TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND

February 3, 2003

PRESENT

Mayor C. Eugene Butler                                           Councilman Scott R. Jensen

Council President Robert C. Willey                               Councilman Carl B. Reed

Councilman John F. Ford                                              Councilwoman Moonyene Jackson-Amis

IN ATTENDANCE

Richard T. Warfield, Administrative Support Supervisor for Town Clerk Robert F. Karge, Town Attorney C. Kehoe, Town Engineer T. Glass, Assistant Town Engineer J. Gruber, Town Planner Tom Hamilton, Assistant Town Planner M. Davis, Chief George M. Harvey, Economic Development Coordinator Al Bond, Easton Police Department and interested citizens and members of the press.

CONVENING

The Mayor and Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Mr. Ford led the audience in prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2003 MEETING

Upon motion by Mr. Ford, seconded by Mr. Reed  and carried, minutes of the January 16 and January 22, 2003 meetings were approved with Ms. Jackson-Amis voting no.

RESOLUTION NO. 5800, “A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF EASTON PROHIBITING PARKING ON CHURCH ALLEY IN THE TOWN OF EASTON”

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve Resolution No. 5800, seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously following a roll call vote.

MEMO FROM TOWN PLANNER REGARDING LAKELANDS SUBDIVISION PUD (CHERRYWOOD DEVELOPMENT LLC)       

The President of the Council set the Public Hearing for March 3, 2003 at 7:15 P.M. The Town Planner stated that a site plan would be forthcoming.

Mr. Ford asked if a member of the Planning Commission could be present at future Public Hearings. The Town Planner stated that this would be arranged.

REPORT FROM EASTON VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC.

Mr. Tim Knotts was present on behalf of the Fire Department with the monthly totals. He stated that EMS has been taken over by the County now. Mr. Knotts thanked the Council for their contribution towards their banquet. Mr. Knotts discussed a grant recently received from FEMA for Fire Prevention. Ms. Jackson-Amis conveyed thanks to the Department for an emergency situation in Ward IV.

COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR RENOVATIONS TO THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AT EASTON

Ms. Jackson-Amis made a motion to write the letter of support for a Certificate of Need for renovations to The Memorial Hospital at Easton, seconded by Mr. Jensen and carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The President of the Council asked the Town Planner to work with Planning and Zoning and report back to the Council with recommendations that may be applicable to the big box zoning requirements now in place. Mr. Ford discussed eliminating the 65,000 sq. ft. cap on commercially zoned property that is already developed.

The President of the Council discussed a reference on page 122 concerning the availability to developers of 20% of the water/sewer capacity. He stated that he would like consideration given for a period of time to reducing that 20% until we are absolutely sure when the new wastewater plant is coming on line.

The Town Engineer stated that they are reviewing their water/sewer tariff and seeing how the change may be integrated into that.

UPDATES TO PARK BOARD ORDINANCE

The President of the Council asked the Town Attorney to review the Town Code regarding the revision to the Boards and Commissions’ activities. The Town Attorney stated that he will look at the Boards regulated by the Town Code and come back with some recommendations.

PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COOKE’S HOPE PUD

At 7:15 p.m., the President of the Council opened the Public Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Cooke’s Hope PUD.

The Town Planner briefed on the specifics of the project. He displayed a brief sketch. He stated that the project is currently two PUD projects; one the Cooke’s Hope PUD and the second the Galloway’s PUD. He stated that the proposal is to amend the Cooke’s Hope PUD and consolidate it with the Galloway’s PUD and add three elements. The three elements are 18 cottages as part of the existing village, two or three farm buildings and 71 Galloway’s Two, residential residences.

The Town Planner stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded a positive recommendation to the Council.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if the Planning Commission have been able to consider the concerns raised. The Town Planner stated that the concerns raised regarding designs have been considered. He stated that other concerns were brought forth because there is a project here at all. He stated that the Planning Commission had heard from some of the residents and their concerns have been addressed.

Mr. Jensen asked for clarification on the change in PUD.

Mr. Bruce Armistead, Esq., was present on behalf of the developers of the Cooke’s Hope project. He stated that this is a proposal to amend an existing PUD known as the Cooke’s Hope PUD. He stated that one of the proposals before the Council, in addition to enlarging the PUD, to cover additional area, is to merge all the existing PUD overlay zones that exist together with the new one that is proposed, into one single PUD project.

Mr. Armistead discussed the three basic elements, the construction of a farmhouse with related barn and maintenance buildings, the construction of some residential cottage units in the existing village PUD and the construction of approximately 73 townhouse units known as Galloways II. Mr. Armistead stated that this is an expansion and a merger, meaning an amendment of the existing PUD into one single PUD. Mr. Armistead stated that they feel it creates a unified PUD, a single Master Plan and it does present the master plan for the build out of the Cooke’s Hope project. He discussed the warrant for the change in the layout to come up with the approximate 330 units represented to the Council last year would be the ultimate build out for the Cooke’s Hope project. Mr. Armistead stated that they are aware that there is some controversy surrounding this project. He stated that substantial portions of the Cooke’s Hope project will remain undeveloped and in open space. He stated that they do not feel that an intentional misrepresentation has been made; but if anything, perhaps a misunderstanding between the some of the residents and the developer.

Mr. Bill Stagg, a landscape architect and land planner with Lane Engineer was present on behalf of the applicant. He displayed the Cooke’s Hope PUD with the three proposed areas to be added to the PUD. Mr. Stagg discussed the locations of the area. He stated that they are proposing to add three additional barns, a caretaker’s house in a farmhouse theme and 18 cottage units in the village court. Mr. Stagg stated that there will also be an additional 5,000 sq. ft. office building directly next to the existing office building.

Mr. Stagg discussed the proposed Galloway’s II project which proposes 73 townhouse units. He stated that these are two and three unit pods, duplexes and triplexes with garages and outside parking in front of the house. He stated that they are sensitive that they back up to the Springfield residents and the issues they have. He discussed berming and landscaping. Mr. Stagg stated that this will be done in the same quality level as everything else that has ever been done there. He discussed Planning and Zoning concerns and remedies.

Mr. Stagg stated that this could be a five to eight year project, with a ten-year build out with the market pace. He stated that when everything is done, there will be 332 units at Cooke’s Hope. Mr. Stagg stated that the project is very tax positive for the town.

Mr. Ford asked Mr. Stagg to discuss entrance ingress and egress into the new section and Galloways I from MD 322 as well as opportunities to have non-vehicular access, walkways, etc., to the contiguous properties.

Mr. Stagg discussed an emergency access from Galloway’s II. Mr. Ford stated that he is concerned that there is one-way in and one-way out off of Oxford Road. Mr. Stagg stated that this additional density does not impact the intersection at Oxford Road at all.  Mr. Ford stated that this may be the only opportunity to explore an ingress/egress onto 322 anticipating future development.

Mr. Stagg stated that this is not their desire to explore this but if it is a condition or a recommendation, they will do what the Council asks them to do.

Ms. Jackson-Amis asked if there were any contractual problems. She questioned if the Springfield residents or any other residents were given any thing to rely on in a formal agreement that would say growth would be restricted.

Mr. Stagg and Mr. Armistead stated that they were not aware of anything. Mr. Armistead pointed out that the Springfield area is in the Maryland’s Critical Area jurisdiction, meaning 1000 feet from tidal waters and there are portions of the Springfield lots that exist as they exist today in that size and configuration, an area that was restricted.

Mr. Stagg discussed the eight findings of fact necessary for any PUD project. He briefed on those points. He stated that the project is in compliance with items A through G as found in the Zoning Ordinance page 559.

Mr. John Stouffert, 28730 Springfield Drive, Cooke’s Hope, was present with 12 other residents from the Springfield section representing 11 households to speak in opposition to the proposed PUD amendment for Cooke’s Hope as it relates solely to the proposed townhouses. He stated that they have no objection to the remainder of the PUD amendment as it relates to the cottages or farm buildings. He discussed the residents concerns. Mr. Stouffert stated that the area where the townhouses are proposed serves as a buffer between the Springfield section and the more densely designed areas of the development. He stated that they believe the townhouses are inconsistent in what appears in the Springfield Section and will affect their property values. He discussed the alleged representations made by the developer. He discussed his personal experience with the developer. Mr. Stouffert stated that he specifically inquired if the field would ever be developed. He stated that Mr. Firth advised him that the field could not be developed as it had been placed in a conservation easement which provided it would always remain as open space. He stated that they did not get the agreement in writing. He discussed the water and sewer easement and the approaching capacity of the town’s water system. Mr. Stouffert urged the Council to reject the proposed PUD as it relates to the townhouses.

Mr. Ford asked for clarification regarding the inconsistency with how Springfield is developed. Mr. Stouffert stated that single family homes with large lots would be more consistent or open space. He discussed the screening proposed.

Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed the open space and the lot lines. Mr. Stouffert discussed discussions with the developer regarding modification of the plans. Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed a possible compromise with the developer.

Mr. Jensen asked what the original plan for the Galloways II area was. The developer responded that they wanted to have it as open space but due to losing units and easements, plans changed.

Mr. Fred Roser, 28870 Springfield Drive, discussed his concerns for the proposal for Galloway II. He stated that Mr. Firth told him the total field would never be built on. Mr.Rosser discussed Mr. Firth dedicating reserve land in order to deed him necessary land to construct his home. He recalled that Mr. Firth told him he could build up to the reserve land but it could not be built on. He discussed conversations held regarding the right to build.

Ms. Barbara Lofquist, 28800 Springfield Drive, discussed her meeting with Mr. Firth regarding the construction of her home. She stated that during the meetings, they were shown the development map and recalled the conversation regarding the open field and Mr. Firth stating that they would not build or could not build on the property in question.

Mr. Harry Canter, 6833 Cooke’s Hope Road, stated that he feels that he was misled. He stated that in the late fall of 1999, Mr. Firth and Ms. Merriken alleged that the plan for the field adjoining the Springfield lots, was eventually deeded to a nature conservancy and would remain undeveloped.

Ms. Lilly Lavoie, 28855 Springfield Road, stated that the realtor told her that the field would never be built on. She stated that she bought her home because she loves the open spaces.

Mr. Jeff Denton, 6855 Cooke’s Hope Road, bought their house April 2000. He stated that their realtor was under the understanding that the open space could not be developed which was a major influencing factor for them to buy their home.

Mr. Ford asked for a response from the applicant relative to their response to the discrepancies.

Mr. Armistead stated that the process described is the process he tried to convey to Ms. Jackson-Amis relative to the relocation of the reservational developments rights area which is possible to do that through the relocation of that area on a plat approved by the county. He stated that he believes that this is where the confusion arises.

Mr. Jensen asked if there was a plan to put this under conservation easement. Mr. Armistead stated that he did not know of a formal plan but it was considered open space that might one day be deeded or restricted in that way. He stated that he was not aware of a formal easement agreement.

Mr. Firth discussed the Delmarva Fox Squirrel issue. He stated that their concerns were relative more in woodland areas and that their plans were not to develop the wooded area. He stated that Cooke’s Hope is a good community because it is a profitable community and things do change and losing the 40 units and the easement value does affect the bottom line. Upon Mr. Jensen’s request, Mr. Firth explained the easement value.

Mr. Ford stated that he understands that circumstances change and what makes a PUD zone an effective land management tool is that it allows for changes in circumstances and for a developer to take advantage of changes but provides a mechanism in our ordinance but any of those changes are subject to fairly expensive review by appointed officials of the town and the public. Mr. Ford discussed what was represented to the residents/buyers. Mr. Firth clarified his intent.

Mr. Stouffert stated that in his opinion, the representations change over time.

There being no further comments, the President of the Council closed the Public Hearing.

At 8:14 p.m., the President of the Council left the record open for public hearing until close of business on Friday. He stated that with issues addressed, there may be room for negotiations before the Council is called to vote on the change in the PUD.

At 8:15 p.m., the President of the Council called for a five-minute recess.

At 8:21 p.m., the President of the Council reconvened the regularly scheduled meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LOCATION OF A NEW MILLION GALLON WATER TANK PLANNED TO BE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE CLIFTON INDUSTRIAL PARK ON LAND OWNED BY THE TOWN OF EASTON.

At 8:21 p.m., the President of the Council opened the Public Hearing on the location of a new million gallon water tank planned to be at the south end of the Clifton Industrial Park on land owned by the Town of Easton.

The Town Engineer, Mr. Glass briefed on a request from Easton Utilities to locate a million gallon elevated storage tank on the Clifton site. He stated that the request had been granted and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review of the site plan. Mr. Glass stated that due to concerns expressed by local residents of the South Clifton neighborhood, a public hearing was scheduled.

Mr. Glass discussed the need for an additional storage tank. He stated that the purpose of the tank is for redundancy, the operation and reliability of the water system. Mr. Glass stated that the need for this tank exists whether there is an additional house in Easton. He discussed the need for service for the storage tank on Matthewstown Road. Mr. Glass stated that the tank on Matthewstown Road needs to be serviced and re-coated. He discussed the overall reliability and the benefits of the water system by having another tank on line. The Town Engineer stated that there will be drastically increased fire flow service coverage for the town. He discussed the sites and the criteria looked at for the placement of the water storage tank. Mr. Glass stated that the hedge that is present will help to minimize the site to some degree. He discussed the timeline and their objectives for construction of the tank. He stated that they do not anticipate frequent trips to the tank; about once a month for inspection. Mr. Glass concluded that Easton needs a tank, it needs to go somewhere and they have evaluated and determined that this site is superior hydraulically and needs to be constructed on a town owned piece of property.

Mr. Jensen asked why a new tank gets larger. Mr. Gerry Adams stated that this tank will be constructed at a higher elevation than the existing Matthewstown Road tank and they are taking advantage of the Chesapeake Avenue right-of-way to construct new mains that connect the 12” loop. Mr. Adams stated that they started out looking at new developments and Whitman Requardt and Associates recommended that Easton Utilities not worry so much about the new areas but worry about their existing areas. He stated that they showed them how the water main improvement makes such a difference in the fire coverage which is how the site evolved. Mr. Adams stated that they feel this is the best site and they would like to proceed with it.

Mr. Jensen asked if the water tank could be moved over on the site as not to be dead-on with the street. Mr. Glass stated that he believes it can be moved. He discussed other locations on the site and associated costs with placing the storage tank on another location. He stated that they would have to make up for the lower ground elevation.

Mr. Ford asked what the additional costs would be to move the storage tank. Mr. Glass stated that it adds approximately $3,000 to $3,500 a vertical foot to the tank with a 4 feet elevation so around $12,000.

The President of the Council opened up the Public Hearing to the public.

Ms. Louise Perry, 29292 Hickory Ridge Road, South Clifton, stated her primary concern is the negative impact on their property values. In addition, she stated that she is concerned about the access for the construction of this water tank which would take approximately 12 to 15 months. She questioned if the access would be done through Hickory Ridge Road.

Mr. Bruce Perry, 29292 Hickory Ridge Road, South Clifton, stated that when the sun rises in the morning, they will have a shadow over their street until at least 10:00 a.m. He stated that Hickory Ridge runs east/west. Mr. Perry stated that if this supplies water to Easton Club East, he assumed any new development would have land available for utility locations. He stated that their property values are going to be effected immediately by the construction of that water tower. He said if you construct a tower during the construction phase of a development, buyers know that it is there when they buy property but if you place it in an established development, the residents have no choice. Mr. Perry stated that they now have the sewage pumping station on the other end that they have to contend with.

Mr. Winford Simpkins, 29288 Hickory Ridge Road presented the Council with a petition against the water tower adjacent to the property at South Clifton. Mr. Simpkins stated that the petition is from the residents of South Clifton. He stated that they pay accelerated costs for water, sewer, gas and electric from the Town of Easton to have the services as they are not town residents. He stated that they also have certain town inconveniences. He discussed inconveniences the residents would endure while construction takes place. Mr. Simpkins commended the Town of Easton for thinking about the community.  Mr. Simpkins asked if the water tower could be relocated significantly southeast to get it further into the agricultural area away from the community of South Clifton and closer to Easton Club East. He asked why the developer would not be supplying the Town with the land and funds for construction of this tower.  Mr. Simpkins stated that there is a real interest to keep this community quaint like it is now.

Mr. Simpkins asked for a show of hands for the residents present from South Clifton. He asked for help with this.

Mr. Adams stated that as the site is moved south, the hydraulics are lost because we are going through a longer length of pipe. He stated that all new residents are charged a capital charge of $1,050 for the water system and $2,100 for the sewer system and all the new homes incur these costs. Mr. Adams stated that developers are paying for a new water main to be installed. Mr. Adams stated that the capital charge was put into effect in the 70’s which was after the South Clifton homes were established so he feels sure that the development at South Clifton did not pay anything toward the capital charge for the improvements of the water system.

Mr. Ford questioned if there is an alternate route to get to the construction vehicles in and out. Mr. Glass stated that JC Dodd is located at the very end of that park. He stated that this is all private property and not connected to the Industrial Park Road. Mr. Glass stated that he has met with Celeste and asked for an access easement across that corner of that property off of Hickory Ridge Road. He stated that they were very cooperative and he anticipates putting a driveway as shown on the site plan but heavy equipment would not be able to get through.

Mr. Chad Nessell, 2933 Hickory Ridge Road, stated that there are more communities that are going to be affected. He stated that he has high expectations on how you can actually hide a 150’ water tower as there is no way to camouflage this tower. He stated that he is a new resident in the community and he bought the residence because of location with an agricultural background. He asked for maintenance to repair what construction damage is done to the roads.

Mr. Ford stated that his parents live in an adjacent community.

Mayor Butler advised that he has received five letters against the construction of the water tower at this location.

At 9:07 p.m., the President of the Council closed the Public Hearing. He stated that the public record would be kept open until Friday, close of business for additional comments.

MEMO FROM MAYOR C. EUGENE BUTLER REGARDING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION FOR THE APPOINTMENTS OF MR. GLENN D, KLAKRING, ESQ. TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, MR. MICHAEL O’CONNER, ESQ. TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND MR. BURTON B. WILSON AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Burton B. Wilson as an alternate to the Board of Appeals, seconded by Ms. Jackson-Amis and carried unanimously.

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Michael O’Conner, to the Board of Appeals, seconded by Ms. Jackson-Amis and carried unanimously.

Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed her concern of the process adhered to for her request for consideration of Mr. George Wilson to the Ethics Commission.

Mr. Ford stated that Easton would be well served to have Mr. Wilson serve on any Commission.

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Glenn D. Klakring, Esq., to the Ethics Commission, seconded by Mr. Reed and carried with Ms. Jackson-Amis voting no.

DISCUSSION OF EMERGENCY HOUSING FUNDING

The President of the Council discussed information submitted from Ms. Cathy Molls from the Talbot County Health Department. Mr. Willey stated that he has asked Mr. Ed White from the State of Maryland to address the Council regarding possible funds or grants that may be available for emergency situations.

COUNCIL MEETING DATE CHANGE

The President of the Councils stated that the next meeting of the Town Council will be February 18 due to the Presidents’ Birthday closing. He stated that at the next meeting, Mr. Bond will present an update on the proposed structure of the Main Street program and the CDC program and the Memorial Hospital will update the Council on the proposed expansion.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she would like some finality to the question whether or not the Town was going to have a Human Relations Commission that has teeth in it. She discussed the final analysis on whether or not there could be subpoena powers and stated that an opinion had been received from the Attorney General that stated with specificity that the Town of Easton could have a Human Relations Commission that would have subpoena power. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that her only request is to at least bring clarity on what the powers were. She asked that it be voted on up or down whether there would be a Human Relations Commission in the Town of Easton.

Mr. Ford stated that his recollection of the discussion was there was support for the Commission but a difference on points regarding what form that Commission would take is where some points there was a difference on. He stated that a Human Relations Commission would be a benefit to this town if its purpose was to mediate and facilitate access to other remedies should the mediation not work to help advise the elected officials on town policies regarding discrimination issues and to educate the people at large about avenues. Mr. Ford stated that he is opposed to a Human Relations Commission that is an investigative body with subpoena powers.

Mr. Jensen stated that he has a similar problem that he brought up with the skateboard park. He stated that discussion occurred regarding the skateboard park not knowing exactly what we were talking about and he feels the same thing is happening with the Human Relations Commission. Mr. Jensen stated that now that we know that the subpoena power is something we can do, we need to discuss the form the Human Relations Commission would take, what its scope would be, then decide whether having subpoena power would be a good idea or not within that scope. He suggested talking in more specificity than has taken place. He stated that he is not ready to vote up or down.

Mr. Reed stated that he thought that Human Relations complaints could be handled and would be handled by the State and the office in Cambridge.

Mr. Willey stated that he recalled a participant from Rockville, Glendora Hughes. The Town Attorney clarified that Ms. Hughes is counsel to the Human Relations Commission for the State of Maryland. Mr. Willey stated that he is not keen to subpoena powers. He stated that he has not seen anything in the past year that is aware of that could not have not been handled through a strong grievance policy. He stated that as Mr. Ford indicated, it would be more of a coaching and guiding process.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she has had her share of those issues and she feels inundated with issues from citizens that feel compelled to bring to her that need to be handled outside of the town per se. Ms. Jackson-Amis asked that citizens present be permitted to speak.

Mr. Walter Chase, First Vice President, NAACP, stated that the issue first came up January 2000. He discussed the history of the discussions and ordinance.

Mr. Ford stated that the opinion from the Office of the Attorney General was received April 2002.

Mr. Chase was not aware of any response or findings from Ms. Hughes from the Town Council to the NAACP.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that it was her understanding that the County is pursuing a Human Relations Commission with subpoena power.

Discussion occurred on the specificity of a Human Relations Commission with subpoena power.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she does have a model of the Commission she has worked up. Mr. Willey asked that he receive a copy.

CHIEF OF POLICE COMMENTS

Chief Harvey had one request for a Multiple Sclerosis Walk on April 13 from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. utilizing the Rails-to-Trails walking route, North Easton Complex with public parking area around the train station.

Mr. Ford made a motion to approve the walk, seconded by Mr. Reed and approved unanimously.

Chief Harvey stated that on behalf of his wife, to the Mayor, Town Council and office staff, they appreciate their sympathy in the passing of Mrs. Harvey’s mother.

Mr. Jensen asked the Chief for information regarding speeding traffic on Goldsborough. Mr. Jensen asked that a copy be forwarded to him.

TOWN ENGINEER’S COMMENTS

The Town Engineer stated that in observance of President’s Day, the trash collection for the town will be moved to Tuesday, Monday’s route Tuesday, Tuesday’s route Wednesday returning to the normal schedule Thursday.

The President of the Council asked for Planning and Zoning recommendations regarding infrastructure and amenities.  Mr. Willey discussed the situation on Dutchman’s Lane and stated that Chapel Road will be experiencing the same situation. The Town Engineer stated that it is being addressed but they will put some more thought and language into the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Jensen asked that the crosswalk sign be replaced.

COUNCIL’S COMMENTS

Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed the photo radar technology bill. She stated that MML is seeking to enable to municipalities to use photo radar technology for speed monitoring. Ms. Jackson-Amis asked that representatives in Annapolis be contacted. She urged citizens to ask the representatives to see that this bill is passed.

The Town Attorney suggested addressing Chief Harvey regarding photo technology.

Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that when Governor Ehrlich ran he stated that he would not balance the budget on the backs of municipalities but the highway user revenue has been hit substantially. She asked that letters be forwarded reminding Governor Ehrlich of his promise.

Ms. Jackson-Amis discussed her request for a workshop to discuss pension. She stated that she wanted it to be clear that she was not talking about former council; she was talking about current council which means about $50 per month based on current salaries. She clarified that the health insurance resolution was not her effort.

The President of the Council asked the Town Attorney if the West Kennedy Street project could proceed. The Town attorney stated that all but one of the property owners had been heard from. He stated that consensus had been reached and annexation legislation would be forthcoming as well as special tax district.

The Town Attorney stated that application has been made for West Glenwood but he has not heard from Rural Development.

Mr. Ford discussed the Public Hearing requirements for annexation.

Mr. Jensen discussed the Heritage Tax Credits that are also on the chopping block in Annapolis. He discussed projects that benefited this program.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Jensen, seconded by Mr. Ford and carried unanimously, the Acting President of the Council adjourned the regularly scheduled meeting at 9:51 p.m.

______________________________________

Richard T. Warfield, Jr., for Town Clerk