Dec 10, 2024 County Council

[a. Bill 24-036 (Zoning Code Chapter 267 Roof Mounted Wind Turbines) ]

[00:00:08]

EVENING. CHAIR. CALLS TO ORDER. PUBLIC HEARING FOR BILL 24. DASH ZERO 36 ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 267 ROOF MOUNTED WIND TURBINES. COUNCILMAN BENNETT. HELLO. GOOD EVENING. I APPRECIATE HAVING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT MY LEGISLATION. THIS IS SOMETHING MY OFFICE HAS BEEN LOOKING INTO AND CONSIDERING FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTOOD MORE OF THE TECHNOLOGY BEHIND ROOF MOUNTED WIND TURBINES, BUT ALSO WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS, BOTH LOCALLY AND IN OTHER STATES, HAVE DONE IN REGARDS TO THIS TECHNOLOGY. AND IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN REALLY INTERESTING. COUNCILWOMAN PENMAN AND I WERE HAVING A CONVERSATION THIS EVENING, AND I WAS SHOWING HIM HOW ROOF MOUNTED WIND TURBINES ARE USED AT PHILADELPHIA EAGLES STADIUM FOR THEIR GAMES IN POWERING THEIR LIGHTING. AND IN GENERAL, I JUST THINK ANY SORT OF TECHNOLOGY WE CAN DO THAT HELPS PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY OFF OF OUR GROUND AND UP IN THE SKY IS GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND PROTECTING OUR AGRICULTURAL LAND. AND ALL THIS LEGISLATION DOES IS ENABLE PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING IF THEY SO WISH. SOME OF THE REASONS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS ABOUT WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IS IT HELPS DIMINISH THE NEED FOR EXTERNAL BATTERIES TO BE ATTACHED TO YOUR HOUSE IF YOU HAVE SOLAR. SO FOR NIGHTTIME ENERGY PRODUCTION, YOU CAN USE THAT WIND TO HELP POWER YOUR LIGHTS VERSUS HAVING A BATTERY THAT YOU KNOW RUNS THE RISK OF COMBUSTION ATTACHED TO YOUR HOME. PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO BE LESS GRID RELIANT AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ENERGY PRODUCTION THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF THEIR LOCAL ENERGY SUPPLIER. AND THEN ALSO PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST LOOKING FOR A GREEN ENERGY PROJECT TO DO WITH THEIR FAMILY. SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD WORK ON AND INSTALL AND, AND USE AS A FAMILY. THESE THIS TECHNOLOGY HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE, I THINK IT WAS 2009 WHEN THE PHILADELPHIA EAGLES INSTALLED THEIR OWN. NOW YOU CAN ORDER A ROOF MOUNTED WIND TURBINE ONLINE FOR LESS THAN $1,000 AND INSTALL IT ON YOUR PROPERTY. IT WAS ACTUALLY VERY INTERESTING DRIVING THROUGH VIRGINIA THIS PAST WEEK. SEEING THAT THROUGH ALEXANDRIA, IT'S ALL OVER THEIR BUILDING TOPS. SO AND I KNOW NEW YORK CITY A FEW YEARS AGO PASSED LEGISLATION THAT SAID BY A CERTAIN DATE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REQUIRE BUILDINGS TO EITHER INSTALL SOLAR POWER OR WIND TURBINES. SO IT'S JUST KIND OF AN INTERESTING URBAN INDUSTRY THAT'S GROWING. AND IT'S GOOD FOR US TO MAKE PATHWAYS FOR THOSE INTERESTED TO EMBRACE IT.

SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS THERE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR MONTHS OF DUE DILIGENCE, WORKING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING, AND FORMER COUNCIL ATTORNEY, MR. KEARNEY AND MISS ALLEGED NOW SO COUNCIL AT THIS TIME MR. JORDAN. THANKS, JACOB. SO JACOB IS THERE A LIMITATION ON THE SIZE OF THESE. YES. SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT. SO OUR LIMITATION THERE'S A FEW CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE PUT IT INTO THE PUT INTO THE LEGISLATION. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS THE CAPACITY ON THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT COULD BE PRODUCED. SO THESE ARE ALL SMALL SYSTEMS THAT AT MOST ARE PRODUCING 2.5KW HOURS OF ENERGY PER DAY. SO YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, IN REFERENCE TO YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLES THAT YOU'VE DRIVEN IN THE PAST. 2.5KW HOURS OF ELECTRICITY IS NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY PER DAY, WHICH IS A SAFETY LIMITATION THAT WE TOOK FROM OTHER COUNTIES IN MARYLAND. TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT SIZE. LET ME GET TO THAT PART OF OUR LEGISLATION, BECAUSE WE ADDED IN SOME. CONSIDERATIONS TO. TO THAT. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE WERE THINKING ABOUT LINE OF SIGHT FOR HOMES. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT THE LINE OF SIGHT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THERE ALSO A LIMIT EIGHT FEET, EIGHT, EIGHT FEET OF WHAT? ABOVE THE ROOFTOP. EIGHT FEET. HOW ABOUT THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE UNIT? IS THERE IS THERE A SIZE LIMITATION ON THE UNITS? AND THEN SECOND AND THEN OTHER QUESTION IS CAN SOMEBODY PUT MORE THAN ONE UNIT IF THE SIZE IS WHATEVER 36IN IN DIAMETER OR SOMETHING. CAN IS THERE A LIMIT ON HOW MANY THEY CAN INSTALL ON THE ROOF? THE LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY BEING PRODUCED. OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS LIMIT

[00:05:04]

SO THAT THE TOP OF IT HAS TO BE AT MOST EIGHT FEET ABOVE YOUR ROOF LINE. AND SO ALONG WITH THAT, THE OTHER THING, A LOT OF THESE ROOF MOUNTED WIND TURBINES DON'T SPIN IN YOUR TRADITIONAL SETUP THAT YOU PICTURE AS A WIND TURBINE, WHERE IT'S THESE GIANT BLADES THAT THAT GO AROUND AND AROUND LIKE A WINDMILL. A LOT OF THEM NOW OSCILLATE IN THIS DIRECTION. WHICH REDUCES A LOT OF THE VISUAL IMPACT OF WHAT YOU PICTURE AS A WIND TURBINE. SO I MEAN, THAT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S JUST CHANGED WITH TIME. OKAY. SO IT IS LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF VOLTAGE THAT CAN BE. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE MR. PENMAN? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

COUNCIL. BENNETT, I APPRECIATE YOU SITTING DOWN WITH ME AND HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION. I SUPPORT NEW, INNOVATIVE WAYS. AND I STAND BY PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT THAT ON THEIR PROPERTY, WHO AM I TO SAY NO? SO I SUPPORT YOUR LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PENMAN. ANYONE ELSE? MR. RILEY? CHICKEN COOP. YEAH.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AND I GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, IS SIGNS. WHY DO WE HAVE SIGNS PERMITTED ON A WIND ENERGY SYSTEM? SIGNS? THAT'S JUST LANGUAGE THAT WAS ALREADY IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE. THE ONLY PARTS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE WIND TURBINES IS ON PAGE SIX. RIGHT. SO IF I GOT A WIND TURBINE AND I PUT A WHAT IS IT, SIX FOOT, I THINK IT WAS ON HERE. YEAH. NO LARGER THAN SIX SQUARE FEET. SO IF I'M A, IF I'M A RESIDENT AND I WANT TO PUT A SIX FOOT SQUARE FOOT OF FIXED SIGN ON THERE TO ADVERTISE WIND SOLAR, I CAN DO THAT. ACCORDING TO THIS LEGISLATION. THE PORTION OF THE CODE THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING, WHAT PAGE NUMBER ARE YOU ON? PAGE THREE. NUMBER SIX. SO. THAT PORTION OF THE LANGUAGE IS ATTACHED TO THE MORE TRADITIONAL WIND TURBINES THAT, YOU KNOW, LARGE SCALE WIND TURBINES. SO THE ONLY PORTION OF THE LEGISLATION RELEVANT TO PERSONAL USE, WIND TURBINES. AND THE REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE ARE ON PAGE SIX. SO WE ADDED PAGE SIX WHICH FOCUSES ON AND YOU ADDED PAGE SIX. BUT ONCE YOU ADD IT TO THIS LEGISLATION, I CAN PUT A SIGN ON MY ROOF, AT LEAST SIX SQUARE FEET AFFIXED TO MY ROOF ADVERTISING THE EQUIPMENT. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS, ONLY CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THAT PART OF THE EXISTING CODE APPLY TO SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION SUBSECTION H ON PAGE FIVE, IT TELLS YOU WHICH SECTIONS OF THE CODE APPLY TO THE SMALLER SYSTEMS. AND IT'S VERY FEW SECTIONS, BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SMALLER SYSTEMS. SO YOU'RE SAYING IF I LOOK AT PAGE FIVE. H H I RIGHT. H OKAY, C9 A, B, B2, AND B3 ARE THE ONES THAT APPLY TO THE SMALL SYSTEMS. THE REST OF THE SECTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CODE DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE SYSTEMS. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A SIGN. AND A LOT OF THOSE OTHER THINGS INVOLVING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. NONE OF THAT APPLIES TO THESE SMALL SYSTEMS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU EXPLAINED THAT WELL. SURE. THANK YOU, MR. RILEY. ANY ANYONE ELSE? HELLO. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A FEW OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT BALANCE OF YOU WANTING TO DO SOMETHING ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUT ALSO NOT WANTING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THOSE AROUND YOU. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THESE NEED TO BE INSTALLED ON SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. THE REASON FOR THAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO IMPACT THOSE THAT YOU SHARE YOUR ROOF WITH. IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LIVE IN A DUPLEX LIKE I DO, OR YOU LIVE IN A QUADPLEX, OR YOU LIVE IN A CONDOMINIUM BUILDING. YOU KNOW YOU DON'T WANT WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON THE ROOF TO IMPACT THOSE THAT YOU SHARE THAT ROOF WITH. WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WIND TURBINE IS NEUTRAL IN ITS COLOR FOR SKYLINE USE, THAT PEOPLE AREN'T INSTALLING HOT PINK WIND TURBINES ON THEIR ROOF IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH AGAIN DISRUPTS THAT SKYLINE FOR WHEN YOU'RE OUT ENJOYING YOUR COMMUNITY. AND THEN WE ALSO SAID THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED ON HISTORIC LANDMARKS. LISTED ON THE HARFORD COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARK LIST. AND AGAIN, THAT'S FOR PRESERVATION OF VISUAL PRESENTATION, BUT ALSO PRESERVATION OF THOSE LANDMARKS SO THAT ANYTHING INSTALLED ON THEIR ROOF ISN'T NEGATIVELY

[00:10:04]

[b. Bill 24-037 (Zoning Code Chapter 267 Liquor Stores B1 Special Exceptions)]

FACILITIES FOR POLICE AND FIRE AND SEWAGE AND WATER AND TRASH AND GARBAGE COLLECTION WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED ACCORDING TO THE CODE. THE DEGREE OF WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL ACCEPTING ENGINEERING AND PLANNING PRINCIPLES WILL BE CONSIDERED.

THE STRUCTURES IN THE VICINITY, SUCH AS SCHOOLS, HOUSES, WORSHIP CENTERS, THEATERS, HOSPITALS AND SIMILAR PLACES OF PUBLIC USE WILL ALL BE CONSIDERED. THE PURPOSE SET FORTH IN PART ONE.

ALSO, THE MASTER PLAN AND RELATED STUDIES FOR THE LAND USE ROADS, PARKS, SCHOOLS, SEWERS, WATER POPULATION IS NUMBER EIGHT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS NUMBER NINE AND THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC LANDMARKS WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED. SO BEFORE ANY OF THE LIQUOR STORES WILL BE PERMITTED IN A B1 UNDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION. YES, THE SIGN IS ONE CONSIDERATION, BUT THERE'S ALSO TEN OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. NOW, ONCE THE BUSINESS COMPLIES WITH THOSE STANDARDS, IT WILL GO TO THE PLANNING ZONING DEPARTMENT. AND WHO WILL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL THEN BE PROVIDED TO THE ZONING HEARING EXAMINER. AND FROM THERE, THE ZONING HEARING COMMANDER.

EXAMINER WILL THEN SENT A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE COMMUNITY IMPACT THAT I NOTED HERE. SO THIS BELIEF THAT IT'S ONLY HAS TO COMPLY WITH SIGNAGE BEFORE IT'S APPROVED, IT'S JUST FALSE. IT'S NOT TRUE. AND THERE'S A FEW REASONS WHY THIS LEGISLATION IS BEING INTRODUCED.

FOLKS, IT'S TIME TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS. WE HAVE TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS. I KNOW WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT FEE INCREASES, AND ACROSS OUR COUNTY, AND I BELIEVE IN SMALL BUSINESS, SMART, BALANCED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO GROW. THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. AND IT'S TIME TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE CONSTITUENTS COME TO THE COUNCIL AND ADVOCATE FOR THEIR NEEDS ALL THE TIME. AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS CASE IS NO DIFFERENT. WE HAD A PETITION WHERE 112 COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS PARTICULAR LIQUOR STORE THAT'S ADVOCATING FOR THIS SIGN A PETITION, 112 SIGNATURES ON IT. IN ADDITION, WE HAD 40 EMAILS IN SUPPORT OF THIS LIQUOR STORE. I COULD GO THROUGH I HAVE A BUNCH OF HIGHLIGHTED ASPECTS OF SUPPORT, BUT I'LL SPARE US ALL THE TIME. THAT'S WHY I'M SUPPORTING THIS ADJUSTMENT FROM B1 ALLOWING LIQUOR STORES WITH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. I CAN TELL YOU I AM DISAPPOINTED WITH THE

[00:15:06]

THE PROPOSED LICENSE WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS TO BE A LICENSEE, AND THERE WILL MOST LIKELY BE A CONTESTED NEED AND ACCOMMODATIONS HEARING. IN POINT OF FACT, THAT THE LAST SUCH HEARING RESULTED IN THE BOARD NOT GRANTING THE LICENSE DESPITE PROPER ZONING FOR LIQUOR STORES. SO YOU HAVE THE B1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO. YOU HAVE THE TEN QUALIFICATIONS THAT THEY HAD ADHERED TO, AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE LIQUOR BOARD THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. SO THIS NOTION THAT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO ARBITRARILY EASILY BE PERMITTED, THAT'S JUST FALSE. THE IDEA OF LIQUOR STORES NOT BEING ATTENDED AND DON'T FEEL THE COMMUNITY AND FAMILY NEEDS FOR B1, THAT'S INCORRECT AS WELL. THE PURPOSE OF B1 ZONING IS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT LOCATIONS OF BUSINESS USES TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. I HAVE READ THE SUPPORT LETTERS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS OF THIS BUSINESS HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN ADDITION, LIQUOR STORES ARE PERMITTED IN VILLAGE BUSINESS, WHICH IS A WHOLE LOT LESS DENSE AND MORE COMMUNITY NEEDS. AND FINALLY, ONE POINT IMPORTANT NOTE THIS BUSINESS THAT I'M REFERRING TO IS FAMILY OWNED. THE OWNER WORKS THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK WITH HIS FAMILY. SO IT'S FAMILY ORIENTED. IF IT'S NOT, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. AND THE LAST POINT WELL ACTUALLY TWO MORE POINTS. THIS NOTION WERE THIS WOULD ALLOW MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN THE B1 IS JUST FALSE AS WELL. YOU KNOW, MORE AND MORE IS BEING LEARNED ABOUT THE MARIJUANA REGULATIONS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT FORCED THE COUNTY TO PERMIT MARIJUANA. I, I DON'T SUPPORT MARIJUANA. I'M PROBABLY THE BIGGEST OPPONENT OF IT. I SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, 12 YEARS UNDERCOVER NARCOTICS, YOU KNOW, FIGHTING AGAINST MARIJUANA USE AND ABUSE. BUT IF IT'S STATE LAW, IT'S STATE LAW. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT UNDER THE CODE, SPECIALTY SHOPS ARE AUTHORIZED IN. ROW V, B, B1, B2, B3, AND C1. SO BASED OFF OF RETAIL SPECIALTY SHOP SHOPS, MARIJUANA IS ALREADY PERMITTED IN B1. SO THE NOTION THAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL ALLOW MARIJUANA TO BE PERMITTED IN B1 IS FALSE. IT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE PERMITTED, JUST LIKE THE TOBACCO SHOPS ARE ALREADY PERMITTED IN B1 AROUND HARFORD COUNTY. AND THERE'S ALSO A DISCUSSION POINT WHERE THIS IS ONLY SHOOTING ONE BUSINESS.

WELL, MOST OF THE LEGISLATION THAT WE PASS, MOST OF THE LEGISLATION THAT WE INTRODUCE IS TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS. SO YES, THAT SPEARHEADED THIS, BUT IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THE TOWING LEGISLATION THAT WE INTRODUCED AND PASSED BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HELP OUT BUSINESSES. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS HERE. I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COUNCIL CAN SUPPORT IT. AND IT'S TIME TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS. IT'S TIME TO GIVE THEM THE RESOURCES TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU, MR. PENMAN. COUNCIL AT THIS TIME, MR. RILEY? YES. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. HOW MANY B1

[00:20:02]

CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THEM CLOSE DOWN THAT HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR QUITE A WHILE. SO THIS WAS THIS WAS A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW THAT. AND AS COUNCIL PENMAN SAID, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE HAVE TO BE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. AND OF THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE 12, I GUESS 12 LIQUOR LICENSE LEFT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY. CORRECT? WELL, RIGHT NOW, BASED OFF THE POPULATION, ONE FOR EVERY 4000, THERE'S ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT, I THINK IT'S 64 THAT ARE EVEN ALLOWED. AND OF THOSE 64, ONLY 12 REMAIN. OKAY. SO WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DILUTE THE OTHER LIQUOR STORES THAT ARE, THAT ARE HERE THAT, THAT ARE CLAWING, YOU KNOW, SALES HAVE ACTUALLY THEY PEAKED PROBABLY DURING THE PANDEMIC AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE DECREASED SINCE THEN. SO WE DON'T WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, PROLIFERATION OF LIQUOR STORES COME IN. AND I THINK THIS WAS MORE OF JUST THERE WAS A FEW LIQUOR STORES THAT WERE OPERATING THAT WERE NON-CONFORMING IN A B1. I DON'T FORESEE ANYTHING ELSE. AND AS WE SAID, IT'S GOT TO BE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. JORDAN. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BENNETT? COUNCILMAN PENMAN, CAN YOU REMIND ME IF LAST YEAR WE VOTED ON YOUR PREVIOUS LEGISLATION? AND IF WE DID, WHAT WAS THE VOTE? TOTAL. HOW DID THAT WORK? THE BILL WAS WITHDRAWN. IT WAS WITHDRAWN. AND WHAT WERE SOME OF THE KEY PIECES OF FEEDBACK THEN THAT LED TO THAT DECISION FOR YOU? AND JUST IN GENERAL, IF YOU COULD REMIND THE PUBLIC WHAT THE DEBATE AND DISCOURSE WAS AT THE TIME. WELL, THE DISCUSSION BACK THEN SURROUNDED, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, AND SOME DID NOT SUPPORT IT. SOME DIDN'T WANT LIQUOR STORES IN EVERY CORNER.

AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT JUST IS NOT THE CASE. SOME OPPOSE IT BECAUSE THE MARIJUANA CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH I'VE ALREADY ALLUDED TO, IT HAS NO BEARING ON IT. THE LIQUOR STORES, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THE MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ARE ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE B1 CATEGORY. SO AFTER THAT LEGISLATION WAS WITHDRAWN, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE ON THE COUNCIL, MY COLLEAGUES WHO SUGGESTED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SO IN DOING SO, I JUST BROUGHT THAT FORWARD. AND I THINK THIS IS A SUCCESSFUL PATH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH.

ANYONE ELSE? MISS DIXON, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? WE DO. MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE SEVEN THIS EVENING. CAN YOU CALL YOUR FIRST SPEAKER? BUT I WOULD REMIND YOU, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. JEFFREY BECK, FOLLOWED BY BETH FARMER SCHEER. GOOD EVENING, SIR. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING, SIR. JEFFREY BECK, 102 SHELL ROAD, JOPPATOWNE, MARYLAND. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

ACCORDING TO MARYLAND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ARTICLE SIX, ALL PERSONS VESTED WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT ARE THE TRUSTEES OF THE PUBLIC. AS SUCH, ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CONDUCT. OUR FREE GOVERNMENT EXISTS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES OF ITS CITIZENS. EVERY BILL DRAFTED, EVERY AMENDMENT OFFERED, AND EVERY PRESS RELEASE ISSUED OUGHT TO BE PRECEDED BY THE QUESTION OF HOW THIS ACTION WILL PRESERVE THE LIBERTIES OF MY CONSTITUENTS. B-1 DISTRICT IS DEFINED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD

[00:25:06]

TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. A METHOD THAT EVERY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IN HARFORD COUNTY MUST STILL ABIDE BY. ANY B1 BUSINESS MAY REQUEST TO UPZONE TO A ZONING DESIGNATION THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS MORE INTENSE USE, AND INDEED, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DONE THIS. THIS IS A FAR MORE APPROPRIATE. MORE, FAR MORE APPROPRIATE THAN A WHOLESALE ALLOWANCE OF LIQUOR STORES IN NEIGHBORHOODS. AS IT GIVES THE PUBLIC THE ABILITY TO QUESTION AN INDIVIDUAL LOCATION, AND IT ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO GRANT OR DENY THE ZONING CHANGES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. RAPIDLY EVOLVING STATE LAW. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, COULD SOON ALLOW FOR CANNABIS DISPENSARIES ADJACENT TO LIQUOR STORES. I'LL HAVE TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON THE ZONING FOR THOSE, SIR. TO BE CLEAR, MY ISSUE THIS EVENING IS NOT WITH THE BUSINESS FOR WHICH THIS BILL WAS DRAFTED, NOR DO I NECESSARILY OBJECT TO THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING CHANGE FROM B1 TO B2 FOR THIS PROPERTY.

MY ISSUE IS WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE PERSON OR ONE PROPERTY. MY ISSUE IS WITH TRYING TO TAKE A LEGISLATIVE SHORTCUT AROUND THE ESTABLISHED PROCESS FOR ZONING CHANGES. FOR THESE REASONS, I URGE THE COUNCILMAN TO WITHDRAW THE BILL OR FOR THE COUNCIL TO VOTE NO ON BILL 2437. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. MY NAME IS BETH SCHEER. MY ADDRESS IS 2814 CROSS COUNTRY COURT IN FALLSTON, MARYLAND. I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ABOUT THE PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION BEING PROPOSED AND CONSIDERED IN ORDER TO ENABLE A PROPERTY WITH A LONG TIME NONCONFORMING USE TO BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF CREATING A PERMANENT LEGISLATION THAT IMPACTS NOT JUST THE NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY, BUT THE ENTIRE COUNTY. IN THE CASE OF BILL 2437, IT HAS POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY 200 B1 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY. 2410 OLD MOUNTAIN ROAD WAS PURCHASED IN 2005 BY ITS CURRENT OWNER, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS USE AS A DELI AND A LIQUOR STORE. THE PUBLIC REMARKS ON THE REAL ESTATE LISTING ITSELF TOUTED THE NEW DELI EQUIPMENT AND THE B1 ZONING WITH DELI WITH A LIQUOR STORE.

IT WAS DESCRIBED ADDITIONALLY AS A JOINT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS A DELI WITH A LIQUOR STORE. THAT IS A COMPLIANT USE. IT COULD CURRENTLY BE COMPLIANT IF THE OWNER CHOSE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WAS PURCHASED ORIGINALLY. THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THERE SHOULD NEVER BE ANY EXPECTATION FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER THAT THERE CAN BE A MODIFICATION TO COUNTY LAW TO CREATE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY PURCHASED AND AGREED TO BY SIGNING A DEED TO A PROPERTY AND FILING THAT DEED. THE OWNER DOES HAVE A CHOICE HERE COMPLY WITH ZONING THAT HE OR SHE INITIALLY AGREED TO IN 2005, AND MAINTAIN THE DELI THAT THEY AGREED TO RUN ALONG WITH THE LIQUOR STORE AND HAVE A FULLY COMPLIANT AND CONFORMING BUSINESS. A HAPPY AND WELL RUN SMALL BUSINESS, AND I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD ENJOY BOTH IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT IS FAR AWAY FROM EATERIES, ETC. HAVING A DELI ALONG WITH THE LIQUOR STORE, CHANGING CHANGING ZONING LEGISLATION FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY TO CREATE COMPLIANCE FOR ANY PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE A CHOICE. AND AS TO THE POINT OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS REQUIRE MONITORING.

[00:30:03]

THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN MY EARLIER EMAILS, BUT I FELT IT NECESSARY TO BE SAID. I JUST THINK THIS IS OPENING A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS AND THIS GRAMMY AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE CONSTITUENTS IN THE COMMUNITY WHO I'VE TALKED TO ARE AGAINST ALL OF THIS. AND I HOPE THAT YOU ALL ARE LISTENING, AND I THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. STEPHEN OVERBAY. ONE, TWO, THREE JOE HILL DRIVE. HAPPY DE GRACE, MARYLAND. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AGAIN. MY NAME IS STEVE OVERBAY. I'M HERE REPRESENTING COUNTY EXECUTIVE CASTLE AND HARFORD COUNTY GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO BILL NUMBER 24 037, WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW LIQUOR STORES COUNTY'S BE ONE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUSINESS DISTRICTS. WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE LIMITED RETAIL AND SERVICE FACILITIES THAT ENHANCE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ARE TAILORED TO THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. USES SUCH AS COMMUNITY CENTERS, DAYCARE CENTERS, LIBRARIES, AND PARKS ARE PERMITTED WITHIN B-1 AS THEY EXIST WITHOUT COMPROMISING OUR FAMILY ORIENTED COMMUNITIES. PASSAGE OF THIS BILL WOULD CONTRADICT THE INTENT OF THE B-1 DESIGNATION, AND CREATE A PRECEDENT THAT PRESUMES LIQUOR STORES ARE BOTH DESIRED AND ACCEPTED AS COMPATIBLE WITHIN OUR FAMILY CENTERS. SWEEPING CHANGES TO COUNTY ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS DO NOT COME WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

ONE SUCH CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR AND SPELLED OUT RECENTLY, THAT RECREATIONAL USE CANNABIS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY OR IN A MORE RESTRICTIVE FASHION THAN LIQUOR SALES. THAT SAID, IF BILL 24 037 PASSES AND WE ARE TO ALLOW

[00:35:07]

TODAY, THE COUNTY HAS AMPLE ZONING, CLASSIFICATIONS AND AVAILABLE PARCELS, WHICH ARE BER SALES SUCH AS VB, B2, B3, AND C1. IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE SINGULAR PARCEL OWNERS THAT SEEK TO MAKE A CASE FOR BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY, THE COUNTY OVERSEES AN APPLICATION PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTS TO APPLY TO ALTER THEIR SPECIFIC ZONING DESIGNATION. THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY IN POSSESSION OF TWO SUCH APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING THE PARCEL IN QUESTION SEEKING TO REZONE PARCELS ZONED AS B-1 INTO CLASSIFICATIONS THAT PERMIT LIQUOR STORES. THIS IS A FAR MORE PRUDENT, EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ADDRESSING ONE OFF REQUEST, RATHER THAN GENERALIZATIONS THAT IMPACT HUNDREDS OF PARCELS AND SETS A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS. I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT BILL 24 037, IN SUPPORT OF ZONING STANDARDS THAT ALIGN WITH HARFORD COUNTY'S VALUES. THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS REMAIN SAFE AND FAMILY FRIENDLY SHOULD NOT BE SQUANDERED. COUNCIL I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. THANK YOU SIR. STEPHANIE FLASH, FOLLOWED BY LARRY DEAN.

GOOD EVENING MADAM. NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. STEPHANIE FLASH. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS OF HARFORD AND AT 1902 NORWOOD COURT, FALLSTON, MARYLAND. FRIENDS OF HARFORD OPPOSES BILL 24 037. WHILE WE DO VALUE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LOCAL BUSINESSES TO OUR COMMUNITY, THIS BILL DOES RAISE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. IT PROPOSES A ZONING CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW LIQUOR STORES IN THE B1 DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND A CHANGE, THOUGH SEEMINGLY JUST TAILORED FOR ONE SPECIFIC PROPERTY, AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY. THIS HAS POTENTIALLY FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES. CURRENTLY, THE LIQUOR STORES ARE ALLOWED IN THE VILLAGE BUSINESS, WHICH ARE SIMILAR IN INTENSITY AS MENTIONED TO B1, BUT THEY ARE LIMITED TO NINE AREAS. THEY'RE ALSO ALLOWED IN MORE INTENSIVE AREAS LIKE B2 AND B3. CURRENT ZONING RIGHT NOW ENSURES THAT THE LIQUOR STORES ARE PLACED IN AREAS THAT ALIGN WITH THE CHARACTER AND NEEDS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. HOWEVER, IF THIS LEGISLATION IS APPROVED B WHICH THEY'RE ALLOWED TO B1, THIS WOULD INCLUDE OVER 200 PARCELS, AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY TOO. THIS COULD HAVE A MUCH LARGER IMPACT COMPARED TO THE. NINE LIMITED VILLAGE BUSINESS LOCATIONS, WHICH IS BEING USED AS THE.

[00:40:10]

THANK YOU SIR. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ADDRESS. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.

MIKE SHERMAN, 3520 WOODSDALE ROAD, ABINGDON, MARYLAND. I ALSO OWN FRIENDSHIP WINE AND LIQUOR, AND I'M THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION OF MARYLAND. I'M JUST HERE ALSO IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING PROPOSAL, AND JUST WANT TO ECHO THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY PRESENTED. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE THAT. THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS, MR. PRESIDENT, WITH NO MORE SPEAKERS. THIS WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BILL 20 4-0. 37. THIS ALSO WILL BE TAKEN UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THE CHAIR CALLS THE ORDER OF LEGISLATIVE

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

AMEN. COUNCIL. IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME DELEGATE RILEY TO THE CHAMBER THIS EVENING.

[4. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATIONS]

HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS. MISTER PENMAN. GENTLEMEN, COME UP. WE'RE GOING TO STAND.

WHEREAS THE HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS, ESTABLISHED ON JUNE 7TH, 1987, HAVE PLAYED A VITAL ROLE IN FOSTERING A SAFER ENVIRONMENT BY PROVIDING AN ANONYMOUS AND SECURE PLATFORM FOR CITIZENS TO REPORT INFORMATION ON CRIMES, ADDING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN AN ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS, AND ENHANCING THE OVERALL SECURITY OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND WHEREAS

[00:45:01]

HE'S SHE'S THE CHAIR. SINCE 1987, YOU HAVE BEEN A GREAT COMMUNITY PARTNER, NOT JUST WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BUT ENTIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT, KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. SERVED A NUMBER OF YEARS IN COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND BUILDING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS LIKE WE HAVE HERE, IS WHY. HARFORD COUNTY IS THE PLACE TO LIVE AND SO SUCCESSFUL HERE. SO AN INCREDIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND WITH THAT, I THINK I'M GOING TO PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION HERE. I WANT TO HOLD THAT RIGHT THERE AND GET ONE PHOTO. AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO SERGEANT MONTALVO, WHO IS THE LIAISON OR WAS THE LIAISON FOR THE ORGANIZATION. PLEASE. GREAT. OKAY. PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING PREPARED. FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS. I WORKED AS THE LIAISON BETWEEN THE HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS.

AND IN THAT TIME, THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES A SERVICE THAT IS WITHOUT QUESTION, YOU KNOW, UNMEASURABLE. THE SERVICE THAT THEY PROVIDE. I RECEIVED AND HANDLED MULTIPLE TIPS FOR HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, HAVRE DE GRACE POLICE, ABERDEEN AND BEL AIR. I MEAN, THEY PAY OUT ANONYMOUS REWARDS TO THE TIPSTERS AND THE INFORMATION WAS INVALUABLE BECAUSE IT WAS INFORMATION WE DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE. SO WITHOUT HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS, THERE ARE SOME CRIMES IN HARFORD COUNTY THAT JUST WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SOLVED. SO THEY DESERVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. I TELL YOU, THERE WERE SOME NEWS ARTICLES THAT SUE SENT ME FROM GOING BACK TO 1987, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED IS REALLY, REALLY INCREDIBLE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I KNOW I'M GOING TO KEEP YOU UP HERE BECAUSE I KNOW SHERIFF GAYLOR AND THE COLONEL ARE GOING TO COME UP AND THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT YOU WITH THE AWARD AS WELL. AND THE DEPUTY WARDEN AS WELL. SORRY. AND THE WARDEN AND THE WARDEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR ALLOWING US A FEW MINUTES TO INTRUDE ON THE MEETING AND ALSO RECOGNIZE CRIME SOLVERS ON THEIR 37TH ANNIVERSARY. WE HAVE A SHERIFF'S SALUTE FOR YOU. LOOKS BETTER THAN THE. NO, IT DOESN'T, BUT AGAIN, 1987 IS THE YEAR I ACTUALLY CAME UP WEARING A DIFFERENT UNIFORM THAT I CAME TO THIS COUNTY DOWN, THE LOCAL STATE POLICE BARRACKS ON THE CORNER. SO IT'S QUITE A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT IT SHOWS HOW LONG AND LASTING AND IMPACTFUL THE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN WORTH THE ROAD WITH WENDELL THERE FOR A FEW DAYS, A FEW SHIFTS. SO WE HAVE A SHERIFF'S SALUTE AND IT READS, WHEREAS THIS YEAR, THE YEAR OF 2024 MARKS THE 37TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS PROGRAM, A DISTINGUISHED CIVIC GROUP THAT CONTINUES TO BE A CRUCIAL PART OF HARTFORD'S PRESENT AND FUTURE. AND WHEREAS CRIME SOLVERS HAS PROVEN THAT CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IS A POWERFUL WEAPON IN COMBATING AND SOLVING CRIME AND CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY TO ENHANCE THE EFFORTS OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND WHEREAS, SINCE ITS INCEPTION, HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS HAS PROVEN TO BE AN EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFICIENT WEAPON AGAINST CRIME, WITH AN IMPRESSIVE RECORD OF CRIME SOLVED AND PROPERTY RECOVERED.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEFFREY GAYLOR, SHERIFF OF HARFORD COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF THE MEN AND WOMEN, MANY OF WHO ARE WITH US TONIGHT, THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DO SALUTE THE HARFORD COUNTY CRIME SOLVERS FOR THEIR LOYAL AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF HARFORD COUNTY. BY AWARDING THEM THIS SHERIFF'S SALUTE. THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT

[00:50:04]

HANG ON ONE SECOND. WENDELL. TANYA. BRENDA. SUE, DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? NO.

WENDELL. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. CONGRATULATIONS. WE'RE ALL SCARED OF WENDELL. YEAH. NOT ME. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND NOMINATIONS. WE HAVE NONE. SIX SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS. WE HAVE

[7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

[8. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS]

RESOLUTION ZERO 42 DASH 24 NOTICE OF SALE CPI BOND SERIES 2025 A INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT VINCENTE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY BY HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND, THE COUNTY OF ITS BONDS, DESIGNATED HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES 2025 A THE CPI, CPI BONDS IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60 MILLION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19, DASH 101 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND 2013 REPLACEMENT VOLUME IN 2024 SUPPLEMENT THE CONSOLIDATED BONDS ACT, SECTION 524 OF THE CHARTER OF HARFORD COUNTY. THE CHARTER AND SECTIONS ONE, 23, 40 AND 256. DASH 26 OF THE CODE OF HARFORD COUNTY, THE COUNTY CODE CONFIRMING THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, IF ANY, AND INTEREST THEREIN SHALL BE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY SECURED BY ITS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AND UNLIMITED TAXING POWER. DETERMINING THAT THE CPI BONDS SHALL BE SOLD BY COMPETITIVE BID, APPOINTING A BOND REGISTER AND PAYING AGENT FOR THE CPI BONDS. APPROVING THE SUBSTANTIALITY. SUBSTANTIALITY FINAL FORMS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS BE EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE WITH THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE CPP BONDS.

DETERMINING THE DATE OF SALE. DETERMINING THE AVERAGE PROBABLE USEFUL LIFE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OR UNDERTAKINGS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH INDEBTEDNESS EVIDENCED BY THE CPI BONDS IS TO BE INCURRED.

DETERMINING VARIOUS OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE CPI BONDS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROVISIONS IN THE NOTICE OF SALE FOR CHANGES IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CPI BONDS TO BE SOLD, AND CHANGES IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TO BE MATURE IN CERTAIN YEARS, AND DETERMINING THAT THE CPI BOND SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE. RESOLUTION. ZERO. 43 DASH 24 NOTICE OF SALE REFUNDING BOND SERIES 2025 BEING INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT VINCENTE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY BY HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND COUNTY OF ITS BONDS DESIGNATED HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2025 B THE REFUNDING BONDS AND THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58 MILLION. PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 DASH 207 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, 2013. REPLACEMENT VOLUME IN 2024 SUPPLEMENT THE REFUNDING BONDS ACT, SECTION 524 OF THE CHARTER OF HARFORD COUNTY. THE CHARTER, SECTIONS ONE, 23, DASH 40 AND TWO, 5626 OF THE CODE OF HARFORD COUNTY. THE COUNTY CODE AND BILL NUMBER 21. DASH 021, ENACTED ON NOVEMBER 2ND, 2021, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 3RD, 2022. THE REFUNDING BILL FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN MATURITIES OF THE COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES, 2015 A ISSUED BY THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO BILLS 14, DASH 24, 15, DASH 1816, 1917, DASH TEN, AS AMENDED, 18 DASH ZERO NINE, 1914, AND 2014, AS AMENDED. THE OUTSTANDING 2015A BONDS, THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN MATURITIES OF THE COUNTY OUTSTANDING. HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND REFUNDING BOND SERIES 2015 ISSUED BY THE COUNTY PURSUANT TO BILLS NUMBER 14. DASH 24, 15, DASH 1816, 1917, DASH TEN, AS AMENDED, 18 DASH ZERO NINE, 1914, AND 2014, AS AMENDED. THE OUTSTANDING 2015 B BONDS, AND TOGETHER WITH ITS OUTSTANDING 2015 A BONDS, THE OUTSTANDING BONDS AND INCLUDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND COST OF ISSUANCE, PROVIDING FOR THE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE REFUNDING BONDS NOT TO EXCEED 58

[00:55:01]

FINALLY, THE COUNTY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE COUNTY TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE BOND DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE BOND SALE. ON FEBRUARY 4TH, UNDER THE SECOND RESOLUTION, RESOLUTION NUMBER 43, DASH 24. THIS WAS REGARDING THE 2025 REFUNDING BONDS OF THE COUNTY. BACK IN NOVEMBER 2021, THE COUNTY ADOPTED BILL NUMBER 21, DASH 21, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO ISSUE UP TO $170 MILLION IN REFUNDING BONDS FOR VARIOUS SERIES. 2013 2014 2015. THE BILL AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY COUNTY COUNCIL TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AT A LATER DATE, GIVING THE COUNTY THE AUTHORITY TO REFUND ITS OUTSTANDING 2015 A AND 2015 B BONDS, WHICH ARE THE ONLY BONDS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THE. AS WITH THE PRIOR RESOLUTION, THE CPI RESOLUTION, RESOLUTION 43 DASH 24 ALSO SETS FORTH THE TERMS OF THE BONDS, THE NOTICE OF SALE, THE FORMS OF THE BONDS, THE SAME INTERNAL REVENUE CODE PROVISIONS ENSURING THAT THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS REMAINS TAX EXEMPT, AND THAT WE COVER IN OUR BOND COUNSEL OPINION GIVING. THESE ARE REFUNDING BONDS. THE RESOLUTION GIVES THE COUNTY THE FLEXIBILITY TO ISSUE LESS THAN 58 MILLION. IF THE COUNTY TREASURER IS ADVISED BY DAVENPORT THAT SAVINGS WILL BE ACHIEVED BY ONLY REFUNDING CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF THOSE SERIES. IN ADDITION, AS MENTIONED BY MR. O'DONNELL, THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES AN ESCROW DEPOSIT AGREEMENT AND A FORWARD PURCHASE CONTRACT TO FACILITATE THE MAXIMUM SAVINGS FROM THE COUNTY ON THE REFUNDING. AS WITH THE PRIOR RESOLUTION, THE CPI RESOLUTION, THE COUNTY COUNCIL GRANTS THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, THE COUNTY TREASURER AND OTHER COUNTY OFFICIALS THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THE SALE ON FEBRUARY 4TH. FINALLY, AS RAVI WILL DISCUSS FURTHER AFTER THE FEBRUARY 4TH SALE, WE WILL AGAIN APPROACH THE COUNCIL WITH ADDITIONAL RESOLUTIONS SETTING FORTH THE EXACT TERMS OF THE BONDS, INCLUDING APPROPRIATE DENOMINATIONS, INTEREST RATES AND MATURITY YEARS AT THIS TIME. BEFORE TURNING IT BACK OVER TO

[01:00:02]

[01:05:02]

IF IT WAS DISCLOSED IN A POS OR IN THE RESOLUTION, WE WOULD NOT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY CALL THAT OUT IN THE WEST AND SAY THAT THIS IS CORRECTED, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HOLD UP THE BOND, THE BOND PURCHASE, THE BOND SALE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IF I WERE A BOND INVESTOR, THAT I'D BE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT, GIVEN THAT IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE SAME PROJECT THAT'S BEING FUNDED. IT'S JUST AN INTERNAL DESIGNATION THAT ISN'T CORRECT. THAT IS ONLY SPECIFIC TO THE COUNTY. YEAH, IT'S JUST THE WORKDAY COST INDEX. IF IT WAS WRONG, TOTALLY WRONG, AND IT WAS A WRONG PROJECT ALTOGETHER AND THE BOND WENT THROUGH, IS THERE ANY REPERCUSSIONS TO THAT IN THAT CASE? I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S A DISCLOSURE ISSUE. IT WOULD BE THIS WAS APPROVED. WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AS WE'RE DOING. WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE IN THE OS THAT, HEY, THIS WAS INCORRECTLY APPROVED IN THE RESOLUTION. IT'S NOT A AN ISSUE THAT WOULD HOLD UP OR, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD CAUSE, YOU KNOW, LITIGATION OF ANY TYPE. IT'S MERELY A, HEY, THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS AMENDED BETWEEN THE OS WITH THE POS AND THE OS, AND THEN AS LONG AS THE INVESTOR THEMSELVES IS AWARE OF IT, I DON'T SEE IT AS A MATERIAL CONCERN. YEAH. AND MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS WE HERE HAVE TRADITIONALLY. AND YOU SHOWN ALL THE PROJECTS AS IS IN AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. IF YOU GO TO BALTIMORE COUNTY OR BALTIMORE CITY, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL JUST DO THEM IN BLOCKS OF SCHOOL BONDS, YOU KNOW. AND SO THERE AGAIN, THIS IS MUCH MORE OF AN INTERNAL THING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS COUNTY HAS A LONG HISTORY OF, OF DISCLOSING THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. AND IT'S ONE OF THE POINTS I WAS GOING TO IT WAS GOING TO GET TO IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTY'S BONDS HERE, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ONLY FOR, YOU KNOW, THESE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS. WE'RE NOT TAKING OUT OR ISSUING DEBT FOR ANY TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, OPERATING EXPENDITURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, AND AS SUCH, THERE ARE RULES THAT THAT DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THESE LONG TERM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATE USE OR WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD RUN AFOUL OF OUR, OF OUR IRS DESIGNATION. AND AGAIN, SO AND THAT'S WHY WE DO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE DO LIST THE PROJECTS OUT INDIVIDUALLY. YOU KNOW, THE REAL DETAIL OF THE PROJECTS IS OFTENTIMES IN IN THE BUDGET BOOK, AGAIN, THOUGH, THE INDEX CODE IS A NON-MATERIAL ISSUE. THAT'S JUST KIND OF A AN IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. YOU KNOW, INTERNALLY. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATIONS. I THINK THEY'RE MORE THAN SATISFACTORY. IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SIMPLE THING, AND I APPRECIATE IT BEING ADDRESSED. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING THE MARKET TO BE LIKE THIS YEAR, WHAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING FOR BOND SALES TO BE LIKE COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS FEW YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE ARE A TRIPLE A RATED COUNTY. AND IN MID JANUARY WE WILL HAVE GO IN FRONT OF THE THREE AGENCIES TO, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY HAVE THAT THAT REAFFIRMED THAT. CERTAINLY THAT IS OUR EXPECTATION AND ALL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, YOU KNOW, INDICATE THAT OUR METRICS, AS FAR AS THE SCORECARDS GO, THAT THAT WE ARE REMAIN IN A TRIPLE A RATED COUNTY, THE MOST RECENT COUNTY IN MARYLAND, COUNTY THAT SOLD IS TRIPLE A RATED COUNTY. A FEW ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO AGO WAS CARROLL COUNTY. THEY SOLD FOR 3.43. THAT'S KIND OF THE CURRENT ESTIMATE. THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE RECEIVED 3.25. SO WE'LL SEE IF IT GOES, YOU KNOW, IN THAT IN THAT DIRECTION. YOU KNOW AGAIN YOU KNOW 3.43 IS STILL A IS STILL A PRETTY STRONG RATE. YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THE BEST RATE THAT WE CAN AS IT RELATES

[01:10:03]

BUT AT THIS POINT, I THINK IT'S HIGHLY, HIGHLY UNLIKELY. BUT ON THE NEW BONDS, 3.43%, I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE PAST FEW YEARS THERE'S BEEN LIKE RIPE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS FROM REFUNDING BONDS. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF IT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH FOR NOW DONE WITH THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. YEAH, THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT ON THE CUSP. I MEAN, THIS WAS RIGHT KIND OF AT THE BEGINNING OF, OF WHEN THE RATES STARTED, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO GO DOWN THE 2015 ISSUANCE WAS ACTUALLY I THINK UNDER UNDER 3%. BUT OFTENTIMES THE LOWER COUPON RATES ARE STACKED IN FRONT AND THEN THE HIGHER ONES IN THE IN THE BACK. AT LEAST THAT'S HOW IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. NOW THEY'VE KIND OF REVERSED IT BECAUSE OF THE NEW REFUNDING RULES. SO YEAH, THERE'S NOT A TON OF OPPORTUNITIES. BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN WE SEEM TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE, YOU KNOW, EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NEED THE RATES TO GO FROM ABOUT 2.8%. RIGHT NOW THE TEN YEAR IS ABOUT 2.8%. SO I NEED TO GO GO DOWN TO ABOUT 2%. I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 80 BASIS POINTS. IT'S AGAIN PRETTY UNLIKELY, BUT IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF THAT YOU'VE SEEN THAT KIND OF A SWING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MR. PITTMAN, ONE MORE FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT TO BE 2% IF I'M IF I'M GETTING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, NO, I'M SAYING IS THAT THE SO WE HAVE SO WE HAVE TWO ISSUANCES HERE. WE HAVE WE HAVE THE NEW THE NEW BONDS WHICH ARE $60 MILLION. AND THOSE ARE LARGELY PROJECTS FROM THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

THEY'VE ALL BEEN BUDGETED AND ALL OF THAT. AND THAT'S THAT. I EXPECT IF WE WERE TO SELL RIGHT TODAY, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AROUND 3.4%. AGAIN, IT COULD GO UP OR IT COULD GO DOWN. BY THE TIME WE DO SELL IN MID IN EARLY EARLY FEBRUARY, IF WE WERE TO SELL REFUNDING BONDS RIGHT NOW, THE TEN YEAR REFUNDING BONDS, WE THINK THEY WOULD BRING ABOUT 2.8%. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORTH OUR WHILE, IN ORDER TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GET A RATE MORE OF LIKE 2%. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LIKE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD A HOME MORTGAGE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF YOU HAD A SLIGHTLY LOWER RATE, YOU STILL MIGHT NOT DO A REFI BECAUSE YOU HAVE POINTS AND TIME AND EFFORT AND HEADACHES AND ALL OF THAT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE NOW. WE, THE FINANCIAL ADVISORS, ARE GENERALLY LOOKING FOR A SAVINGS OF, OF, OF, YOU KNOW, 3% IN NET PRESENT VALUE.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE LOAD OR THE GUIDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. SO HOW HOW LONG IS THAT WINDOW WOULD YOU THINK WHERE YOU LOOK AND ONCE YOU DECIDE TO DO IT BY ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING. WELL WE'RE GOING TO GO TO WE'RE I MEAN YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT THAT THAT YOU ALL PASS BOTH RESOLUTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO NEW YORK AND WE'RE GOING TO ASK TO BE RATED FOR BOTH FOR BOTH OF THOSE. BUT AS WE GET CLOSER TO THE DATE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN PULL IT. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD TECHNICALLY EVEN DO IT THAT DAY. WE WOULD PROBABLY NOT, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO PLAY GAMES WITH THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL WE'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PROBABLY BE MAKING THAT CALL, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF DAYS OR SO BEFORE, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THAT, YEP, THIS IS WHERE THE MARKET, THIS IS WHERE THE MARKET IS. BUT IF WE DON'T TAKE THESE STEPS NOW, THEN THE OPPORTUNITY IS LOST. SO IT'S JUST BEING PRETTY, YOU KNOW PREEMPTIVE. AND WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. AND WE'VE ACTUALLY REFUNDED YOU KNOW THE PAST YOU KNOW WE'VE DONE QUITE A FEW REFUNDING BOTH. YOU KNOW THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE ONE WE'VE LAST YEAR. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO DONE SEVERAL IN THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AGAIN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THOSE LOWER RATES WHERE WE DIDN'T. SO YEAH YEAH. YEAH. COUNCIL.

ANYTHING ELSE. ROBBIE. IF REFRESH MY MEMORY LAST NIGHT WHEN WE WERE AT APFO, DID WE TALK ABOUT STATE DISTRIBUTIONS. ANY RECENT COMING IN INCOME TAX OR. NO WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT

[01:15:04]

ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IS THE COLLEGE CHESAPEAKE WELCOME CENTER. AT $8 MILLION, WE HAVE 5 MILLION IN PUBLIC SAFETY, 4 MILLION IN WATER AND SEWER. AGAIN, THERE'S WATER AND SEWERS ARE NOT. WE DON'T USE TAX DOLLARS TO FUND THOSE. WE ONLY USE WATER AND SEWER USER FEES.

PUBLIC PARKS IS APPROXIMATELY 3 MILLION HIGHWAYS, 4 MILLION IN STORMWATER 2 MILLION. SO ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THEN I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES. NEXT WEEK WE'LL SEE SOME SORT OF AN AMENDED VERSION AND WE'LL MOVE IT THROUGH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCIL.

[9. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS]

PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 14TH, 2025 AT 7:15 P.M. IN THESE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. BILL 24 ZERO 41, CHAPTER 267. ZONING SETBACKS FOR EXTRACTION AND BLASTING ACTIVITIES AS INTRODUCED. INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RILEY. AN ACT TO REPEAL AND REENACT WITH AMENDMENTS, SUBSECTION C, QUOTATION THREE. EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CI AND GI DISTRICTS OF SECTION TWO, 67 DASH 60, SILLY AND GI INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS OF ARTICLE SEVEN DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO REPEAL AND REENACT WITH AMENDMENTS, SUBSECTION E1 MINERAL EXTRACTING AND PROCESSING OF SECTION TWO, 6788. SPECIFIC STANDARDS. STANDARDS OF ARTICLE NINE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. ALL OF PART ONE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 267 ZONING ALL OF THE HARTFORD COUNTY CODE, AS AMENDED, TO REQUIRE THE SETBACKS FOR EXTRACTION AND BLASTING ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SET FORTH IN TITLE 26 OF THE CODE OF THE MARYLAND REGULATIONS AND GENERAL RELATED TO ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 14TH, 2025 AT 7:15 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THANK YOU. AGENDA NUMBER TEN INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS.

WE HAVE NONE. 11 CALL FOR FINAL READING OF BILLS. WE HAVE NONE 12. ENROLLMENT OF BILLS WE HAVE NONE. 13 UNFINISHED BUSINESS WE HAVE NONE. 14 NEW BUSINESS WE HAVE NONE. 17 COMMENT FROM

[17. COMMENTS AND INPUT FROM ATTENDING CITIZENS]

GOOD EVENING, MA'AM. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAM DEEMER. I LIVE AT 928 BERGEN COURT, BEL AIR, MARYLAND. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. I'M SURE YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE COUNTY'S MUNICIPAL ANIMAL SHELTER MANAGEMENT BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF HARFORD COUNTY HAS BEEN WITHOUT AN EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.

RECENTLY, THEIR PRIMARY VETERINARY VETERINARIAN RESIGNED DUE TO UNNECESSARY KILLING OF AN ANIMAL. DESPITE HER DISAGREEMENT, WHICH SHE EXPRESSED TO THE BOARD AND THE STAFF. WHILE HE H H SHC IS OPERATING WITHOUT A DIRECTOR, THERE ARE UNDERSTANDABLE

[01:20:02]

TRANSPARENCY. I ASK THAT THE COUNCIL TO REQUEST, AS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE, IN THE PAST, MONTHLY LIVE RELEASE RATES FROM THE BOARD OR THEIR DESIGNATED AGENT, AND THAT THOSE NUMBERS BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. THERE ARE NO

[16. BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ]

CONGRATULATIONS TO HIM. MY HEART AND PRAYERS GO OUT TO MY COLLEAGUE. COUNCILWOMAN JESSICA BOYLE SADDLES HER COUSIN. AS EVERYONE MIGHT KNOW, PATRICK BOYLE SERVICES WERE TODAY AND I ALSO WILL BE HEADING DOWN TO MEXICO THIS WEEK. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU, MR. RILEY.

MR. BENNETT, HELLO. GOOD EVENING. IT'S BEEN A BUSY WEEK. I ATTENDED THE HARFORD COUNTY DELEGATION SENDOFF RECEPTION AT THE LIRIODENDRON, WHICH WAS REALLY NICE. AND I CONTINUED TO SPEAK WITH OUR DELEGATION MEMBERS IN HOPES THAT THEY WILL SUPPORT US IN RAISING THE CAP ON IMPACT FEES, THAT WE CAN CLOSE THAT GAP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN WHAT WE CHARGE AND WHAT IT COSTS IN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. I ALSO WAS IN THE HOLLY JOLLY PARADE IN HAVRE DE GRACE, WHICH WAS A LOT OF FUN. I ALWAYS ENJOY THAT PARADE. IT'S SO FUN TO SEE THE COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH MOST PEOPLE WERE YELLING OUT MY WIFE'S NAME, NOT MY NAME. I GUESS THAT'S THE POWER OF BEING A PARKS AND REC DANCE TEACHER. BUT THEY THEY LOVE ABBY IN THE PARADE. I ALSO MET WITH THE

[01:25:06]

[15. BUSINESS FROM THE PRESIDENT]