would say it's better take the bike away and give them a like, hey, it's gone for a week. I don't want to give it I don't want to give out warnings like they're candy but warning fine more severe fine.
>> That's what I'm saying. Like it it stack up to it though because eventually like if the kid doesn't learn I much rather take that kid's bike away than him be dead in the middle of the road.
>> Yeah. But is that a government is that something the government should do though? If he's going to be dead the parental issue is not going to be dead because of the helmet. He's going to be dead because he was doing doing dangerous behavior like like you know riding in front of traffic. to go to go back to this just to go back to the >> wellie point actually to go back to the lieutenant's point um you know how would everybody feel about a warning fine and again I'm not sure if we're able to do this but a what if there was a impoundment of I don't know after it was impounded for 20 days they can come get it without paying an impoundment fee or they could pay an empoundment fee to get it back earlier if that makes sense. So the idea would be almost a consequence where it's a holding period of, hey, you know, we've warned you. We've given you a citation. The citation goes to the parents. Again, now we have your bike.
You know, your parents can obviously come pay and get your property back, but after 20 days, you know, hopefully you've learned your lesson without your I don't know, Timmy's bicycle, you know, I don't know.
>> Um, but again, there's got to be some kind of I I know what you're getting at.
There's got to be some kind of enforcement to it or why include it in here. Um, other than education, >> taking a bike and holding it hostage would work. So >> the uh >> So I'm definitely saying it shouldn't just go straight to >> you sound like you're a parent yourself.
>> I am.
>> Yeah, you understand.
>> I I could see if if some if a kid's getting pulled over multiple times for or >> caught or however however the terminology is >> for for helmets.
>> We're supposed to be getting all these hundreds of thousands of dollars in public safety money. Can we afford a helmet to give to a kid?
>> Yep.
>> Part of the program on grants to do that to hand out helmets to to the kids.
>> Yeah.
>> Because I mean that's to to me after you get a couple of the couple of rounds of this, you give them a helmet. After you after you get rid of after they get one more with no helmet, then you go to town.
>> I will I will say though again after three warnings of not having a helmet, you give little Timmy a helmet. Little Timmyy's taking that to the next place.
He can get five bucks for the helmet.
So, but I mean I mean realistically I mean >> well we'll do our part in education.
>> Yeah, but again it's it's what it's what we can do. So make sure they have them.
So >> I was going to say and then at that point I would say that there needed to be an escalating fine schedule uh that that's going to the parents at that point.
>> No, absolutely.
>> On the 180 days you uh you guys wanted to reduce it to 90. How how long are you guys usually holding stuff now when you when you impound them? We've had we we've dealt with bicycles that's been in our garages for years because they just don't get them. Now we have uh something in place now to get rid of said bicycles. We donate them and they refurbish.
>> So if you've been holding them for years, what what is what is bumping it down from 180 to 90 do?
>> It just lets us to get rid of them.
>> Yeah. That way we're not holding them and you know collecting. And and again, the city's the city's not making money off these bikes anymore. We're actually giving back bikes to the community afterwards that hey, you know, >> and again, it's mainly just because we don't want to have we don't want have to have the responsibility of keeping bikes for, you know, half a year. Um again, if you have not come and got your bike in half a year, you're probably not using said >> come get it.
>> Um now, you know, that's the reality of it. Um and again, we have not we have not taken a bike since I think I' I've been here.
>> What's the current policy on disposal?
Do you guys Is this internal or I don't remember that being written in code currently.
>> It's internal as far as like the bike disposal goes as far as I'm aware.
>> Is it just fast and loose?
>> It's in there. Um >> I think we have the authority through the code to do it. Yes, we have the authority through the code to dispose but what we do with them is is internal when we give it out and get the new refur refurbished bike. Um how about we do this? How about again >> why don't we let this sit for another 30 days because we we still have 30 days that we can sit on it. we everybody gets back, you know, any additional feedback between now and June and we put it back for adoption in >> Wait, why do we want to sit on this? It sounds like we had a great discussion tonight and there's some fine tuning we can we can do.
>> I'm saying it sounds like this problem is continuously occurring.
>> Well, that's what I'm saying is I think again we already most like the ability to impound we already have that authority. But what I'm saying is I think this should probably sit for another 30 days for additional feedback from council. Again, what there has been some differences of I would say of what's been set up here as far as >> Yeah, there have been some big differences.
>> Yeah. and that needs to sit for a bit, you know, because we're not going to come to a conclusion by Monday of some of the differences that I've heard up here so far. Um, so again, sit on it till June. Council, if you have additional feedback, be sure to get it in by then.
Um, any additional comments, questions, concerns. Thank you, Jesse. Any additional comments, questions, concerns from council on this?
Hearing none, I'm proceeding forward to the city manager report. Jim, you got some stuff for us?
>> Sure do. Just a couple quick updates. Uh as far as charter and code review goes, uh the site plan chapter has been sent to special counsel for uh his review. Uh don't have any update on the sign ordinance this month. Um as has been mentioned, a lot of times been spent on the budget this month. So the sign ordinance kind of took a backseat to that. Uh you've got the accessory dwelling unit draft before you. Um and uh again, as I mentioned earlier, that's that's required by state legislation uh by October of 2026. We have to have that in place. Um on the Memorial Drive water service project, uh we're expecting construction to begin on May 18th. Uh we've been in touch with and will continue to communicate with the volunteer fire company with regard to the project relative to the fireman's carnival uh that happens in in June. Uh so we're you know coordinating to make sure that we don't disrupt things down there um you know to any great degree.
There's obviously going to be equipment and materials stored down in the park for the project. So, there probably is going to be some impact as far as uh the overflow parking that that we typically host in the park, but aside from that, we'll make sure the road is open and and so on. Uh couple other things, I didn't find it quite quickly enough. We were talking about the RFP for wells 11, 12, and 14. Uh CDM Smith expects to have that done in the next two months. Uh that was in the DPW report, but I just wasn't quick enough to find it when the question came up earlier. Um, also the question was posed about our investment options during our water and sewer meeting and uh the treasurer and I will be meeting with our primary bank on Monday to talk about um and review our our our current accounts with them. Uh so we're going to have a conversation about some options and and uh products that may be more to our advantage. Uh, so that's coming up next week. Also wanted to call your attention to the memorandum that's in your packet starts on page 72. That's the CDM Smith memorandum regarding the specification manual update. So that's the executive summary we talked about uh at our last meeting just to kind of summarize the substantive changes to those three manuals. So hopefully everybody has a chance to take a look at that before Monday night. And uh that's what I've got. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to do my best to field them.
>> Jim, I actually have one question for you just because I haven't had a chance to talk with you much today. Um I know you're on vacation, so try not to bother you.
>> Appreciate that.
>> Um legal counsel, have they gotten back to us on Memorial Park?
>> Not yet.
>> Okay. Um any additional questions for the city manager on city manager reports? So, I just want to be clear on this Memorial Park thing. So, we're still assessing our options. That's what that's what I I'm hearing when you say you haven't heard back from legal.
>> Yep. We're we're still waiting legal input and that will be that will guide where our next options go. So, >> okay. Would would we be able to put it back?
I I don't know if this is a legal question or not. Would would we be able to put it back before the planning commission or take it to uh take the the risk and and push it to BZA? I think it's uh I think that'll be a decision made after legal counsel comes back to us on what we're looking at.
>> But procedurally, >> we do have the Yeah, we do have the ability to. Yes.
>> Procedurally, yes, you could do that.
Correct.
>> Okay.
>> And that's what again we have we have a couple different options on it. Um it's mainly just waiting to hear back from Jay on >> what that looks like.
>> Any idea on a time frame for that? I would imagine he was just at the ethics meeting on what Monday or Tuesday?
Monday. So I assume we'll probably hear back from him sometime this week.
>> I'll be following up with him when I am back in the office Monday.
>> Awesome. Thank you.
>> Yep.
>> Uh additional comments, questions, concerns from the city manager report.
>> Any additional comments, questions, concerns on the department reports or did you have more on that, Jim, that you wanted to go over?
>> Nope. Unless folks have questions, I can find answers for you.
>> Um, actually with the department report, I do want to point to council's attention. There are some shirts and some coins on your desk today. Those are the shirts and challenge coins that are going out as part of the 250th anniversary. Um, you know, my ask council is please spread the word within your neighborhoods. Um, the 250th committee is working really hard on that. Uh, public work or um, parks and reccks working really hard on that.
Lena, Mackenzie, all of them are working. They're doing a lot of good work in regards to that. So, you know, our hope is to get people out there, try to get their stamps. Um, we're going to host makeup sessions for those stamps as well. Like the park cleanup, it was a pretty nasty day. So, we're going to go and try to uh, you know, if you go out to one of our parks, take a picture of you clean up the park, you can come get a stamp to make up for that day. Um, we're also going to work in collaboration with the museum to some of the museum events. You can go and get stickers at the museum events. So, just wanted to call that to attention as part of the department reports. Again, the 250th kind of leans into the parks and rec stuff.
on 250 is uh Mr. McCarron, is that is that something you're doing? Aren't you on the 250 commission?
>> Yeah, it's a couple of us at this point.
So, I'm on there. I'm kind of I'm in there with them right now. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> How's it going?
>> I haven't heard any updates on it in a while.
>> 250th is going good. I think we've made a lot of good.
>> Yeah, I I think it's uh clicking right along. We've got a lot of good things going on.
>> We're also talking about Maryland 250th, which is next year. We had a talk this month about that. some of the stuff for that. Um, so I think we got a pretty good we got a pretty good proposal for council next year on Maryland 250th that we're working up. So, um, yeah, I think >> fishing derby this weekend. That's always >> I'll be there. Are you going to be there?
>> Hey, I know you are.
>> If you're there, do you want to man the 250th booth?
>> I'm I'm I'm doing >> Are you already doing something for >> Lena got measuring fish?
>> I told her I'd find her somebody for the 250th booth. If anybody if anybody's looking to host >> a Daniel he'd complain about it some >> but he would love it about the brain.
>> The brain might he might do it.
>> Um so yeah again we got a lot of good stuff going on. Um we also have winefest this month. I know we're not in council review or the leison on position reviews but we do have winefest this month. We got Memorial Day parade. We got the memorial day ceremony that morning. Um we got all kinds of stuff going on this month. So, good month for events and again, you know, if you're looking to get a free shirt, a free coin, um there's even a gift card to businesses who've enrolled in the community gift card program. There's a lot of cool stuff to get by doing that.
>> Have there been a lot of businesses enroll in that?
>> Um I think it's up to nine small businesses that have enrolled in it.
Something something in that regard. Um Mcken Mackenzie McKenzie pushes it out every every week or two weeks to try to get more businesses to do it. And about every time she pushes out, another business registers. Um, again, that's where we're going to lean towards towards events is the universal gift card that can be used across the businesses. So, we're not picking and choosing what businesses get it. You're able to use it at what businesses you choose. Um, you know, we got some registered like A&W meets is registered.
Um, I think the Bowlingers is registered. Uh, yeah, I forgot what again there's a couple different ones registered. Um, but so again, gives you options. Um, proceeding down old business, unless somebody has any comments, questions, concerns, department reports. Proceeding down old business. Um, approval of revisions to general specifications for street and storm water management facilities construction.
Um, I think this was the one that Jim said there is a small there's a summary now.
>> We got the executive summary in the packet now. So, >> so again, that is uh Jim, are we doing a going for approval this month or do we say we're going to go for June on that?
We had intended to request approval this month for that one.
>> Okay. So, please review the executive summary that's in there. And again, if you have any additional comments, questions, concerns, please get them over to us by Monday.
Um, is there any additional comments, questions, concerns now? Not for staff.
>> This is this a street with one.
>> It has all kinds of stuff in there. The street with um safety mechanism for some streets. Um, couple different additions.
So, And again, this is what will apply to new streets that are going to be built within the city that the city will eventually accept ownership of. So, >> are there multiple different scenarios or is it just one uniform one we decided on?
>> This is like a Yeah, multiple for the different types of streets that we're doing, but it should but it's a universal placement for development essentially.
>> Correct. But yeah, there's different variations. All right. Thank you.
Uh, up next are any additional comments, questions, concerns on that before I proceed here. I'm proceeding for charter resolution. I'm just going to do both these charter resolution CR2601, charter resolution CR226-02.
Again, those are staying on the agenda as we proceed through it. Obviously, this month with I think me and Jim and Barry and the department, we're all working on budget for the last two to three weeks. So, um, there's not been much time to work on other stuff. So, just be aware of that that that has taken up a lot of our time this month.
Um, so we have nothing new there. Um, anybody have additional questions, comments, concerns on those before I proceed forward hearing? None. Proceeding forward.
Monthly financial report. Additional comments, questions, concerns by council on it.
Yep.
I'm good. Thank you.
>> Yep. Any additional comments, questions, concerns on the monthly financial report?
Hearing none. Proceeding forward.
Accounts payables. Additional comments, questions, concerns from council on accounts payables.
Hearing none, I am proceeding forward.
Extension of mowing contract Ecker's lawn service LLC for July 1st 2026 through June 20 30th 2027. So this is if I'm remembering correctly Jim and you can correct me if I'm wrong. This is the last extens extension that we're allowed to do on this contract before it's got to go back out. The recommendation from parks and wreck is to put this forward.
And I think Yep. Lena even has a memo in here. So >> been a while since that has actually been >> bid. Yeah. So that's this is the last year it can be extended, >> right, Jim? If I'm remembering correctly, >> that's correct. And as you mentioned, uh parks director Vicar does have a memo in the packet.
>> I understand that we're getting it extended for the same >> job. It's just that >> next year it will be >> when you when you extend extend extend extend. It's not a good sign.
>> But I understand we're getting it for the same price as we did last year. So no increase. That's a huge win right there. So, good job to all those involved in that.
>> And that's that's the main point is when we're doing these extensions is just try to keep that budget as aligned as possible. So, um again, actually, not only will this be up for bid next year, but I know I've uh messaged out to some of council members to start considering in 2027 the contract for u garbage disposal will be up for bid. So, just be aware. You know, that's a very uh item residents have comments about.
>> Keep keep it in the back of your mind.
Um there is un I would be very surprised if it somehow doesn't cost more than the contract that we had previously.
>> I don't think the lowest bid is always the best. And that is a good example of the lowest bid is not always the best.
>> It is. And that's again that's goes back to that consideration. Again, just remember this year for instance, we had that $4,000 buffer. When we go next year to look at this stuff, it it is >> us.
>> Again, even these I don't even think these guys would bid the same that they bid last time. we're going to see increases in garbage next year. So, just uh just be aware of that as we go as this year proceeds forward. Um >> and I I think we chat about this the other night briefly. Um we bringing having the city roll that back into like we do the the garbage was not financially feasible or it would cost significantly more than bidding it out is what >> Yeah.
>> I remember you telling me. So me and the city manager looked into that just a little bit. Um again, obviously we'd have to incur some pretty substantial expenses buying the garbage trucks. Um we'd have to get new DPW workers to do we'd have to get additional DBW workers for that, right?
>> Um I think when we >> long term though, would it would it be the better solution? I know I know that's it's going to be wor make the city worse off tactically in the short term, but like uh I I don't remember if we talked about if we rolled it in and the city does this moving forward, we could have more control over over service and potentially costs, but I don't I don't know if the the cost there would be cost savings in the long run.
Like I know we'd be hurt impacted.
>> Have we explored the cost proposal?
>> That's that's that's what I'm asking. So when when the bid comes out next year, we can then say, "Hey, look, the bid went up x percentage and now it's actually better to do it in house."
>> Yeah. Well, it's it's it's always going to be worse at first, right? Cuz like >> the initial starting cost. Yeah. Um but if you think about it over a 10, 20, you know, 30 year cycle, would we save money in the long run and and offer better service?
>> Even if it was break even and we saved not a penny, the quality of service we could control. And that's a huge >> and that's a win. So like I just I don't know that we talked about longterm. I know we said shortterm. Tactically it would be an issue.
>> The only the only thing I'll again me and the city manager we discussed this option. Um we you know one of the areas we looked at was Sykesville who currently does it. They're they're a municipality in I think they're only they're the only municipality in K County that does their own trash as far as I'm aware. Jim, am I correct on that?
I think that's what I remember from this conversation.
>> You are correct. uh Sykesville is the only one that does uh where their public works department sanitation.
>> So they uh and they want to get out of that business um for a variety of reasons. And so while yes, um it might make more sense financially, I would say, you know, think about these garbage companies. We aren't their only we aren't the only town that they're using. Yeah.
>> So those costs that they have are actually >> economies of scale in play. Yeah.
>> They're going to be divided across a couple different areas. And not only that, um there's definitely a lot more manning issues. Uh I would say liability issues as far as having our guys go out there and actually do all that do all those services. Um again, I think it probably looks good on paper and I think that's why Sykes was in the position they were in, but once you actually start managing that service, I think it is a lot uh a lot tougher than it seems is what I >> if we can just have the data for when the time comes and we can make an informed decision that would be great.
So, uh, the when we had the budget meeting this year, one of the things I asked staff was they need to seriously look and consider at um even maybe explore some scenarios of what it's going to look like yes next year when garbage comes up. Um, so we're going to look at a couple different options potentially double, right?
>> Yep. And we're going to do some essentially some rough estimates to see what do we got to do, what do we got to do next year. So, just be aware that that it's something on the horizon, but we'll make sure that gets in. We'll see if we can't get even maybe something from uh the city of Sykesville. Maybe they're willing to write a memo of, you know, their experience on it or something like that that we can share with council. Um because I think that's again while it might look good and promising on paper, I think the experience and actually the management of it is kind of what attracts a lot of municipalities from it. I >> mean, I I don't know what it looks like on paper. I just I'm curious is more what I'm trying to figure out.
>> I think I think you're spot on where again that initial investment is where you're going to see the majority of your money going. Um after that it's probably going to even out if not come in a little bit lower. Um their problem just becomes the amount of headaches I guess that would follow suit with it. Um because it's one of those things, you know, these garbage companies, they have multiple trucks. We can only buy so many trucks. They have multiple trucks and they have breakdowns. So they have trucks that can back up those breakdowns. Um so again, we'll look and see what numbers we can come up with coun for council between now and next year. So, it is on the forefront of our minds at the administration level because we know it's coming up next year. So, we are, you know, we're looking at scenarios around it. So, we'll try to get you guys something.
>> Appreciate that.
>> Yep. Um, >> I suggest that uh council members who were going to the municipal league conference may want to >> talk with your uh counterparts in Sykesville uh maybe outside of a public meeting and get their uh straight opinions on on how uh that is working in the town.
>> Sure. Yeah. Keep it 100 with me.
>> I think the city manager just said we should take some somebody out to for drinks and find out.
>> Yeah. Easy easy.
>> He would never >> Yeah. Again, MML is a good chance for you guys to really explore that with some of the other people that do it. Um I'm not too sure the municipalities around Maryland that do it. Sykesville is really the only example I know regionally. um a lot of in Pennsylvania you see a lot of trash tacked onto water bills and stuff like that from what I can recall from Pennsylvania and that's how they manage those fees and the increased cost there. But with that I am looking for a motion of adjournment.
>> Looking for a second.
>> Second.
>> All those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> You can say nay if you want if you do not want to.
>> Let's go.
>> I won't do it to you this time.
>> You thought about it. I thought about it.
Videos Relacionados
Are you busy but still feeling broke?
TaraWagner
305 views•2026-06-01
Building Companies That Last: Sanjeev Bikhchandani on Founders, Funding & Growth
ICICIDirectOfficial
158 views•2026-06-02
What El Niño Means For FMCG Stocks & Rural Demand | Market Panic Or Buying Opportunity
NDTVProfitIndia
199 views•2026-06-02
This Stock Won't Stay Cheap For Longer
CouchInvestor
6K views•2026-06-02
Degree 4th semester bba management science previous year question papers @LearnwithSahera
LearnwithSahera
451 views•2026-05-30
This eBay Mistake Is Robbing You Blind
goldenstatepicker
275 views•2026-06-01
The Silent Sony Hi-Fi Division: How Japan's Biggest Brand Quietly Killed Its Own Audio Legacy
fallenhifi
2K views•2026-05-30
Exploiting Solarpower for INFINITE Money in Cities Skylines 2...
Erdgeist
1K views•2026-05-31
