This meeting is being recorded. Good evening. This is the Council's April Legislative Session in which we introduce new legislation and give final consideration to legislation previously introduced and heard. This legislative session is being conducted as a hybrid meeting which is available in person and virtual via WebEx. It is also available to the public through live stream on the Howard County Council website and broadcast on channels 44 if you're rising 99 and 1071 if you're calm cast. The council will hold a hybrid public hearing on Monday April 21st, 2025 beginning at 7 p.m. on the legislation introduced this evening. Testimony can be given in person or virtually via WebEx. Written comments on the new legislation can be sent in to CouncilMail at howardcountymd.gov. Anyone wishing to testify at the public hearing will have several options available. You may sign up in advance through the Council's website or you may sign up in person in front of the Banacharum via a laptop on Monday, April 21, prior to the start of the public hearing. When signing up to testify, you will be asked if you are a student in grades K through 12 so that you can be called to testify early in the meeting and whether your testimony will be provided in person or virtual via WebEx. If you select virtual, you will be provided instructions for logging into the WebEx session. If needed, the council will hold a work session on new legislation on Monday, April 28th, beginning at 9.30 a.m. in the Sea Vernon Grey Room. Public participation for these meetings will be available virtually via WebEx and viewed live stream through the county council website. At this time, I will do a roll call for our council members. Dr. Jones. Good evening, everyone. Miss Young, here. Miss Rigby will be joining shortly and Mr. Youngman. Here. I am also here. Tonight, we are honored with some very special guests who are going to lead us in reciting the pledge of allegiance and that is CUB Scout Pack 432. Thank you very much for that. Moving on to our agenda, we will begin today's session with approval of journals and minutes of meetings. I move to approve the Journal of Legislative Sessions on March 3rd and March 12th, 2025. Second. Ms. Herod, would you please call the vote to approve the journal of March 3rd and March 12th, 2025 legislative sessions? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Jones. Yes. Ms. Radebi. Yes. Ms. Duryungman. Yes. The motion to approve the journal passes. I move to approve the minutes of special meeting to hold closed session on March 3rd, a monthly meeting on March 10th, a legislative public hearing on March 17th, and a legislative work session on March 24th, 2025. Second. Mr. Edward, would you please call the vote to approve the minutes previously noted? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Miss Young? Yes. Miss Rigby? Yes. Miss Riyangman? Yes. The motion to approve the minutes passes. Will the council administrator please read the legislation for introduction? The following legislation is introduced by the chairperson at the request of the county executive unless otherwise noted. Council Resolution 65 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Gabriel Moreno to the Asian American and Pacific Islander Commission. Council Resolution 66 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Dr. Brittany Francine Birch to the Commission on Aging. Council Resolution 67 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Dr. Brittany Francine Birch to the Commission on Aging. Council Resolution 67, 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Valerie, a teammate to the Commission on Aging. Council Resolution 68, 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Madison Boroson Esquire to the advisory board on consumer protection. Council Resolution 69, 2025 resolution confirming the appointment of Matthew and Equate way to the advisory board on consumer protection, Council Resolution 70, 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Ashley M. Hood to the advisory board on consumer protection. Resolution 71, 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Dr. Dana E. Edwards, DOL to the Commission for Women. Council resolution 72, 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Zee Wang to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel. Council resolution 73, 2025. resolution confirming the appointment of Brian Lee Thompson to the Howard County Agricultural Preservation Board Reappointments council resolution 74 2025 resolution confirming the reappointment of Barbara Ellen to the local behavioral health advisory board Council resolution 75 2025 resolution confirming the reappointment of Aisha Holmes to the local behavioral health advisory board council resolution 76, 2025 a resolution confirming the reappointment of David B. Vest to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday commission council resolution 77, 2025 resolution confirming the reappointment of Chuck Chandler to the Human Traffic Prevention Coordination Council. Council Resolution 78, 2025, resolution confirming the reappointment of Sarah Cochran to the Human Traffic Prevention Coordination Council. Council Resolution 79, 2025, a resolution confirming the reappointment of Zanith, Nendum to the human trafficking prevention coordination. Financial Council resolution 80, 2025, a resolution endorsing and authorizing Howard County executive to file an application with the Maryland Transit Administration of Maryland Department of Transportation for grants under the Federal Transit Act and certain state transportation grants indicating certain endorsement by the county executive and requiring certain copies to be sent to the Maryland Department of Transportation. Council Bill 22, 2025, and act adopting a new flag descriptive description for Harry County, Maryland, setting out the design of the flag and colors displayed therein. Council Bill 23, 2025, and Act Adopted in the National Fire Protection Association, one fire code, 2024, addition as the Herrick County Fire Protection Code, which sets certain fire safety requirements for structures in order to protect life and property, making certain local amendments to the fire code which shall include among other things inspection authority charging area charging areas for certain devices in multifamily dwellings, dryer duct materials, sprinkler systems, and new daycare facilities, stairwell access and lighting, fire department access, fire lane signage, requiring garages with EV chargers to have certain smoke detection systems, and generally relating to fire safety requirements and fire prevention in Howard County. Council Bill 24, 2025, enacted in the International Building Code 2024, the International Residential Code 2024, the International Mechanical Code 2024, the International Energy Conservation Code 2024, and the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code 2024 edition. Providing that such codes collectively comprise the Howard County Building Code, regulating the design, construction, alteration, improvement, or modification of a building structure or other related equipment, adopting certain local amendments to the building code, adopting penalties for the violation of the building code, making certain technical corrections and generally relating to the regulations of buildings and construction in Howard County. Council Bill 25, 2025, and act adopting certain national codes as the Howard County Property Maintenance Code for rental housing, adopting local amendments, making certain technical corrections, and generally related to the Howard County Property Maintenance Code for rental housing. Council Bill 26, 2025, and act adopting the 2024 International Plumbing Code and the National Fuel Gas Code, NFPA 54-2024 as the plumbing and gas fitting code for Howard County in order to protect the public health and safety by setting forth criteria for the design and installation of plumbing and gas fitting systems, adopting local amendments to the plumbing and gas fitting code, making certain technical corrections and generally relating to the plumbing gas fitting code for Howard County. Council bill 27, 2025 introduced by Liz Walsh, an act demanding the Howard County code to require that the evaluation of protection of wetland streams and steep slopes waver and forest conservation variances be subject to the provisions of the Maryland Open Meetings Act and generally relating to waivers and variances. Council Bill 28, 2025, introduced by the Chairperson at the request of the Howard County Council, and act amending the Howard County Code to require that the Code require this goal analysis for each piece of legislation is now submitted in process by the county Council administrator and generally relating to legislative physical analysis Council bill 29 2025 introduced by Liz Walsh and act repealing a certain waiver exemption granted by the Department of Public Works for Development proposals in the Tiber Branch watershed and generally relating to subdivision and land development regulation waivers Council bill 30 2025 introduced by Liz Walsh and Activating the Howard County Code to add certain requirements to the membership qualifications for the Howard County Human Rights Commission And generally related to membership Council bill 31 2025 introduced by Deb Young, an act demanding the membership qualifications for the Inspector General Advisory Board to correct a technical error and generally relating to qualifications. That concludes our legislation for introduction. Miss Herod please read the legislation for final consideration. Council members unless there is an objection, Mrs. Herod will read all of the appointment resolutions together except council resolution 53 2025 and we will vote them together Hearing no objection Mrs. Herod. Please proceed the following legislation is introduced by the chairperson at the request of the county executive unless otherwise noted Council resolution 49 2025 appointment of Linda Lions to Animal Matters Hearing Board. Council Resolution 50 2025, appointment of Kyla Nicholl Kools, Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board. Council Resolution 51 2025, appointment of William Benjamin McIntyre the second to the Commission on Disabilities. Council Resolution 52 2025, appointment of Chappelle Lewis to the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday Commission, Council Resolution 54, 2025, appointment of Eric L. Clark, DCJ to the police accountability board. Council Resolution 55, 2025, reappointment of Gen for Broaddric to the board to promote self-sufficiency, Council Resolution 56 2025, Reappointment of Gen for Broadwreck to the Board to promote self-sufficiency, Council of Resolution 56, 2025, Reappointment of Theresa Fogat, SPHR, SHRM, SCP to the Board to promote self-sufficiency. Council Resolution 57 2025 Reappointment of the Huma, G, Mungan, so sorry, MDPH, so sorry, MDPH, MPH, MBA, Commission for Transitioning Students with Disabilities. Council Resolution 48, 2025 Reappointment of Alicia Reicher to the Commission for Transitioning Students with Disabilities. Council Resolution 59, 2025 2025. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Yes Miss Jung. Yes, Miss Rigby. Yes, Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Ms. Dungman. Yes. The previously read, Council Resolutions pass. Council Resolution 53 2025, a resolution confirming the appointment of Harry Braille to the who's the Stark Preservation Commission. I move to withdraw CR53 2025. Second. The motion to withdraw CR53 2025 has been moved and seconded, Mrs. Herod, please call the vote. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Mr. Youngman? Yes. The motion to withdraw CR 53 passes. Council bill 12, 2025. Multi-year agreement E-plus Technology Inc. for Cisco, telephone, and WebEx services. I move to approve CB 12, 2025. Second. CB 12, 2025 has been moved and seconded, is there any discussion? Mrs. Tarrad, would you please call the vote on CB 12 2025? Chair Walsh, yes. Dr. Jones, yes. Miss Jung, yes. Miss Rikby, yes. Mr. Youngman, yes. CB 12 2025 passes. Council Bill 13 2025. Bond issuance sale and delivery of $15 million in bonds for capital project CO337. I move to approve CB 13 2025. Second. I move to approve amendment 1 to CB 13 2025 2025. Second. Amendment one to council bill 13 just corrects the accessible base that's included in the bill. Amendment one to CB 13 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mr. Tarrad, would you please call the vote on amendment one to CB 13? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Scheng? Yes. Ms. Rikby? Yes. Mr. Youngman? Yes. Amendment one to CB 13 passes. CB 13 as amended has been moved and seconded, is there any discussion? Mrs. Tarrad, would you please call the vote on C.B. 13, 2025 as amended. Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Miss Young? Yes. Miss Rigby? Yes. Mr. Youngman? Yes. C.B. 13, 2025 as amended passes. Council resolution 61 2025 approving a financial assurance plan national pollutant discharge elimination system municipal separate storm sewer system permit program. I move to table CR61 2025. Second. The motion to table CR 61 2025 has been moved and seconded. Mrs. Herod please call the vote. Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Sean? I am having a hard time seeing any good reason to table this. I can miss Walsh explain why she wants to table it? I can. What? Yeah, I mentioned it. I am going to talk unless you tell me not to. Mr. go. And actually, um, so sorry. Is it? Mr. Young has not voted yet. I'd like to say something in my vote. Is it too late? I've already voted, but. I'll leave it, it's up to the chair, really. I just want to let you explain it. We're just gonna... Okay, I mentioned this in the work session. The version of this bill last year wasn't filed until July. And so I think it's premature to file and ask for something talking about financial assurances before this council exercises. It's very kind of route a charter rate to review scrutinize and pass a budget in May. So my ask during work session was that we defer this until after a budget. And for the same time period that we approved it last year, which was July. That's right. That's right. Okay, so for that purpose, hopefully it's not too late. I will switch my vote to no to table. I think we can get it done. Actually, now I'm going to say yes. So I think that's a good enough reason. Mr. Rikby? No. Mr. Youngman? No. The motion to table CR-61 fails. I move to to approve CR61. Second. Is there any discussion further on CR61? I mean, I think we raised the point. I thought our policy and scientist experts from early mental school were adept at pointing out some of the concerns we had and Miss Young herself mentioned of the chart in this submission to us that names all sorts of alleged stream restoration or stream stabilization that has no part being on anything that suggests it's ecologically or environmentally sound. We need to stop doing this and until this council puts its foot down I think we're going to keep doing it. Any more discussion? This area please call the vote vote on CR 61. Chair Walsh. No. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Young. I as Miss Walsh just pointed out this has been a concern actually of mine and Miss Walsh's. The county continues to pursue costly and destructive stream restoration projects. There are at least eight of these projects that are listed in the planning section of this financial assurance plan. I find that extremely concerning. My vote is no because I don't think that tearing down forests and destroying animal habitats should be used to meet water quality standards. I will also vote no when these projects come before the Council for funding. It is time to take a new less destructive approach to water management. Mitigating and managing source point pollution should be our bigger focus. I vote no on this bill. Mr. Riegby? Another thing I thought the Burley Miner Middle School students did was a great job of pointing out that a stream restoration is not a stream restoration is not a stream restoration that there is nuance involved that how it's been done in 2009 is very different than projects planned now for 2029. Sometimes these stream restorations are coming where we have erosion or other problems happening at pedestrian crossings. So we need to get in the streambed to repair this pedestrian crossing. And it's used as a dual opportunity. And it's using a much more thoughtful way now. So my vote for this financial plan is yes. I think that DPW has heard loud and clear over the past few years. That they need a changed approach and I think they've been responsive to that. So I go to yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. CR61, 2025 passes. Council Bill 14, 2025, classification service, eligibility list, federal employees and contractors, emergency legislation. I move to approve CB 14 2025. Second. I move to approve amendment one to CB 14 2025. Second. Amendment one to Council Bill 14 just clarifies and better states the emergency that exists. Amendment one to CB 14 2025 has been moved and seconded is Is there any discussion? Mrs. Herod, would you please call the vote on a amendment 1 to CB 14 2025? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Jones? Yes. And I'm very pleased that the county executive has put this bill before us and that we will be able to do at least some small part to help our federal employees. Yes, I did say yes. Yes, I did say yes. Okay, Miss Rigby. So about 10% of Howard County is or was employed by the federal government and so my vote is yes for this bill. Mr. Youngman. Yes, on the amendment. On the amendment, yes. Amendment 1, to CB 14, 2025 passes. CB 14, 2025 as amended has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mrs. Hair, would you please call the vote on CB 14 as amended? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Jung? Yes. Ms. Rigby? Yes. Ms. Triongman? No. CB 14 2025 passes as amended. Council Bill 15 2025, police and fire employees retirement plan, Maryland Police Corps service. I move to approve CB 15 2025. Second. CB 15 2025 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mrs. Herod, would you please call the vote on CB 15 2025? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes, and thank you so much for your service. Ms. Young? Yes, and I see you all back there and again. Thank you for all that you do for Howard County Miss Rigby yes, mr. Youngman yes CB 15 2025 passes Council resolution 62 2025 introduced by the chairperson on behalf of the county council and the county executive appointments of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of Mr. Chair, would you please call the vote on CR 622025? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Scheng. Yes. Ms. Rigby. It's pretty obvious what my vote's going to be, but I do just want to take a minute to appreciate everybody collectively here in this little pod space. We've worked everybody here worked really hard to create the position of Inspector General to have it restructured in a way that has checks and balances. It's, I think it's a really good model piece of legislation and I'm excited for this board. So my vote is yes. Thank you to everyone serving. Mr. Youngman. You know, this might be the last opportunity we have to actually talk to the members of this board, because we want them distanced from us. But there are some members of this board that have some local political, and I'll say ties, but interest. There's some political contributions from some folks that are on this board, and I want to remind you at least from my seat that this board is supposed to be completely separated from politics. You need to check those relationships and allegiances when you walk in the door every time you come to work You know on this advisory board, so I vote yes Sorry, I gotta go back in the number CR62 2025 passes Council bill 16 2025 introduced by Liz Walsh and your reports to the County Council, County Government website. I move to approve CB 16, 2025. Second. I move to approve Amendment 1 to CB 16, 2025. Second. This amendment establishes that the records that will be covered under this bill and published on our council website will be there for a period of at least five years. Amendment one to CB 16 2025 has been moved and seconded is there any discussion. Go ahead. But what I'm trying to understand is why we need a bill to say that the council can put something on its own web page because Because that seems to be what this is basically saying. That these reports can and should be posted on our web page. Because it requires that they be posted. Isn't, can't we just, as a council, say that we want it to be posted? I mean, do we need legislation to have something posted? I mean, right now, I guess we're required to post things about legislation on our website. Actually, I don't know. Are we required to post anything on our website legally? The only legal requirement under the charter is that it be posted out in the lobby on the bulletin boards. So everything else the council does in terms of public sharing of information is really a policy choice for the body. Okay, so that gets back, I guess, to my question. Why would this be the one thing that we would post on our, we would have a bill in order to post on our website when everything else we do is just policy? Over the last seven years, we haven't posted anything. And over the last seven years we haven't received the vast majority of the reports that are due to us as council. And I don't think there's a really better way to make that transparent and make accountability both in terms of our side as the recipient. And on the administration side or whoever else is the author of that particular report, accountability on both of those sides to actually generate the report in a timely fashion and for us to receive it. I guess we don't have to read it, I didn't put that in the bill. But publish it for our constituents. I'm sure all of you do what I do, which is rely on a constituency that is incredibly educated, incredibly interested in a lot of really specialized topics. And rather than me becoming an expert and reading the entirety of every single one of these 80 or so reports that we should have been receiving these seven years, I can do that as I wish, as you all can, but we can also make it available to each of our constituents. This has been a long standing request, I believe, of one of your constituents, Ms. Young, Joel Hurwitz. And HCCA has been in strong support of this and recommended many changes. I think those are a great idea, but this is a starting point and it wasn't a small undertaking. It's an effort that was begun by Diane Jones in terms of just even identifying the number of reports that are due to us and getting in touch with who was supposed to be drafting them and sending them to us. And I think it was Mr. Anderson who... in terms of just even identifying the number of reports that are due to us and getting in touch with who was supposed to be drafting them and sending them to us. And I think it was Mr. Anderson who finally finished that significant effort of even getting a hold of what that library of documents would be and then setting up a public facing a library of them. of them. So again, they're available to us. As we like, each of us is not maintaining a separate library of each of them and more importantly, it's available to us. As we like, each of us is not maintaining a separate library of each of them and more importantly, it's available to our constituents and anyone else in the world to like to read what's been going on in the county for the last five years. I guess my question would be the organization of the web page, the maintaining of the web page, Would it be on the links, would it be in folders, and do we have, and I'm sure we do, but from an IT perspective, do we have the bandwidth to have this repository, if you will, available? Because it's already available if you want to do an MPIA, or even come into the office. I mean, you come into the office and say, hey, I'm interested in, you know, 2022, this report. Do you have that? I guess it wouldn't be a legal requirement to turn it over, but if someone's interested in it, maybe research for a master's thesis or someone that's, you know, a political or something. So I guess my question would be what would the organization of the web page look like? I think it's up and running, right, at least with what we've been able to gather so far. We do have a web page started. It's listed under the Public Information tab on the County Council website and it has a chart which has a hyperlink to the code reference for the report and then a hyperlink to the report that we've received. We've noted the, like I mentioned, the code reference, the purpose of the report and the responsible party who provides it and if we have a tentative due date sometimes the code doesn't detail a due date and then we list the year of the report the year when we received that report. We've started with 2025 and we're working backwards to 24 and so forth. So this is already ongoing this is going to happen regardless of this whether this bill passes or not. We have created the website correct. And it's going to start getting populated going back year by year by year to however many hyperlinks we can create. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question in this here too? Okay. I'm curious how many reports do you have you received and have you had to follow up with anybody? Are you trying to follow up with anybody? Have you followed up with people and they've said, what are you talking about? We've never sent a report. We have. Just curious what you've got, you know, what you've heard. We have worked. We meeting my team. So Mr. Wimbledon and Mr. Anderson, as well as the staff, have worked diligently to follow up with the administration. There's an ongoing meeting. We started probably about a year and a half ago where we meet on a regular basis with a member of the administration and we review the reports that we are expecting to receive and have not received. I could say conservatively we received maybe 25% of the reports that are codified that the council should be receiving. Oh, that's low. And do we know what's happening with the other 75? I mean, not that I certainly agree that we should have this website miss wash, but I think our bigger problem is actually having getting the reports to put them on the website. Do we know that has that has been a struggle and we just continue to work with the administration. And is it a struggle for them too? I mean, are they having a hard time getting the entities who always report to get the report from them? The person that we've worked with, I believe struggles just as much as we have been identifying the report and the use and getting to the correct or department to get that report generated and identified into the council. Concerning. Or maybe we should be looking at that whole list and deciding whether or not we need reports from some of these organizations that could be another possibility. We are working on cleaning up the list for 2025 and hope to have it out in the next couple of weeks to council. Miss Rigmy. Thank you, Chair. That was exactly where I was going to go. I think it could be really, I thought that we were still ongoing and trying to get our whole list together of everything through the code that we're supposed to receive. So I'm glad to hear that the work has been completed because Ms. Walsh is absolutely correct. It's been an ongoing multi-year multi-staff process. And as a result, I mean, there's definitely some in that list that we don't need anymore that are really not relevant to today, but I think we should do the work of discussing it revising it and then removing them from the code. Any more discussion? Mr. Chair, would you please call the vote on a amendment one? I'm not correct. Correct. Amendment one to CB 16 2025. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Rigby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Amendment one to CB 16 2025 has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion on CB 16 as amended? here would you please call the vote on 16 as amended. Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones. So I have a concern that the... We can deal with it with the later bill if need be. I'll say yes. Ms. Scheng? Well I truly don't think that we need a bill given that this would be the only thing that we would ever that we've ever filed a bill for to ensure that something's on our website. I also, I guess, don't see any harm in it. And I wish that we had just been able to resolve this without having to go through legislation in order to do it, but yes. Mr. Rueckby. I'm definitely a bit chicken or egg on this one, but I'm a yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. CB-16 as amended passes. Council Bill 17, 2025 introduced by Christiana Rigby, geothermal energy device, tax credit act. I move to approve CB-17. Second. CB 17 2025 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Mrs. Herr, would you please call the vote on CB 17, 2025? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Jones? While I recognize the need for promoting alternative energy sources, and I'm glad that geothermal systems provide an on-site option for reducing energy demands, geothermal systems require a lot of land, which is a luxury in this county. Reinstating a credit to allow those with acreage to get a tax credit does create a disparity and that's very clear from the list of the people who have gotten these tax credits over the course of time that they've been available. County residents with resources have more financial means and now even a tax credit to lower their energy bills and participants and participate in the green future. My vote is yes, but I wish this bill had proposed a more equitable option for county residents. Mr. Rigby. Thank you. Jewe's thermal energy is one of the most efficient ways to heat and cool home, but it is really expensive to install. And I hope nobody out there is scared off because you can install these on as little as a quarter acre. There is vertical looping now. So you don't need a whole ton of land. It's one drill just down. And so this really does make it an accessible option for so many in our community from the east to the west. And I was really encouraged to file this bill by two residents of Columbia and another of Laurel. So the county previously had this tax credit. It expired in 2012 and by reinstating this tax credit through the legislation, more residents will have that opportunity and freedom to choose their energy generation. If you're upgrading your home with clean energy, this local credit coupled with federal residential clean energy credits can really make it more affordable. And I really just think that every step taken in our community to diversify and decrease our energy consumption is a step in the right direction. I go with this. Yes. three young men. Yes. The C.B. CB 17 2025 passes. Council Bill 18 2025, introduced by Christiana Redby, Transit Orient, Development, TOD, Residential Units Exemption. I move to tables CB 18. I'm going to put CB 18. It doesn't look like I have a second, Ms. Herring. Are you going to move to approve or do you want me to? Sorry. I just didn just didn't know if I could go yet, but I'll move to approve CB 18 20 25 Oh, what do I have to do? Ideos, okay, though most even if it's not seconded the motion to table feels Sorry, I move to approve CB 18 20 25 now. We're all in order wait someone say second say second. Second. All right, there we go. Now we're back on track. Are we? Yes. Deb, do you want to move here a amendment one? OK. I move. Excuse me. I move amendment one to CB 18 Second All right amendment one to CB 18 Find my place here Removes the at-vogue exemption from the Verbiage on the first page and And the reason for that is this bill would give an exemption to the TODs that this bill overall would cover. and APFO includes looking at what the capacity of each school is and ensuring that those schools are not overcrowded as we discussed at the work session the schools in the southeast where these TODs are located are very overcrowded and there are no immediate plans for capacity relief. Overcrouting is a cumulative problem and once the school reaches saturation it doesn't matter if new developments contribute one or 1,000 students, a close school is a close school. That is a rule and there should not be special favors given to certain developers who come into a council office and ask for them. This amendment deletes entirely the proposal to exempt TOD developments from the school capacity test. Amendment 1 to CB18, 2025 has in a different way. If there's no other six is that amendment? Mr. Chair, would you please call the vote on amendment 1 to CB 18, 2025? Chair Walsh? No. Dr. Jones? No. Ms. Jones? Yes. I think APO is one of the few pieces of legislation in our code that truly protects our schools from being overcrowded. And even if all it does is slow down the overcrowding, because all it does is keep developers from building as soon as they are ready to build. And actually just has them wait for a few years. I think it's important to honor our code in that way. So my vote is yes. Mr. Rikby? I think everyone almost everyone's for me to say this, but the one size fits all approach that this county has had to app fo. It's not a good rule. It is led to the outcomes we have today. They are not great. They are not ones that anybody here would choose to willingly have. But that is the result of them. Delaying housing stability today and expanding that. That affects a current second grader when they're in middle school. This is not a solution that is solved by adding more time to something. When you look at real data where real students come from, from the real places that they live, they are not living in transit-oriented developments. We know that from the pupil yield study. study. We can see the pupil yield generation from a NAPA-LIS junction. not living in transit oriented developments. We know that from the pupil yield study. We can see the pupil yield generation from a Napoli junction. So these kinds of rules applied in this way, they prevent us from having the resources to address the challenges before us. So my vote is no. Mr. Youngman. No. Amendment 1 to CB 18 2025 fails. I move to approve amendment 2 to CB 18. Second. This amendment makes more technical changes and clarifies definitions and the applicable TOD district designation to clarify that it is the county level. Amendment 2 to CB 18, 2025 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Just one and it's technical because it was to strike the word orient and substitute oriented and from my reading of this it already said oriented. I believe that was a draft, a really bad draft or typo sort of autocorrect issue. So we wanted it to say oriented but the bills that we had said oriented. Okay, when I looked at my version of this I guess it already said that. Oh, it's already been. It's already was in there. Yeah. Anyway. It's a short title. A short title. The typos in the short title. It was changed from the title title, but remained in the short title. OK. Is there any other discussion on Amendment 2? Mr. Chair, would you please call the vote on amendment two to CB 18 2025? Chair wall. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss John. Yes. Mr. Ruffie. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Amendment two to CB 18 2025 passes. I move to approve amendment 3 to CB 18 2025. Second. This amendment adds a requirement that 20% of all dwelling units constructed under the bill be bill according to Howard County Universal Design Guidelines. It requires 5% of the dwelling units to be disability income housing units and a mix of the 15 to 20% of housing units as moderate income housing units low income housing units or Disability income housing units. It also establishes a sunset provision and adds reporting requirements. I move to approve amendment one to amendment three to CV 18 2025. I move to approve amendment one to amendment three. Am I reading the wrong thing? No, no. I'm just going to. Amendment one to amendment one to amendment three. No, it's amendment one to amendment three. Okay. Is there a second? Did you say? Any second. Second. So this amendment, and I'll pass out copies, but it has a partner as well. And it essentially just allows us to figure out what we want this timeline and sunset to be. I put on one second. I'm sorry. Sorry. We have an amendment one to CB amendment three, which is a chip wall introduced. But it wasn't prefiled, right? I messed up in three and six. No. I have an amendment to amendment two. Oh, and that's amendment one. This is amendment two. Never mind. I see. I see now. All right. Did you prefile your amendment two? No, an amendment to an amendment. Okay, and you didn't prefile your amendment one. The one that went to amendment three has been was prefiled and we distributed it earlier. It's in golden rock. I should have said amendment two. But that I also should have waited for amendment one to be described. Yes. All right. I got over my speed. Do we? What? We are on amendment one to a amendment table. Did we are on amendment one to amendment three from CB 18? And I believe your wash is describing it. Yes. I'm not sure I had a second on that though, because there was confusion about second. OK right young men he did okay to three and you move Somebody moved it so it's been moved in second. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so amendment one to amendment three Changes Now of course I'm looking at the wrong thing Changes the reporting date or the first year of a reporting date from 2035 earlier by five years to 2030. And now you want to amend or move to. We have to do them. I think you want to amend or vote on the very first. Oh, you want to sue amendments? Okay. We have discussion and then do. Okay, well we can get there anyway. I'm just talking about the time. So my concern is a report that we get 10 years from now is not particularly helpful in being a nimble response to whatever is happening here. I completely understand the concern that Ms. Young has articulated that there are supposedly these measures in place that stop us from continuing to overcrowd our school. I am less optimistic that those measures work or even are applied appropriately. But regardless, if something is wrong and this kind of policy ends up jamming the root one schools, ends up really hurting, you know, the educational opportunities of kids in the schools that these kinds of projects feed into, then I think that this council should be obligated to know that and react to it sooner than 10 years from enactment of this bill. And so that goes to what's coming later in Amendment 6, but the purpose of my amendment 1 to amendment number 3 here is to start getting those reports coming to this council for our assessment five years earlier so five years from now versus 10 years from now. Yes, go ahead, please. Would you be open to doing like 2030 and 2035 because I guess we're trying to to sort of draw in more people who aren't here yet, right? Who aren't doing this work yet? The point is to incentivize and grab people in. Then we want to have a report at 2030, but we'd also want one at 2035 because 2030, many of these buildings, you know, the ones who are currently getting along might be built, they might be somewhat least, but ideally we'd have something that are starting and they wouldn't be fully least yet. So maybe doing like an interim and a 2030 and a 20, well, maybe not 2035, just depending on whatever year that we ultimately select the length of the sunset to be, but just sort of having that two-tiered year because I'd want to, 2030 is a bit on the early side, so I guess I'd want to capture sort of that mid and later. Okay, so that's my error. I thought it was an annual report. So I thought we were going to get an annual report that Ms. Herod would publish on our website. No, I was trying to keep it off that kind of list, but have some time go by and then capture, you know, what are the unit ratios of the buildings built for bedroom ratios, what students have they generated? It would be kind of, it would be a snapshot, so they'd all be in sort of different stages. Some might be fully fully least, some might be just opening their doors, but we'd have a better idea in terms of construction incentives to see if we've brought new people in and sort of where they are in the process. Sure. Anyone else? I mean I think ideally I'd like annually but I would definitely like 2030 and 2035 versus only 2035. And getting it, yeah, because for the next thing to work, of compromising on the sunset, like we'd be doing that before we even got a report that wouldn't make any sense. So 2030 makes sense. Okay. What, Gary, yes, sir? Just so you know, the only thing that you have before you is wanting, changing from 2035 to 2030. If you want to do more about what you were just talking about, we're going to either reject this and take up this other concept after you've addressed, I guess, amendment two to this or yeah. Okay. Okay. Because you can amend this amendment, which is a amendment to amendment. Okay. All right. So I think it's mind doing it. Just we're just going to vote on vote now, right? Yeah. Okay. Not that I was just telling everyone what to do. Okay. On the microphone. I always do exactly what you guys would do. Except for David. Please start would you please call the vote on amendment 1 to amendment 3? Sure, I'll. No. Dr. Jones. I'm voting no, so we could take up a new amendment to amendment 3 and do what we say we're going to do. Mr. John. No. Mr. Rigby. No, so we can keep working. Mr. Youngman no a amendment one to a amendment three fails I just want to move amendment two because then we can talk about what we want amendment three to be right okay second I don't want second so Yeah, are you moving amendment two to amendment three? No, because we don't know what we want amendment 3 to amendment 3 to be. Oh, so that's what the white paper is so that we work on it. And then you move the language once it's agreed upon. Yeah. So how do we have that discussion then? Wait, this paper says amendment 3. Well, think about what we want to create to be then. We'll be. Well, you could discuss amendment three as amended or no. It's not amended. It's not amended. Okay. I'm so sorry. I don't see an amendment two to amendment three. Oh, it's just because it doesn't have a number on it. Oh, but this has a amendment number to amendment number six. Okay. Do you also have a white piece of paper that says amendment number to amendment number six? I don what council the way down to Deb. I didn't really say we're two different ones. So do we have more copies of that Mr. Pemberley? I got it. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you Deb. Thank you, Miss Young. These are both three. Okay. I mean, so amendment two actually hasn't been made. We can just handle it. We can just handle it. We can't work out whatever they want amendment two to be amendment. Okay, we can. Okay. All right. So I think what we talked about in rejecting amendment one was that an amendment two would move forward that that identifies a reporting requirement at two times in 2030 and in 2035. Does that sound right to again? So it's page two of two. Line 14. Yeah, line 14. So when you look at a amendment three, look at line 14. Okay. This is where we could just insert by January. I don't want to look at here, but Mr. Wemberley, but by January 1st, 2030 and January 1st, 2035. Yeah. What about the other tenants of amendment? Wait, hasn't been moved? Are we talking about amendment two to amendment 3 yet? We're creating amendments. Okay. Okay. We're moving into existence. All right. Sorry. We're making the amendment. Yeah. Um. So. On page three, line. Oh, 14. Okay. So this is where it says the actual remain effective for the period of 12 years. So that's where we would want to figure out what we want that number to. Could we just, excuse me, use a amendment one to a amendment three and make that a amendment two to a amendment three and put the dates in that you want. Yes. So we'll do that for a amendment two. But then we just voted it down. So do we need to know which we we voted down one. Okay. Got you. Got you. So this will be two. It'll be a with the new language 20 20 30 and 20 35 There's wouldn't be any strength Right. It would be ad January 1. And ad January 1. In line 14, ad January 1, 23. And you need a hand. Yep, correct. And all right. Okay, go, go. Go, Creep. Moving amendment two to amendment three on page two in line 14 and add January 1, 2030. Second. After. Moving that amendment. We understand. Yeah. Right. It's sufficiently clear from our incredibly belabored conversation that we've now added what we wish to do. Is there any further discussion of this amendment to a amendment? Yes. So this would fix like the 2037 in the title as or when I'm touching any of that sense of provision stuff is just for that one line 14 on page two. Is that what you're saying? We're going to one line adding a 2030 report. Thank you. And a 2035. Anyone else? Yes, second. I'm going to second. I'm going to second. All right, Mrs. Herr, would you please call the vote on amendment two to amendment three to CB 18? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Young. Yes. Miss Rikby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. Amendment two to amendment three to CB 18 passes. Sorry, okay. What?, what, yes? Just in the discussion portion. I guess it gets to the one way is looking forward and then the other is, gives a timeline on when to pull the building permit. And I'm open to that approach and I'm wondering how we can sort of marry the two together in a timeline that makes sense. Okay, and you're talking about amendment six? Yeah, you're amendment six and my amendment three. We haven't gotten to amendment six. We're still on amendment three as amended. And I don't know that they're necessarily inconsistent with one another. It's what amendment six then replace that section in amendment three. Okay. But do you want to get to your amendments four and five, Miss Young? Are you moving those? We haven't finished amendment three yet. We have not. No, you voted. No, we just voted. You voted down amendment one to three. Oh, oh, oh, I'm now getting caught up in one You approved to a amendment but you've not voted on amendments. Sorry as amended. We're just prepping for budget Is Okay, a amendment three is there any more discussion on a amendment three as amended is that the right question? Okay. Okay. Miss. So, one of the things that we haven't discussed in your amendment, Ms. Ruki, is the section where you state that a project that has been approved for a payment in lieu of taxes, pilot, agreement with the county shall provide 5% of the total units built to be disability income housing units, and shall provide up to 15% of the total units built to be a mix of moderate income housing units, low income housing units, or disability income housing units per section 13, blah, blah, blah. I am concerned about that because right now if you are not going to use moderate income housing units in your TOD, then you would, and you were going to substitute it with the disability income housing units, you would be required to put in 4% disability income housing units. And this says if you put in 5%, you get a pilot. So only for only 1% more, we are giving a developer a pilot, a apfo a reduced search arch. And that seems like a lot to get 1% more of disability income housing. And the reason why it only appears, let me finish. Sure. The reason why it only appears to be just 1% more is because your sentence then that follows the disability income housing says up to 15% and there's no minimum set for the moderate income housing piece of this. So it's like, well, the developer can build this 5% disability income housing and then up to 15%. I'm not sure why any developer would build anything beyond that disability and those disability income housing units if they're not required to build anything beyond that. So my suggestion would be that we set a minimum for the moderate income housing units and that minimum be 10%. Otherwise, the 5% disability income housing units is pretty de minimis, given what the developer gets in return. So you're saying in section 13, line 14, page one, on amendment three, that it would say, and an additional 10 to 15% of the total units built? And strike out the up to and say, strike out up to. Yeah, but make a minimum. I mean that's the original intent of the amendment as a minute. I thought it was so I thought it was the your intent. I would have I don't think that's how it's written now. Okay. The minimum now is 5% disability income housing units or 15% moderate income housing units, but in order to get all the goodies of the no-apvo, the pilot and the... Pilot option, I'd say, because you're not guaranteed a pilot. You have the opportunity. And then we do search charge. You have to do 5% disability income housing units. And it just says up to 15%. So there's no minimum of what you would have to do under the moderate income housing. And you're right, it's in two places. It's on page one, line 14, and it's also on page two, on line nine. And do you have a suggestion for how the language would read for the drafters? So I would suggest that it would say, I think I wrote it on page two, a project that has been approved for a payment in lieu of taxes, pilot agreement with the county, shall provide 5% of the total units bill to be disability income housing units. And taxes pilot agreement with the county, shall provide 5% of the total units built to be disability income housing units, and shall provide a minimum of 10% of the total units built to be a mix of moderate income housing units blah, blah, blah. So shall provide a minimum of 10%. Well, yeah, they want to do up to 15. They would welcome that, of course, but it's the minimum that really, it's the floor that needs to be set in order for the developers to get the pilot, the app vote exemption and the reduced search arch. So is this amendment three that you're proposing? Yeah. That would be yes. That would be amendment three. Yeah. Okay. While they're drafting, can I ask a question? And that is, what is the minimum number, I guess this is to you, Ms. Ruby. What's the minimum number of any category of those units, D-I-U-L-I-U-M-I-E-U, that would be permissible under your proposal under the original bill, it stated plainly 15%. So now it's for sure 5%, and then the rest can be that mix of units. You can make them some low income, some moderate income, some disability income, but you have to do at least, like the floor of it is that 5% disability income so that they're at TODs, and then you have this piece above that can be the mix. And that's for the tax abatement that Mrs. and Mrs. Adityv. I thought it had to give to 20. What gets to 15 to 20? 15 is the mix. The 10, I thought it was at 5% floor of DIAHU plus some combination of 15% of all the rest. That's not how the language reads. If you want to make a 15, that's fine with me. That's our putting the 10 to 50. We were putting 10. That's why I'm asking what the minimum is because no one's going to be like, let please exceed this. Well, the reason would be because there's a state bill that does potentially up to 25. We don't know where that will land in the next few days. Okay, but my understanding of amendment three as proposed, not as amended now, was that it was additive. It was five plus 15. And that another component of your amendment to, I'm not ever gonna get it right. Of your amendment was that in the original bill, the pilot was the only thing that applied if you did something additional to what existing code said, whereas your amendment now said you don't get those optimal exemptions either unless you meet this five plus something. Right. Unless you meet the five plus 15, which is 20. 20 the last time I did math. So this is my concern. Is this not written so that it's 20? Missy, the other thing she's concerned that this up to makes it not clear 20. OK, so that's why we're trying to clarify now because we'd rather have it clear than not clear. OK, good, because yeah, there was. My reading of it was, I think Miss Young is correct, my by reading of it was more so about the mix that the 15 was understood and that the mixing could happen any kind of way. But I do understand what you're saying up to. Right, because I see the word and. But I understand how one could perceive it as up to 15%. It could essentially be zero. Right. Okay. So is your amendment three then, Ms. Young just striking the up to in those two locations? Yes. And say, well, I initially said 10% percent. Oh happy to say 15%. Okay. If that was your original intent. Well because when you read it goes if approved under section 13.402 and 1.2 and that's this 5% of the total units. Can we attempt to... Can we attempt to read it back to you to make sure we capture your intent? Okay, so in two places, on page one and line 14, and on page two and line nine. I'm gonna start with with line nine units built to be disability income housing units and shall provide a minimum of 10% of the total units. Well, and the debate was whether or not to make it 15. So I don't know what the body thinks about that because that did appear to be what you were contemplating, Ms. Riedby, in your original language. So I wanted to get to 20, but I didn't want to force 25 because the question, but if the pilot's available, then I'd rather get to 25 and do a pilot. And the wording is a minimum of not up to, because you're capping it at 20 now. Okay, well then we definitely want to change things. Yeah, so not only do we not want to strike, we don't want to just strike up to, we want to put in a minimum of 15%, right? Right, that's what we're going to. For this delusional developer who's going to exceed the requirement by 5. Well, the reason they would exceed is because of the pilot, because they would be able to, with the pilot, they would be able to go over that number. Okay. With that steep bill. So I would like that version three better if I may friendly amend what you had going. Should we take a five minute break? Yeah. Yeah. You don't know where we are, Theo. No, I know where we are. Oh, okay. I think we're fine. Okay. Okay. What? Is it a minimum? It's a minimum of 15% of 15% in those two spots, right? And that's that's a minimum three. Okay's basically striking up to and inserting in place of it and shall provide a minimum of an additional 15%. Yeah, of whatever combination. And additional of the, well, unless you wanna take up, yeah. I thought it was inserting, provide a minimum of 10% and up to 15% Right, that covers That's why I think I think a break I think a break with the drafters and the movers of Set amendments. Okay, no one get three all nice and tidy. Okay, all right, so we'll take a five minute break Thank you chair and not violate any public meeting sucks while we do that. But we can do this one. Yes. All right. So are we ready? Okay. We're back on the record and thank you to staff and law for assisting our drafting efforts in that regard. And we're talking about a amendment number three to a amendment number three, which everyone should have in front of them. And the significance of that is rather than setting a cap as the amendment three, amendment two to amendment three does by the language of up to the concern that Ms. Young raised. It does have a blank? No. This says it's swapping out up to an additional 15% with shall provide an additional 15%. So if I go back to my question at the beginning, which was what is the lowest number of either disability income housing unit, low income housing unit, or moderate income housing units that can be provided under these respective drafts. Under the original bill it's 15, right? Yeah, under the original bill it was 15% disability income housing units. Okay. And so under amendment three, no amendment, it would be... Under amendment three, no amendment, it would be provide a floor of 5% disability income units, and then the...like...that is absolute. And then the portion above that could be up to 15% Our code allows for a reduction if you're doing low income housing units or disability income housing units because of the divide in that subsidy cost between a moderate income. So my concern would be if we said like a floor of 15, then we would only get moderate income housing units because, you know, there's less cost to the developer in that way, and there's less cost to spread among their remaining residents. But if we changed it to, shall provide an additional 15%, then we could either get 15 percent moderate income housing units or we could get around 5 percent ish of the disability or low income housing. Plus that 5 percent. Okay. That is not what I'm reading here right now in this amendment. it looks to me like what we were talking about before we went on break was 5% disability income housing units and The word and is in here. Yes. That's what I mean 5% and and the 15 Yes. Okay. All right. So that's a total of 20%, not five or 15. Right, but if you, if instead of saying, okay, we'll do, for a total of 20%, we'll do 15% moderate income. Say you said, okay, you know what? It's clearly important that we have more disability income units in TODs. Then you could reduce the number of total units because we have the multiplier that we passed with CB50, but I don't remember what year it was. But basically to add in these disability housing income units because like the cost is so different, that's why we only have one disability. But that's why we're offering a pilot for this. But that's why this creates an option for if you don't get the pilot, then you still create this. Otherwise they wouldn't even do it. I mean I can't imagine any developer doing disability and come housing unless they did get a pilot. Then it sounds like you'd like to vote for this. The way it's written. So that way, if no one's going to use it, then we should pass it. And 15%. Yes. So the way that this amendment, I passed outreads, on page 1, line 14, strike up to an additional 15% and substitute shall provide an additional 15%. And then on page 2, in line 9, it strikes up to 15% and substitutes an additional 15%. Okay, but my question still remains. So what is the lowest number? You're saying that instead of providing, you're going to provide 5% D.H. You no matter what. Right. And by doing that and you get eligibility for a pilot and exemption from at-for-weight time and a reduced search forgiveness on the search arch fee, right? No, you'd have to do this. You'd have to do 15% but how you make up that mix of 15% on top of the... Right, no, that's what I haven't even gotten there yet. I'm just saying the 5 plus 15 something, Yeah. Get to those three things. Yeah. And only get to, you can't know other combination, get to those strings. The original bill was written just so that the pilot was eligible to that and an Apple exemption and a reduced surcharge fee was, was there no matter what, right? Right. This amendment three that we're amending. Bump that up to, you have to do all three of those things. was there no matter what right right so this amendment three that we're amending Bump that up to you have to do all three of those things in order to get I'm sorry You have to do the five plus something in order to get all three benefits of this bill okay, so then My question is if we what like what again? It's so what is the minimum number of either L IHU or DIHU or MIAHU that can be provided with this new language if we're looking at amendment number three? I thought it was 20, but it's only 20 if it's 5DHU plus 15 MIAHU. Yes. So what if it's 5DIHU plus an additional what percent LIEU? Okay. That is in section 13.402E123. So we find that. It might be in a separate part of the code. 13.4. No. No. It's in the code code. You're talking about a different part of the code than what we're looking at right now. Right. Yeah. Because it's referencing that part of the code. I'm sorry, I don't have my computer with me, so I can't look that up right now. I'm pulling it out, but unfortunately, I do remember the bill number that we used to change this, like six years ago, which is not the most helpful thing I could be remembering now. But there's a multiplier we've had in our code, but it hasn't worked for us to produce more disability income units because we still just have the one. But it's not the same for the LAHU than the DIQ. That's what I'm asking. There's there's theoretically three different total numbers, Right? That could be, or it could, no, it could be like some LAHU, some MIHU, some DIAHU's could all. So I have the 13, I have 13.402B on the Munich code. E. E. E. I have this multiplier here, and you want to, I just pulled it up. I'm a micron. I don't have my computer, but So what's the question? What's that what's the multiplier for lihu or dihu? Okay 13.402 Turning this way like sorry. This is something. Oh man, it skipped down, so that turned it sideways, sorry. Okay. Give me a second. Here's the table. So it's the requirement. 402C, I got the Okay. So you could do like this balance of them. Okay, but do we like what is that number? I mean what's nobody knows like what the 15% would be instead of 15%. So option A would be 5% and 5%, and that would be the 10 that we talked about. And then there's four and seven. And C is three and nine, and D is two and 11, and E is one and 13. So under option A. In addition to the five percent. Under option A, the lowest percentage of LIHU, DIAHU and MIHU, would be 5 plus 5 plus 5 percent. Yes. So the lowest would be a total of 15%, but you'd be getting disability income and low income, as well as your moderate income. And that's what this says right here? Yes, that refers to this. And so why is, like when we went back there, mine was to just strike out up to and put a minimum of, how is this language different than striking up to and putting a minimum of? So if you put a minimum of, then to me, when you get to, I mean, I guess you're saying because it's dependent on these numbers. Yeah, so it still be a minimum of and then it wouldn't matter what these combinations were because you'd always be above 15. But here on E, E you're at 14 because this drops that 15% number down. But if If you put a minimum of 15%, then you can't drop that portion down at all. Because you're doing the higher subsidized units. So you want Shell to provide an additional instead of a minimum of? Right, because that provides that flexibility to still pursue those disability income or low income units at the TODs. And if we put in a minimum of, then I think you'd have to do them all as moderate income. Even though language about to be a mix of a moderate income housing units per section. When do you think, I mean, I'm struggling to see the difference between that language and this. So it makes me nervous because I blew right past up to and I thought it was a good point about that's really not getting us where we want to be. So I think this language keeps it, um, makes it a little bit clear. You get the 5 plus the 15 and it refers to this breakdown right in this table and you're asking about the minimum. Was that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I see it as the 5. Now there's no up to that that was stricken or struck and it's shall provide an additional. So I see it as 5 plus 15. Okay. And of course they could do more but that is since that's the shall that is the minimum, the 5 the fifteen so they want to do fifty great but that's not what you're saying I mean I think it is because you can go beyond agree with dr. Jones but that's not what that's not what I think three of us I think who see it the way we're on this side and then you seem to be looking at it from a different lens. Okay hold on explain to me what you're saying then again. Yeah so I thought it was more on the same page than yeah I'm saying. I'm reading your amendment Miss Rayby amendment three to amendment three shall provide an additional 15% on page one and on page two an additional 15%. So it's 5 plus 15. And that's where we started. But there's no terminality. It's okay that there might need to be a modifier if we're pursuing more heavily subsidized units. Yeah, because the mix is still there. The word of the mixing didn't change, and it's referring to this mix here, the table in the Munich code, section 13.402E. But do you say? What's Miss Young saying? Your business point is if they want to do all low income, then they might not max out of that 15% Right because of this table in the code Right so that's where the multiplier, the calculation comes in Yeah So you can't So the only way I would You can't say it's a fixed 15% if that's going to supersede this because that gives, could end up a 12% if it's all super low income. Of that 15% could actually be 12% but your total overall you'd be adding that 5% so you'd have 17%. Right. Because it's referring back to this code and if the MIHU requirement is 15% then you follow this grid here. You follow this table. But the only way we will ever get 5 plus 15 is if there are 15% MIHU units. The only time that 25 plus 15 obtains is if it's 5% DIHU and a additional 15% MIHU. At this moment in time with the tools before us, yes. OK. Probably would have been a better place to start. Ms. Walsh. What? Yes? No? Yes? Could we just ask for some clarification on one point? So we just noticed in the manual 3, on line 11 2, first to 13.402, E, which you all have been talking about. But after E, there should be a number before you get to the small, I, Roman, I, and 2, I, and 3, I. So, which subsection of E are you in? N-13402, because there's E1, E2, E3, E4. Is it E4? I'll come down from the days. And I just want to say that I don't think there's a reason why we have to try and do all this on the days tonight. We could still table it. And really talk about it in a work session. Where's the minute? Can we, can Deb, can, does a different person need to move to table? Oh, no, she can start. Okay. She can move to table. I would be inclined to vote for that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I think I think we've just got to figure it out. I don't want to seem like a, we've already invested a good 47 minutes. We need that. We might as well knock it on half. When we come back next month, it's gonna be a good 47 minutes. We need that. We might as well knock it on out. When we come back next month, it's gonna be a whole never thing. I just keep encountering a situation where the words on the paper are not matching up to the description. I find it unsettling. You too. Did you guys figure out that you did not? All right, I'm going to move to table CB where are we? Can we move to table CB 16? CB whatever we were doing now. CB 853. CB 18. All right, I'm going to stop now. I moved to table CB 18. Second. Ms. Herr, would you please call the vote on the motion to table CB 18? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. We've invested almost an hour. I think we are, I think more of us are saying the same thing than not. This amendment three to amendment three is clear. Thank you for the drafters, thank you to the Office of Law. We have also pulled up the Munich code, which is on my handheld computer via my smartphone. And I understand the numbers here. It makes sense to me it's a five plus an additional 15 referring back to the Munich code. I'm ready to vote on this amendment and march forward. So my vote is no to table CB 18. Michelle? I think that there's enough confusion about another part of the code that we haven't been examining before we actually got this particular amendment before us, what these terms mean. And I think we should get it right. It's a big bill and it's complicated. So, you know, more power to you, Ms. Ridby, that you put this thing together, but it's very different than it was when you first sent it to us. And I don't think that there's anything wrong with spending more time on it. I think that you can probably tell at this point that the bill is going to pass in some former another, but I think that we should give it our best try and make sure that we're all on the same page and understand it and we're all coming from the same place. My vote is yes to table it. Ms. Rupi? You know, I appreciate and respect Dr. Jones' position. I feel like I've tried a lot of outreach to explain different things, but I will vote yes to table to give more time for everyone to get on the same page or discover sort of where they are in terms of the number of disability income housing units. My vote is yes. History Youngman. I think it's good that we're all trying to get on board with this. Instead of it just being our typical kind of three, two, whatever, one of these types of bills. So if it helps everybody get on with something that they mostly like, then I think that's fine. So yes. Thank for that Mr. McRoughby. The motion to table all CB 18 passes. Madam Chair for clarification, where do we pick up next time with this? Do we pick up on voting on amendment three? Do we roll back to the beginning of the bill? Okay, so we've passed two amendments. We've picked right up with amendment three. As amended thus far by amendments one and two. Is that correct? By amendments one to amendment three failed. Okay, okay, okay, okay, true, true. Okay, thank you. Thank you all. And just to note, a amendment three to a amendment three was never moved. Yeah, we never. Can we ask that somebody send that to us? Absolutely. In notes so that we could make sure that we all are literally on the same page. We will certainly do that. And we will also make sure when we have the next legislative session and it will be included in the script as well. Thank you. Moving on to... I'm not sure when we have the next legislative session that will be included in the script as well. Thank you. Moving on to Council Bill 19, 2025, introduced by Liz Walsh, lodging establishments prohibition on hourly room rentals. I moved to approve CB 19, 2025. Second. CB 19, 2025 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think it's a great bill. What else can you say? I agree to do it. We needed to do it. And I'm glad that you're doing it. Thank you. Ms. Sarah, would you please call the vote on CB 19,? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Jones? Absolutely. Yes. You know, no-tell motels lodging by the hour. This is something that I know, Oak Ridge and the other areas along Route 1 or sick of and I'm glad that Ms. Walsh was in touch with her constituents and followed through on a request that apparently has been long standing for them. And now we have this bill in front of us, and it is the right bill. So thank you very much, Ms. Walsh. Yes. Ms. Rueckby? It's great. We've a bill that everyone can agree on I vote yes, mr. Youngman. Yes CB 19 passes and it was state senator Clarence Lamb who initiated the concept. Oh, that's good. We pulled that from it. He's a good guy Council bill 20 2025 introduced by Liz Walsh excess surplus revenue modification. I Move to approve 20 2025 Second and I move to approve amendment one to CB 20 25 Second After our robust discussion of the limitations of this bill, after the work session, we amended the bill and its reference to fiscal year 2026 and substituted fiscal year 2027. And the point of that was, as hopefully I was able to articulate in that work session, to take advantage of the significant state funding that a company's most requests for capital schools projects We're not at 50% anymore, but we're pretty close to 50% so for example a 36 million dollar excess surplus Can correlate to something along the lines of you know 65 or so million dollars in improvements to our schools particularly again long neglected deferred maintenance projects. And we've seen lists of those that include things like boiler replacements, roof replacements, even replacing piping for chilled water, which I assume goes into water founds that little mouse go up to to drink water over the course of the school day. So that's the significance of MMM1. Any comment? Okay. Mr. Edward, would you please call the vote on amendment one to CB 2025? Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Ms. Jones. I'm voting yes, but I'm not sure that we're actually going to get money out of this. I do think that we need to continue to pressure the county executive. And I do think that we need to continue to look at the budget that we've got in hand right now, and the one that we will have in hand in another month, and find ways to look at how we can get the school district more money for capital expenditures. And I'm sure that there is extra money in our budget this year that we could do exactly that. Ms. Ruffee? Yes. Mr. Gorman? Yes. Amendment 1 to CB 20 passes. CB 20, 25 as amended has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Chair, would you please call the vote on CB 20, 25 as amended? Chair Walsh? Yes. Dr. Jones? Yes. Ms. Scheng? Yes. Ms. Rikby. This is on the whole bill as amended, right? OK, because I just wanted to say I really appreciate the laser focus that this bill takes on the sort of one-time dollars, I think, especially after we get the inventory of local needs. It'll be a helpful touch point. I actually like this approach better than some of the other ones that have been proposed regarding percentages. I think when my concerns that I have with it is just that it's kind of wild budget times that federal governments with holding reimbursements. The state is shifting more costs to the local. There's just there is is a lot going on, but my vote is yes, and I hope that next year it will provide a more targeted approach during budget time. Mr. Youngman. Yes. CB20 as amended passes. Mr. Dott, I'm going on to page 22, is that right? Yes, correct. Okay, So unless there is an objection, we will vote all of the table to appointment resolutions together. Hearing no objection, I move to remove council resolutions 12, 27 and 41, 20, 25 from the table. Second. The motion to remove the previously read council resolutions from the table has been moved and seconded. Mrs. Herod please call the vote on these council resolutions. We're calling the vote on whether to untable them. Untable them. Okay. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Young. Yes. Miss Rigby. Yes. Mr. Youngman. Yes. The motion to remove the previously read council resolutions from the table passes. Unless there is an objection, Mrs. Herod will read all of the appointment resolutions together and we will vote them together. Hearing no objection, Mrs. Herod please proceed. Council Resolution 12, 2025. Appointment of Ashley Easley, PhD to Commission for Women, Council Resolution 27, 2025. appointmentointment of Yemeni test to the Lanzar Latina commission. Council Resolution 41, 2025. Appointment of Theresa Tompness to the opioid restitution fund commission. I move to approve council resolutions 12, 27, and 41, 2025. Second. The previously read council resolutions have been moved and seconded is there any discussion? Mrs. Herod please call the vote on these council resolutions. Chair Walsh. Yes. Dr. Jones. Yes. Miss Young. Yes. Miss Rigby. Yes. Mr.ungman? Yes. The previously read council resolutions pass and with that unanimous action that concludes our April legislative session. We are adjourned. Thank you and have a good night. This meeting is no longer being recorded.