January 25, 1999

The Town Council of the Town of Easton met today at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the President Mr. Willey with the following members present: Mr. Ford, Mr. Mayer, Mrs. Clem and Mr. Heinmuller. Also attending were Mayor C. Eugene Butler, Chief Harvey, Assistant Town Attorney Mr. S. Kehoe, Town Planner Mr. Hamilton, Town Engineer Mr. Grunden and Assistant Town Engineer Mr. Glass.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, minutes of the December 15, 21, 1998 and January 4, 1999 meetings were approved as written.

Mr. C.R. Chance, the new chief of the Easton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., was introduced by Mayor Butler to the Council and public. Chief Chance thanked the Council for the opportunity. He offered a fire report and discussed a pipe bomb alert which was received.

The President of the Council brought the request of Duvall Brothers to burn trees and brush materials at the Easton Technology Center to the floor.

Chief C.R. Chance stated that he had been contacted and it was okay in the Fire Department’s opinion to burn. The President of the Council asked if there were any questions.

The Council offered congratulations to Chief Chance.

Willard Parker, Esq., was present representing Mr. Fred Kern and residents of Easton Club. Mr. Parker discussed 37 lot owners at the Easton Club and their concerns relating to sidewalks which were required by the Town. Mr. Parker discussed the PUD at Easton Club being approved in 1993. He stated that 40 lots had been sold and the remaining approximately 100 are being developed. Mr. Parker stated that 37 of the owners are concerned about the construction of the sidewalks. He discussed the developer sending a notice that they intended to place asphalt sidewalks. The owners according to Mr. Parker had no idea that sidewalks were planned, especially asphalt sidewalks. Mr. Parker discussed the development agreement signed between the Town of Easton and the developer as well as the plat showing the sidewalks. Mr. Parker discussed plantings by the new owners in the area which is scheduled to be made into sidewalks. He discussed residents learning at a meeting of the Planning Commission where slate sidewalks were approved and stated that there was no notice of that provided. Mr. Parker suggested to the Council that the question regarding materials of the sidewalk has brought up the question of whether any sidewalks are even required at Easton Club. Mr. Parker alleged that Easton Club is private and the areas are not public areas. He stated that there is an overwhelming consensus that sidewalks not be required at Easton Club by the residents. He suggested allowing the homeowner and the Association’s developer to come to the Council for a PUD amendment to delete the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Parker asked the Council to have a moratorium on the requirement for these sidewalks in the interim and stated that the developer has acquiesced to this concept.

The President of the Council asked if there were any questions.

Mrs. Clem questioned when the lots were sold, does the person own the lot all the way to the road or is it four feet from the road. Mr. Parker stated that they own to the edge of the 60’ right-of-way. Mrs. Clem questioned whether the people who had purchased property had planted things on property they do not own. Mr. Parker stated that they had. Mrs. Clem stated that she was amazed that people are not aware of where their property line is when that kind of price is paid for real estate. She discussed the reasons for sidewalks.

Mr. Parker discussed the difference on the sidewalks approved.

Mrs. Clem stated that she believes that this would be a cost to the developer. Mr. Parker stated that this is correct. Mrs. Clem stated that she thought that the developer is looking at cost savings with the proposal. Mr. Parker stated that his idea was to have a full hearing and this is not necessary from the developer, it includes all the lot owners.

Mr. Ford stated that he was confused by this process proposed. He stated that the amendment to the PUD is filed with the Planning and Zoning Commission and then forwarded to the Council. He questioned why Mr. Parker was here now with the request. Mr. Parker stated that he was present since the slate paver construction has started and the owners are displeased. Mr. Ford stated that one would hope that the developer would stop with his construction knowing that the amendment request is coming.

The Town Engineer stated that the developer knew that this was required and asked for deferral of placement until a later time which would allow more comprehensive construction with less damage to the properties. The Town Engineer stated that the developer is bonded to complete this project. He stated that since this is a PUD, there is an effort to accomplish a pedestrian way. The Town Engineer stated that the private development aspect or the not safety related aspect needs to be addressed. He discussed this further including court challenges to the requirement for sidewalks previously. The Town Engineer stated that this runs counter to the sub-division regulations. He stated that if the Council would like to direct the Engineer’s office to cease and desist with the requiring of the sidewalks in this instance, they could do so. The Town Engineer stated that the third party filing of a PUD amendment should be referred to legal counsel for an opinion. The Town Engineer asked for the advice of the Council’s will.

Mr. Ford stated that the agreed with the Town Engineer’s comments on sidewalks. He stated that he was a part of the controversy years ago when he was on the Planning Commission and the sidewalk issue came up. He suggested that any changes from the approved PUD must go through the whole process.

Mr. Mayer agreed with the Town Engineer’s comments and stated that he was not sure if a third party or the developer was involved.

Mr. Parker stated that the developer will join in this effort.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that he was concerned with the third parties’ legal position. He stated that the Town has required sidewalks for quite sometime and he thinks they are beneficial. He stated that he is concerned about the choice of materials. Mr. Heinmuller stated that he is concerned that every area would get sidewalks and this not be changed.

Mrs. Clem made a motion to ask the Engineer’s office to cease and desist with the block sidewalks. She stated that sidewalks are important for the safety and should be made out of concrete. She stated that sidewalks were required when the properties were purchased.

Mr. Ford asked the Town Planner whether the Town had required sidewalks for sometime. The Town Planner stated that was correct. He questioned clarification of Mr. Parker’s request for a public hearing versus a public meeting. Mr. Parker stated that he is requesting a public meeting.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned if notification had been posted by a sign.

Mr. Ford made a second to Mrs. Clem’s motion, which passed.

Mr. Parker stated that he would see the Town in court for modifications for the PUD.

The President of the Council asked the Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe to check on the third party aspect with the developer.

At 7:23 P.M., the President of the Council re-opened the Public Hearing for the Annexation and Zoning for the Lands of Argonaut Land Company L.L.C. which is 386.44 acres lying contiguous to the existing boundaries of the Town of Easton, generally located on west side of Easton south of MD Rt. 33 (St. Michaels Road) and the related zoning.

The President of the Council invited Mr. David Thompson, Esq., to provide any additional comments that he might have and asked people that have already spoken not to speak until everyone has had the chance. The President of the Council also asked that people limit their comments to three to five minutes. The President of the Council discussed the ground rules for the public hearing.

Mr. Thompson introduced Mr. Chris Pupke, 46 Pennsylvania Avenue, who works at Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage. Mr. Pupke stated that he was a resident from Queenstown and that Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage has concerns over wildlife. He encouraged the Council to say no the annexation due the implications on wildlife. He stated that it was possible to develop in a wildlife friendly manner. Mr. Pupke discussed the Maryland Department of Natural Resources identifying these waters as a sensitive species overview area. He stated that the Chesapeake Bay Publication has identified submerged aquatic vegetation beds in the vicinity. Mr. Pupke also discussed the Delmarva Fox Squirrels sightings and concerns related to the area proposed for annexation. Mr. Pupke read a quote regarding the compromised area. Mr. Pupke also discussed his concerns related to Bald Eagles. Mr. Pupke stated that the Town should not worry since the project cannot be developed under the county rules and claimed that the property would not perk. He stated that the developers need sewer and urged the Council to say no until a plan is received. He read a quote regarding land impact.

Mr. Bob Welty, Ratcliffe Manor Lane, read from a prepared statement. He stated that the issue is simple. The Council could vote on an annexation before a plan or see the plan first. He stated that in their personal life, people would see the plan before consideration. He discussed this matter. Mr. Welty questioned how the Town could approve this annexation before knowing if they can handle the growth. He stated that the future will be contentious and discussed impacts.

Mr. Luther Tucker, 7700 Bloomfield Road, thanked the Council for allowing him to speak. He stated that he understands that the only logical reason to annex is to develop property densely. He discussed traffic problems, density, water quality and the annexation not requiring a development plan. He discussed saving developers time. Mr. Tucker stated that smart growth doesn’t mean high density in the critical area. He discussed harmful affects. Mr. Tucker stated that a lot of thought went into the 1997 Town Comprehensive Plan and questioned whether this should be rushed through annexation. He believes that the vote by the Council will be against the annexation. Mr. Tucker discussed the value of the Critical Area and uniqueness of the property. He discussed wildlife downstream from Ratcliffe. He stated that he wants to protect. He also discussed the habitat and buffer and baseline measurement about to begin by the Department of the Environment. Mr. Tucker stated that residents want to assist that effort. Mr. Tucker discussed having to make a decision and questioned the rush. He asked the Council not to rush to annex. He stated that the Town should not annex this property before a plan is presented.

Ms. Barbara Fox, 7258 Cooper Point Road, Bozman, read from a prepared statement and discussed wildlife issues and impacts. She read a list of the current animals on the property.

Ms. Eileen Deymier, 27 N. Hanson Street, read a prepared statement. She discussed the desire to live in a small town. She stated that developers will develop all available lots. Ms. Deymier discussed leaders making no choices or bad choices. Ms. Deymier discussed no plan being forwarded and the lack of public support for the annexation. She discussed the adverse affects on the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Deymier stated that the property owners do not have the right to abuse neighboring property. She asked the Council to reject the annexation until a plan is presented.

Ms. Polly Shannahan, Bachelor’s Point, Oxford, stated that she has lived here since 1945 and has worked with developers. She stated that her family has lived here since 1690. Ms. Shannahan discussed what people are looking for and what attracts them to the area. She stated that it is a critical problem to develop a jewel of land which can not be replaced. She stated that this property can not be developed without water and sewer system. Ms. Shannahan discussed the project to measure the river impact by the state. She discussed the need to know what the sewer system is doing and the impact on the Tred Avon and the Choptank River.

Mr. Tim Kerns, 218 Bay Street, stated that he was speaking for himself this time. He stated that everyone is here to protect the lifestyle. He discussed most moving into here. He used the Kent Island example as undesirable. Mr. Kerns discussed living on Bay Street and experiencing a sense of openness. He questioned what would happen if Ratcliffe was to be developed. Mr. Kerns discussed the Town needing to protect open space and use the New York City example of Central Park. He questioned how this should be balanced. He proposed that the development occur in another spot and contrasted that to the property owner’s right to sell property. He discussed a lot of development occurring on the other side of Route 50. He stated that if this area is maintained as a park, it could benefit all of Talbot County. He discussed his work as an architect. Mr. Kerns questioned why this property would not be farmed. He stated that the Manor Home would then be seen in context. Mr. Kerns suggested that the Town or County could offer market value for this property and use it for a park.

Mr. Tom Moore, 17 N. Aurora Street, stated that he and his wife had moved to the Town of Easton in April 1998 to leave congestion. He stated that they oppose the annexation of Ratcliffe Manor without a plan being presented.

Ms. Kathy Waskin stated that she is a business owner in Easton and resided at 7782 Pea Neck Road, St. Michaels. She stated that she moved here five years ago and discussed living in a farm time of Potomac and developers building up there and then leaving due to their profit being realized. She stated that there is no effective zoning to protect in Potomac. She discussed small lots with homes. She discussed the traffic and the doubling of traffic time in Potomac. She asked the Council to exercise good judgement and hoped that the Council will not consider this until a full plan is presented and the impact to the water traffic schools, etc. have been considered. She discussed the detrimental effect of the annexation.

Ms. Jean Cordiero, 408 Hanson Street, questioned when the decision would be made. The President of the Council stated that the record will be left open until the weekend. He stated that the earliest vote would occur on February 16 and was more likely to occur March 1. Ms. Cordiero questioned whether the Council would decide on the plan without having that plan in hand. The President of the Council discussed how the decision would occur. Ms. Cordiero discussed traffic and affects on here.

Mr. Lauren Sprigs, 27040 Rigby’s Lot Road, stated that the most he has been hearing has been negative. He did not usually hear about good decisions. He stated that his pet peeve is where the radio station is located. He stated that people are here due to the rule of law and that this could be stopped. He asked the Council to please listen.

Mr. Ben Stevens, Arcadia Shores, discussed suing in Arcadia Shores to protect that area 20 years ago. He discussed developers only being interested in money. He stated that he loves Talbot County.

Mr. Tony Harrington offered comments on recent developments. He stated that he was pleased to learn that the high-density developer has withdrawn from this project. He stated that the present owners are willing to consider lower density respecting the critical area and open space regulations. He stated that they are prepared to aggressively pursue good faith discussions with the owners, the Town of Easton and Talbot County. He stated that the plan must be specific and suggested that the petition be suspended to have time to allow discussion to work these matters out. Mr. Harrington stated that his position was that he was not opposed to annexation or potential development but only after an acceptable plan. He stated that he views this as reasonable. Mr. Harrington stated that he understands that the Town Council has previously encouraged developers to work with the neighborhood with good results. He stated that he hoped to avoid petitioning this to referendum.

Joe Stephens, Esquire, representing the applicant, stated that he appreciated the time the Council has spent to listen. He stated that he has learned that the contract from EYA has been withdrawn. He stated that the annexation was submitted before that contract and should continue based upon the merits of that annexation. He stated that they have talked to the neighbors and will continue to do so. He stated that it has not been easy on his client. He believes that the annexation petition stands on its own merits. Mr. Stephens stated that the plan is based upon the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and visioning processes involved. He discussed the Maryland Planning Act. Mr. Stephens stated that the Council needs to turn to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to annex this property. He discussed the time period to work out matters with the neighbors. He stated that the PUD and growth allocation procedures are already set. He discussed density, traffic and etc., causing rejection of future plans if they are deemed to be inappropriate. Mr. Stephens stated that his clients are looking to develop under the Town plan and ordinances. He stated that the critical area is not static and that growth allocation must be discussed and determined locally. He described these procedures. He stated that they will not come in for growth allocation for the entire parcel. Mr. Stephens discussed the underlying zoning of A-1 with the potential change later to a PUD. Mr. Stephens stated that the issues raised regarding development, etc. are addressed in the growth allocation and PUD process. Mr. Stephens discussed the possibility of not being able to annex the property later depending upon circumstances. He discussed the desirability of the property and asked if Mr. Bill Stagg could give an overview of the property. Mr. Stephens stated that Ms. Sheila Griffen is also present on behalf of the family.

Mr. Stephens passed out a letter and an article from Ms. Griffen. Mr. Bill Stagg stated that now is not the time for a sales pitch. He stated that his mission is to tell that the Comprehensive Plan efforts in 1997 were correct. He stated that they are sensitive to the development. Mr. Stagg offered four general thoughts. The first is that he hopes that the Council views this property as an opportunity for balanced growth consistent with federal, state and local ordinances and regulations. Second, Mr. Stagg hopes that everyone agrees that orderly, well-planned growth is preferred. He discussed growth pressures, controls and the town versus the county. The third is that he hopes that the people involved agree that the property is unique. He discussed the history and the landform. He believes this should be regulated under the Town of Easton’s regulations and discussed the reasons why this would better accommodate protection of the area. The fourth matter was that Mr. Stagg believes that Easton should view this as sensible growth area with orderly growth.

Mr. Stagg offered the property owners thoughts generally regarding development of these parcels. Mr. Stagg stated that on the Ratcliffe portion, they envision creating a private residential enclave with private access as well as preserving the trees on the lane. He discussed preserving some open space and stated that this would be buffered. Mr. Stagg stated that they would respect historic landforms. He discussed developing density substantially less than Waverly, Oaklands or Woodland Farms. On the Glenwood Farm, Mr. Stagg stated that conceptually, they intend separate access from Ratcliffe. He stated that they are thinking about a PUD development of single family lots similar to Cooke’s Hope. He stated that no development would be viewable from St. Michales Road. He discussed the large public park and water access envisioned.

Mrs. Clem questioned the number of homes if approved. Mr. Stagg stated that he would expect this to be less than one unit per acre across the entire farm. In other words, up to 350 units for the whole farm.

Mr. Stagg discussed the potential for Rails-to-Trails linkage and extension. He discussed the 35 to 45% of the land which would be touched under these concepts. He stated that the general view from St. Michaels would be as it is now.

Ms. Sheila Griffen thanked the Council for considering the petition for annexation. She stated that on behalf of the family, they had asked to follow the established procedure. She appreciated the difficult decision to seek annexation by the family. She stated that they honor the land where they grew up.

The President of the Council stated that he intended to close the public hearing. He stated that this has been the lengthiest public hearing that he has experienced. He appreciated the comments and thanked all for speaking. He discussed how the process would occur as well as stating that the Council will accept written comments to the Town Clerk by the weekend. These comments would be made part of the public record. The President of the Council stated that the vote could occur on February 16 but it would probably occur on the first meeting of March. He stated that the public hearing is not for the development and that it only concerns the annexation and the initial zoning.

The President of the Council closed the public hearing at 8:47 P.M. and took a thirteen-minute recess. At 9:00 P.M., the President of the Council called the meeting back to order.

The President of the Council brought a memo from the Mayor recommending the appointments of Mr. Wendowski to the Board of Appeals for a second term and Ms. Laura Krisch to MCTV. The Mayor stated that Mr. Wendowski is here and Ms. Krisch has agreed to serve on the MCTV Board for a term of five years.

Upon motion by Mr. Ford, second by Mr. Mayer and carried, the appointments were approved.

A letter was received from Ms. Robin Davenport, Executive Director of CASA requesting that various permit fees be waived related to their relocation. The Town Planner estimated the fees being waived would be approximately $35.

Upon motion by Mrs. Clem, seconded by Mr. Ford and granted, permission was granted to waive the fees.

The President of the Council referred a Petition for Annexation of 52 acres east of Ocean Gateway, adjoining the subdivision known as South Beechwood and the State police Barracks to the north and the Days Inn to the west, owned by Sherri Talbot, Yvonne D. Hoffman, Trustee and N. American Snake Institute, Inc. to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation.

The President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5647, "A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EASTON INDICATING APPROVAL BY THE EASTON TOWN COUNCIL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAGNOLIA MEADOWS APARTMENTS" to the floor and asked the Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe for comments.

The Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe stated that the Town Attorney had received a fax from Mr. Wilson, the Attorney for Gilman Development Corporation on Friday. Mr. Wilson suggested changes to the documentation. The Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe recommended against the changes and suggested voting on the Resolution, as it was prepared.

The Mayor stated that he had thought that the 99 units of rental apartment housing is not the direction that the Town wants to go. He asked the Council to vote against this Resolution. He referred to the growth issues recently discussed and the need to control this.

The President of the Council asked the Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe if it was okay to vote. The Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe stated that it was if there were no changes being made.

Mr. Mayer suggested voting on the Resolution as is.

The President of the Council asked if there were any questions.

Mrs. Clem moved to reject Resolution No. 5647 with a second by Mr. Heinmuller.

Mr. Ford and Mr. Mayer voted against rejecting the Resolution. Mrs. Clem and Mr. Heinmuller voted for rejecting Resolution No. 5647.

The President of the Council discussed the developer deciding to leave the entire wooded area untouched. He stated that in this instance, he disagreed with the Mayor and the neighbors of the parcel have in fact indicated their approval of this. The President of the Council discussed the developers offering a first time homebuyer incentive program. The President of the Council then voted against rejecting the Resolution.

The Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe stated that it was necessary to pass the Resolution if that was the Council’s desire.

Resolution No. 5647 was moved for passage by Mr. Ford, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried following a roll call vote with Mrs. Clem and Mr. Heinmuller voting no.

The President of the Council brought Resolution No. 5648 designating the grass and paved areas of the Rails-to-Trails as No Parking and prohibiting motor vehicles except authorized emergency vehicles to the floor.

The Chief discussed tractor-trailers parking in the grassy area and the officer noting the obstruction and damage caused by that parking. He discussed the cost incurred to repair this type of damage. He asked that the Council pass the Resolution.

The President of the Council asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Heinmuller asked if this refers to the areas between Goldsborough and Dover Street. The Chief stated that was correct. Mr. Heinmuller asked if there were problems in other areas. The Chief discussed this matter. Mr. Heinmuller questioned the current ordinance enforceability.

Resolution No. 5648 was moved for passage seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

A letter was received from Mr. Gary K. Ball, Treasurer, Easton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. requesting permission to rent the large meeting room and allow alcoholic beverages. The Mayor stated that the memo attached was from last year and concerns the insurance requirements. He discussed the Fire Department wanting to rent out the meeting room.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that he believed that the matter had been before the Fire Board and received approval.

Mrs. Clem questioned whether the Fire Department would rent out for wedding receptions and people providing the reception would provide the liquor. She questioned whether the Fire Department could provide liquor if it was a Fire Department dinner. She stated that she is opposed to alcohol in public buildings. She stated that on the one hand, they could utilize the funds, but on the other hand, she felt that this should not be done. Mrs. Clem questioned whether beer would be served during bingo. The Mayor stated that it would not. He discussed Casino Night. Mr. Ford questioned if the hall is rented to a private party without a fee, then there would be no license required in the county. Mr. Kehoe stated that this liquor license would also include a fee to get into the facility with an open bar.

The President of the Council asked if there were any questions. The President of the Council asked the Assistant Town Attorney to draw up the legislation for the next meeting. Mr. Ford suggested trying this for a year then re-visit the matter then. Mr. Mayer stated that he understands the circumstances and that the one-year sunset is a good idea.

The President of the Council brought a memo from the Easton Traffic and Parking Commission regarding the intersection at Rt. 322 and Oxford Road to the floor. The Traffic Commission suggested to the Council sending a letter to the State Highway Administration. Mr. Mayer asked the Chief of Police if he is familiar with this issue. The Chief stated that he has seen it. Mr. Mayer suggested having Mr. Grunden and the Chief move on this matter. Mr. Heinmuller stated that this is not without precedent for the County to petition the Town regarding changes in the intersection. Mr. Heinmuller stated that since the Town does not control the intersection, he did not see the point in going back to the Police Board if this matter could be forwarded to ask for action. Mr. Heinmuller made this in the form of a motion, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

A memo was received from the Easton Traffic and Parking Commission regarding the proposal to make Pleasant Avenue a one-way street from Glenwood Avenue to Port Street. The President of the Council referred that matter to the Police Board.

A letter was received from Ms. Nan Peterson regarding the intersection of Dover and Hanson Street. The President of the Council stated that as he understands it, Ms. Peterson would like a traffic light at that intersection. He referred that matter to the Traffic and Parking Commission.

The President of the Council brought a letter from Duvall Brothers, Inc., requesting permission to burn trees and brush material at the Easton Technology Center to the floor. He stated that Chief C.R. Chance of the Easton Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. has approved this. Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, permission was granted for the burn request.

Invoices totaling $368,394.02 were moved for approval by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried.

The Mayor stated that he had received a request from Chief C.R. Chance for permission to take the aerial platform ladder to county structure fires. The Mayor stated that as he understands it, the truck only runs now for special occasions outside the Town limits.

Mrs. Clem questioned the cost. The Mayor stated that this would include the wear and tear of the equipment.

Mr. Ford questioned whether the County was in favor of this. The Mayor stated that he thought they were and stated that this would help.

Mr. Willey stated that this could be a huge safety factor.

Mr. Ford stated that people could save money on insurance rates. Mr. Ford moved that permission be granted, seconded by Mr. Mayer and carried.

The Chief of Police discussed a request from Trinity Cathedral. They are having a conference on February 14 and they would like people to be able to park on Goldsborough Street in the spaces typically reserved for Sunday parking. The Chief stated that the Police Department could handle this.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mrs. Clem and carried, permission was granted.

The Town Engineer stated that if the Council members have projects they would like included in the budget, please notify his office.

The Town Engineer stated that the road show would occur on February 17 at 7:30 A.M. and invited Council members if they would like to be involved in the assessment of the roads in the Town.

The Town Engineer discussed the storm drain cleaning by the Public Works Department.

On the Utilities side, the Town Engineer reported that Easton OnLine is up and running with approximately 350 customers. He stated that they are moving forward with the second phase of deployment. He discussed the later phase and the desire to be the premier, rural carrier in Maryland. He stated that this is a good start.

The Town Engineer discussed a RFP for electric supply. He discussed rising costs expected next summer. He discussed the ability of the Utilities Commission to generate if need be. The Town Engineer discussed the legislature and the re-structuring efforts. He discussed the tax issues. On the Y2000 issue, he discussed the inventory being conducted by Mr. Silvius and believed that the Utilities would be up to speed. He asked if there were any questions.

The President of the Council stated that at the last meeting, it was inferred that the Wastewater Treatment Facility was less than adequately treating the effluent and asked that a report be provided on that. He then thanked Mr. Glass for the memo and stated that it was well written indicating discharge within the limits.

Mrs. Clem asked if this memo had been sent to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Goetz. The Town Engineer stated that it had not but they would make contact.

Mr. Heinmuller stated that he was upset over the allegations that Easton loads the waters inappropriately. He displayed a Maryland Municipal League handout and encouraged people to look at the whole picture and not just say that the Town of Easton is a bad guy.

Mr. Heinmuller questioned the Town Engineer on the failure of the No. 1 Generator. The Town Engineer discussed this and stated that it should be back in service any day.

Mr. Mayer stated that he had volunteered the Town Engineer’s staff for a project at the MML dinner. He stated that right-of-way and other issues are coming before the legislature and he discussed his belief that this could be supported and won in Annapolis.

The Town Engineer discussed franchise territories and what will remain intact versus the telecommunications industry. He discussed protecting the Town of Easton assets and getting a return on investments. He stated that he would be glad to talk to anybody regarding these matters.

Yhe Assistant Town Attorney Mr. Kehoe stated that he had a personnel matter for Executive Session.

The President of the Council stated that the meeting originally scheduled for February 15 would be held on February 16 due to the holiday. He reminded everyone that there is a meeting scheduled on February 23 with the county.

The Town Planner discussed the growth meeting scheduled for January 28 at 7:00 P.M. in the Town Council room with the County Council.

Mr. Ford discussed the announcement of their presentation for Mr. Barry Griffith and stated that he would have like to have gone.

Mr. Heinmuller discussed adding the aerial ladder truck for response to county structure fires and supporting residents of the county at the expense of the Town. He stated that the reduction of insurance rates are due to municipal government and is a windfall which should give an opportunity to discuss the tax differential in a meaningful way with the county.

The President of the Council stated that the County Council was told that the Towns will be coming with specifics on tax abatements and other actions.

The President of the Council asked if there were any audience comments. There were none.

Upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously, the Council went into Executive Session at 9:44 P.M. to discuss a personnel matter.

The President of the Council declared the Executive Session closed at 10:02 P.M.

There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:03 P.M.

Town Clerk