Board of Town Commissioners

MINUTES BEL AIR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION MEETING AUGUST 26, 2025 The Board of Commissioners Work Session Mee�ng was held on August 26, 2025, at 5:15 pm. PRESENT: Commissioner Paula S. Etting, Chair Commissioner Steven T. Chizmar Commissioner James B. Rutledge, III Commissioner Jakob D. Taylor IN ATTENDANCE: David Anderson, Media & Public Relations Specialist Charles Dawson, Deputy Director of Public Works Edward Hopkins, Town Administrator Major David Hughes, Deputy Chief of Police Michael Krantz, Director of HR & Administration Lisa Moody, Director of Finance Angela Robertson, Director of Economic Development Kevin Small, Director of Planning Elizabeth Thompson, Town Counsel Jane Sudbrink, Recording Secretary ABSENT: Commissioner Mary F. Chance I. CALL TO ORDER Chair E�ng called the mee�ng to order at 5:29 pm and read the roll call of commissioners. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Taylor mo�oned to approve the agenda. Commissioner Chizmar seconded the mo�on. Commissioner Taylor mo�oned to amend the agenda to move IX.C. to a�er IV. and to strike from the agenda V.A.2, the Verkada Camera System contract. Commissioner Chizmar seconded the mo�on. Chair E�ng asked for a vote on the amendment. Ayes: Commissioners Rutledge, Chizmar, Taylor, E�ng. Nays: None. Mo�on carried 4-0. Chair E�ng asked for a vote on the agenda as amended. Ayes: Commissioners Rutledge, Chizmar, Taylor, E�ng. Nays: None. Mo�on carried 4-0. IV. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Mr. Hopkins reported on the following items. 1. A representa�ve and the CEO from Maryland American Water will present at the next work session September 9. Mr. Hopkins said he will allot thirty minutes for the presenta�on so he asked commissioners to forward to him ques�ons and discussion points. 1  2. Mr. Hopkins said that September is Na�onal Recovery Month. He said a banner will be hung at town hall on behalf of the Harford County Drug Control Policy. Mr. Hopkins said there will also be a chalk walk to allow par�cipants in this program to create signs and verbiage on the sidewalks in town. Mr. Anderson will do a media post. 3. Mr. Hopkins said the demoli�on of the McComas proper�es has lasted seven days and is nearly completed. 4. Mr. Hopkins said that the replacement light bollard in front of town hall is in process. He noted that these types of bollards are no longer made so a new one has been cra�ed to match the others. 5. The Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Preven�on approved a grant for the town in the amount of $52,739.00. Mr. Hopkins said this grant will support the Axon body camera bundle as well as the part-�me records clerk or the simula�on training package. He noted that Ms. Zahn will present next month to the commissioners on the status of all the grants in town, those that are phasing out as well as current ones and their dollar amounts. Commissioner Chizmar asked if this grant was included in the FY26 budget. Ms. Moody replied that it was not in the budget because she was unsure whether the town would get this grant funding for the records clerk as it had in previous years. She noted that the town did not get everything it requested in the grant applica�on. 6. Mr. Hopkins said the town has requested $2,000 in res�tu�on through the court system for the damage to the sidewalk in front of Vagabond Sandwich Co. He said that juvenile arrests were made by the town police regarding this vandalism. 7. Mr. Hopkins discussed the resurfacing on Pennsylvania Avenue, which was cut through to install gas lines. He said he has spoken with BGE representa�ves and once BGE has completed its work, it will repave the road by December. 8. In response to Commissioner Chance’s concerns, Mr. Hopkins, Chief Moore, Mr. Small, and Mr. Dawson met with representa�ves from SHA regarding high-profile, unsafe pedestrian areas. Mr. Hopkins said these areas are Main Street at the armory, North Main Street at the Ma & Pa Trail, and North Bond Street in front of 140 North Bond. He said they walked the intersec�ons and SHA informed them that the town is not mee�ng the metrics for changes to be made at the intersec�ons to make them safer. He said that SHA reviews crash data and pedestrian data. Mr. Hopkins noted that for every sugges�on, SHA had a reason that it would not work. He noted that Chief Moore suggested the HAWK Ligh�ng System and SHA did not think it would be appropriate for these intersec�ons. Mr. Hopkins said SHA would review the informa�on and added that the county’s traffic task force is also working on the issues. 9. Mr. Hopkins reported that there have been complaints from residents on Broadway regarding noise from contract trash haulers occurring very early in the morning. He said that Mr. Small has contacted the contractors and filed a complaint. 10. Mr. Hopkins said there has been a request from residents for a port-o-pot at Plumtree Park. He said there are funds in the budget for this request and the ideal loca�on is at the basketball court. He said the Public Works Department is working on ways to secure the port-o-pot to prevent vandalism. 2  11. Mr. Hopkins said that Mrs. Carter has requested that Western Alley be paved. He noted that alleys typically are not part of paving projects, but it is clear that this alley needs restora�on. He said the paving project will �e into the FY27 George Street project. 12. Mr. Hopkins discussed agenda priori�es for the commissioners. He said that DRRAs will be discussed this evening. STRs were discussed over the summer. Regarding the adequate public facili�es ordinance, Mr. Hopkins said he is wai�ng on direc�on from the county. He said that ADUs with the new state requirements were discussed on June 10 and will be further debated this fall. He said there will be a pre-mee�ng with staff and Commissioner Chizmar to discuss town authority to commit and allocate town resources based on planning commissions and other needs. He said this topic will be on the September 9 work session. Mr. Hopkins said that the topic of parking is not on the agenda yet. He said there will be a pre-mee�ng with staff and town counsel. Mr. Hopkins said that cannabis was discussed at the June 10 work session, which resulted in an ordinance. He said that he will follow up on this topic in spring 2026. Mr. Hopkins said that the topic of pedestrian safety is ongoing and that the condominium trash collec�on will be first discussed by staff in late September before coming before the commissioners later in the fall. Major Hughes confirmed for Chair E�ng that the $2,000 res�tu�on request was also presented to the state’s atorney’s office for considera�on. Ms. Moody confirmed for Commissioner Chizmar that her office is preparing a comprehensive report on the parking in town, including an analysis of parking in other municipali�es. Mr. Hopkins noted that for parking, the more one looks at it, the broader and more diverse it becomes. C. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review and Update on Current Ini�a�ves Chair E�ng said that she met with Chief Moore, Mr. Small, Mr. Kline, and Mr. Hopkins to get more informa�on regarding the NTMP. She said it is an internal, informal group that meets on an as-needed basis, looks at the data presented, and makes a decision based on everyone’s exper�se. She said a decision will have to be made by the commissioners at a later date whether to make this group more formal like other commitees and commissions in town or keep it informal and have a commissioner present as a liaison. Chair E�ng said tonight’s discussion centers on the intersec�on of Broadway and Shamrock Road. She noted that there are two other requests, one for Broadway at Hickory Avenue and one for Giles Street. Regarding Broadway and Shamrock, Chair E�ng said that drawing from the data from the police as well as her own personal experience, she did not determine that people were speeding at that intersec�on, rather they were failing to make a complete stop at the four-way intersec�on. Chair E�ng said that her “guiding light” is to treat everyone fairly and if the town decides to do something in one neighborhood, the town must be able to jus�fy doing it in all other neighborhoods. Chair E�ng and commissioners then examined the October and November 2023 traffic evalua�on worksheets for Broadway and Shamrock. They first discussed the difference between the street designa�ons of “local” and “collector.” They discussed, with assistance from Mr. Small, how traffic volume is calculated and how speed is calculated using the 85th percen�le designa�on. Mr. Small told Commissioner Taylor that the determina�on for “elementary school or playground” is 1,000 �. He said that 1,000 � is also used for the category of “pedestrian generator.” Mr. Small then explained how “sidewalks” and “non-local traffic” are calculated. For the traffic, explained that they count the number of houses and declare that a house generates ten trips per day; this informa�on is then used to 3 determine non-local traffic. He noted that the measurements may vary by day and month. Mr. Small said an Origin and Des�na�on Study, like the one that will be applied in Howard Park, uses cameras to document the number of cars exi�ng and entering and when. Mr. Small also explained that the Interna�onal Traffic Engineers Manual provides the industry standards (e.g., ten trips per house) for use on the traffic evalua�on worksheet. Chair E�ng said she understands that neighborhoods may not like cut-through traffic, but these are public roads paid for via public dollars. She noted that the problem with taking on cut-through traffic on one road just results in that traffic being pushed to another neighborhood. She said it is part of living in a neighborhood with a wide street. Mr. Small added that there are several roads in town that are classified as local roads but do not “behave that way” like Shamrock Road, Broadway, and Linwood Avenue. He said those roads are actually collectors but they have driveways on them so it is difficult to control speed and volume. Commissioners then discussed “sight distance or intersec�on visibility” and “accident history” on the evalua�on worksheets. Chair E�ng said the total points on the evalua�ons were 32 and a roadway must score at least 50 points for a level 2 interven�on like a speed hump. Chair E�ng then read from the NTMP booklet regarding the two excep�ons that would allow installa�on of a level 2 interven�on. Mr. Small explained how peak hour volume (6-8 am, 4-6 pm) is determined and confirmed that this intersec�on did not meet the peak hour volume of 125. For the excep�on regarding non-local traffic, Commissioner Rutledge said that the calcula�on was 18.9%, significantly lower than the required 50%. For the criteria “Non-local traffic is calculated at more than 50% vehicles per hour,” Commissioner Chizmar recommended dele�ng “per hour” since it is measured throughout the day. Chair E�ng concluded that this intersec�on did not meet the criteria for level 2 nor did it meet the excep�ons and debated how to proceed. Mr. Hopkins said that the NTMP knew that the intersec�on did not meet the criteria but in fairness to Ms. Lowry and Ms. Sennet, who had gathered the required two- thirds signatures, decided to install the speed hump. Commissioner Taylor asked about two-thirds as the necessary threshold. He also asked about the agenda statement, “measurement conducted and NTMP form completed warran�ng level 2 improvements.” Mr. Hopkins said the two-thirds signatures requirement is a guideline that is also used in the county (75%). He said the sen�ment in the minutes/memorandum was to acquiesce to what the residents wanted. He said it is “probably a misstatement” and the NTMP should have been governed by the facts, but “if the residents wanted it, we should probably help them out and install it.” Chair E�ng referred to the October 3 agenda and said that “warran�ng level 2 improvements” is not correct. Mr. Hopkins agreed that the NTMP should have been guided by the data. He noted that this is actually reflec�ve of the NTMP’s ac�ons, with road changes made in town at the request of residents. Chair E�ng said this is not a feasible way of managing the town roadways—the town cannot install such things as speed humps where they are not merited as determined by the town’s own policies. She noted this could affect the situa�on for the evalua�ons at the other end of Broadway and Giles Street. She noted that what residents on Giles Street want—a raised pedestrian walkway—is also not supported by the data. Mr. Hopkins, Chair E�ng, and Mr. Small discussed the issue of a three-way stop sign and its limita�ons in that area as well. Commissioner Taylor returned to the two-thirds signature process. Mr. Small explained that the signatures are based on which houses are affected by that intersec�on so that the people asking for the 4 speed hump and those affected overlap. Commissioner Rutledge read the language regarding two-thirds community approval in the handbook: “The resul�ng score, available funding, and other factors are used to determine which roadways will proceed…” Commissioner Rutledge said “and other factors” is vague and undefined. He further read, “If warranted, the community will be required to obtain a minimum of two-thirds community approval…” He noted that there is a determina�on here. Under the criteria the calming device was not warranted. Commissioner Rutledge said this language supports gathering the two-thirds signatures and seems sensible, except for the next paragraph, where it says, “There are only two excep�ons where the installa�on of level 2 measures will be installed when the road does not meet the aforemen�oned criteria.” For Commissioner Rutledge, these excep�ons are impossible to ignore. He said the intersec�on failed the “aforemen�oned criteria” and did not meet the excep�ons. He said he appreciated the history and the human element but said he is analyzing the policy. Commissioner Rutledge said this a policy decision in the manual for level 2. He said this policy cannot be overlooked. Mr. Krantz confirmed that there was no ordinance that established this commitee nor did the Board of Commissioners adopt this point system policy. He said staff adopted this policy to have fair and equitable guidelines to review complaints and concerns from ci�zens. In answer to Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Small said he was unsure if residents who signed the pe��on were made aware that the project did not meet the criteria. Commissioner Taylor said that community sen�ment seems to be that the data supported the speed hump. Mr. Hopkins said that his leter to Ms. Lowery and Ms. Sennet confirmed that the town would be installing a speed hump. Commissioner Taylor believed that it would have been beneficial to share with the ci�zens the outcome of the evalua�on. He said he felt a great deal of sympathy for the residents who were promised a speed hump if they got enough signatures and believed it was warranted. He apologized to these ci�zens who were given an inaccurate picture of the circumstances. Commissioner Taylor said the town must improve its policies so this does not happen again. Chair E�ng also expressed her regrets. She again stressed her belief that the town’s policy states a speed hump is not warranted in that area and all neighborhoods must be treated fairly and equally in this process. Chair E�ng suggested applying level 1 interven�ons for which this intersec�on did qualify. Commissioner Taylor agreed with Chair E�ng regarding the merits of her argument, but for him, a promise was made to the ci�zens and that overrides the policy in this case only. He said there are extensive records suppor�ng this promise. Commissioner Taylor and Chair E�ng then discussed the situa�on further and agreed ul�mately that there should be a codified procedure and these policies should have been brought to the board beforehand. Commissioner Taylor said that because of this lack of codified procedure and the extensive evidence, the speed hump should be installed. Mr. Hopkins stressed that the final decision rested with him as town administrator and not with staff. He said he takes responsibility for the change in course direc�on. He said he made a determina�on to appease a number of people in the community, and historically the town has always worked to help its residents. He noted that the decisions made by this commitee over the past twenty-five years have been much more “low-level” and going forward if anything like this situa�on arises, he will put it in his report. Commissioner Taylor said that the commissioners do not need to be the final arbiters of traffic decisions, but they must be the arbiters of policies. Mr. Hopkins said he gave this neighborhood his word, but he understands if the board decides he is wrong. He said he wants to move forward and learn from this situa�on. Commissioner Rutledge said that he believes there is no binding town policy right now on this mater. He said that if one assumes there is a binding policy, “it uterly failed.” He also shared Mr. 5 Hopkins’s sen�ment about giving someone your word and complimented him for taking responsibility and having integrity. Commissioner Rutledge said predictable, objec�ve criteria must be adopted and there must be appropriate delega�on of authority. The Board of Commissioners should not be fully involved in this commitee. He noted that the board has the authority to approve this project although it will not be binding precedent because there is not a policy in place. Commissioner Rutledge said this situa�on does happen in government. He said he is seriously considering Commissioner Taylor’s opinion, Mr. Hopkins ac�ng in good faith, and the ambiguous terminology in the handbook. As such, he has not yet reached a decision. Ms. Thompson said she did research on this commitee. She said it is an ad-hoc commitee started by a previous town administrator to deal with traffic issues in town. She advised that the board consider whether to keep it as an ad-hoc commitee with a refinement of policies or classify it as another type of commitee. She said there are legal ramifica�ons outlined in the charter and code if it becomes an established commitee. Ms. Thompson said the county has a comparable ad-hoc commitee. Commissioner Chizmar said it behooves the board to look at this commitee. He felt that there is a policy in place and the board can revise it if necessary. He, too, apologized to the community that the process was not straight forward and that they may have been misled. Commissioner Chizmar said that a staff member may declare something, but the board must go back to what the policy says. He said the intersec�on does not warrant a level 2 interven�on. Chair E�ng stated that the 85th percen�le data determined that there is not a speed problem at that intersec�on, which is what a speed hump is designed to control. She noted that tonight was for the board to look at the issue and discuss it at length. She commended Mr. Hopkins for taking responsibility for the decision. Commissioner Rutledge said he disagreed with Commissioner Chizmar that there is a policy. He noted that there are already numerous speed humps on that road. Commissioner Taylor said he is weighing the sen�ment of government opera�ng on facts and data versus opera�ng on what it has promised to do. He said he does not want “to walk the path of breaking our promise” and felt it was more important to demonstrate to residents that when the town makes a promise, they can trust that it will uphold that promise. He said there are no right answers and they must determine the best path forward “holis�cally” for the town. Commissioner Rutledge said that procedurally, he would like to put this decision to a vote at a town hall mee�ng. Commissioner Chizmar ques�oned whether they were se�ng a precedent to vote on every policy. Commissioner Rutledge said they will vote on whether this par�cular calming device will be approved and he wanted the decision on the record, with Commissioner Chance’s opinion and vote as well. Commissioner Taylor said they could follow up with policy revisions a�erward. He also said this vo�ng process would allow the public to comment. Commissioner Chizmar said he felt there is a policy and that it determined a level 2 interven�on is not warranted, therefore, a vote is not needed. Commissioner Rutledge referred to the applica�on of “other factors” in the policy and said the commitee may have used that vague terminology to move to the two-thirds community approval. He said he has a problem with how the policy was dra�ed and a judge in a courtroom could make a decision either way. Commissioner Rutledge noted that when you are doing something that impacts a person’s right to travel on a public road, that kind of policy needs input from the commissioners. He said this is a unique situa�on that is not a precedent. He noted that “a lack 6 of a decision is a decision.” Commissioner Chizmar said he will make a decision based on the policy while Commissioner Rutledge said he will make a decision based on the fact that there is no policy. Mr. Dawson added that a speed hump is designed for vehicles to go 25 miles per hour so it does not actually impede traffic. V. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR TOWN MEETING (Monday, September 2, 2025, at 7:00 pm, Bel Air Town Hall) A. New Business 1. Resolu�on 1257-25 Bel Air Board of Ethics 2024 Annual Report Mr. Krantz said that Maryland code mandates that a local ethics commission convene at least once annually. He said it is required that the ethics commission must cer�fy that it is following ethics laws and submit a report to the Board of Commissioners. He said this report details the administra�on of public ethics laws, number of mee�ngs held, minutes, agendas, and ac�vi�es. Mr. Krantz said that the Bel Air Board of Ethics held two mee�ngs in 2024, on January 11 and August 28. The board had a small amendment to the rules of procedures on January 11 and issued an advisory opinion on January 29. He said the Board of Ethics in 2023 reviewed and approved the ethics rules that were repealed and replaced by the Board of Commissioners via Ordinance 822-23 on February 5, 2024. He said the local ethics law annual cer�fica�on was completed on August 28. 2. Microso� 365 Business Premium, Azure Ac�ve Directory, and Microso� Exchange Online Contract with Dell Marke�ng LP Mr. Krantz said the board will be asked to vote on $51,000 in expenditures for the above technologies. He explained the needs and usage of these items. Mr. Krantz said the purchase is a piggy- back on a Midwestern Higher Educa�on Commission contract with Dell Marke�ng. He said this purchase is in the FY26 technology budget. 4. Reappointment to the Board of Building Appeals Chair E�ng said this reappointment will be discussed in closed session. VI. COMMISSIONER LIAISON REPORTS Chair E�ng said the Tree Commitee will meet in September. Commissioner Taylor said the ECDC and ABC will also be mee�ng in September. Commissioner Rutledge said the Historic Preserva�on Commission will meet on August 28 to discuss three different approvals. He said they will also con�nue to discuss the tax credit awards program. Commissioner Chizmar said the Planning Commission will meet in September to consider an extension of the mall apartments approval. Mr. Small said the approval will expire in January 2026 so this re-approval will extend to January 2027. 7 VII. STAFFING UPDATE A. Review Term Expira�on Dates of Boards, Commitees, and Commissions Mr. Krantz said a part-�me procurement officer posi�on is currently posted. He said a laborer posi�on was offered to one applicant. Another applicant has been non-responsive to a second offer so he may move on to another applicant. Commissioners agreed to discuss applicants for the commitees and commissions in closed session. Commissioner Taylor confirmed that Greg Adolph will accept reappointment to the Board of Building Appeals. Commissioner Chizmar said there will be two openings on the Board of Appeals in October. VIII. CALENDAR Chair E�ng said that in November, the work session normally scheduled for Tuesday, is moved to Monday, November 10 due to Veterans Day. IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discuss Development Rights and Responsibili�es Agreement (DRRA) Legisla�ve Proposal Mr. Small said the DRRA proposal is paterned very closely to state law and noted that it does not affect how developers sa�sfy the current code. He said the DRRA will go above and beyond what a developer is responsible to do under the code in exchange for ves�ng. Mr. Small said the nego�ated process flows through the town administrator and then is approved by the board. He pointed out the wide range of enhanced public benefit provisions that the developer would provide. Ms. Thompson said the provisions are called exac�ons and they are purposely vague and benign to give flexibility to the commissioners and the developers. She noted that these exac�ons do not have to be related to the property in ques�on but must be within the municipal limits of the town; they can only benefit the ci�zens of the town. Mr. Small offered to provide examples of other municipali�es’ DRRAs and said he used these as guidance. Ms. Thompson confirmed for Commissioner Chizmar that the exac�on could be different from the ten provisions. She said Mr. Small suggested including the goals and objec�ves of the comprehensive plan in the DRRA. Commissioner Chizmar asked about sec�on G, “An agreement shall be void (5) five years a�er the date on which the par�es execute the agreement…” He asked if that conflicted with C. Contents of the Agreement (1)(d) The duration of the agreement. Ms. Thompson said the five years was from the state code. She said that amount could be limited or reduced. Commissioner Taylor referred to state law where the language is the same. Commissioner Rutledge clarified that this a “sunset agreement” that can be two years or four years but has a ceiling of five years. He said there can be extensions. Commissioner Taylor again referred to the state code. Ms. Thompson said if the DRRA does not state otherwise, the agreement is voided out a�er five years. Commissioner Taylor agreed but ques�oned the wording in state code (“unless otherwise established…”) that seemed to indicate the ceiling could go beyond five years. He also asked if this legisla�on only regulates when the state of Maryland enters into a DRRA or any en�ty in general. Ms. Thompson said the state of Maryland does not enter into a DRRA, rather she referred to the Express Powers Act. She said a DRRA is voluntary. 8  Ms. Thompson asked if the commissioners had concerns about DRRAs. Commissioner Taylor that in said this agreement the town would gran�ng ves�ng in exchange for an exac�on. He then asked what the town could not ask for in terms of an exac�on. Ms. Thompson replied that the only legal requirement is that it is within the town limits and does exceed the value of the project. He asked about doing an exac�on on the design of the development. Ms. Thompson said design is under the purview of the Planning Commission and is not an exac�on. Commissioner Taylor asked about the role of the board in this process. Ms. Thompson said it is vital to not let a developer near a legisla�ve body. She said that conceptually the applica�on would be veted by Mr. Small, the Planning Commission would make a finding that the DRRA is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the Board of Commissioners would be no�fied with suggested exac�ons. She said Mr. Hopkins would conduct nego�a�ons on behalf of the board. She confirmed that the commissioners would simply have an up or down vote. Commissioner Rutledge reported that state law defines a “public principal,” which in the town’s case is the Board of Commissioners. He said that when he read this sec�on, it indicated this commission may delegate all or part of its authority to the town administrator, but in the town’s dra� the commission has to delegate this authority to the town administrator. Commissioner Rutledge then read the procedures in the dra� legisla�on, sec�on E. He said that he would prefer an addi�onal phrase in (5): “…unless the Planning Commission determines that the proposed agreement is consistent with the comprehensive plan and receives approval from the Board of Commissioners.” Ms. Thompson referred to A.(3) wherein she said this informa�on is already stated. Commissioner Rutledge said he would also like this informa�on clearly stated under procedures. Ms. Thompson agreed. Commissioner Taylor asked how exac�ons would be proposed. Ms. Thompson said the developers would present them when they file an applica�on. Commissioner Taylor described a scenario wherein the Planning Commission would present approval for an exac�on and the board would vote it down. He asked how the process would be a�er that vote. Mr. Small explained how the process would work and agreed that if the board suggests something en�rely different from the Planning Commission’s decision, the process would have to go back to the Planning Commission. He noted that Mr. Hopkins would be fully involved in the process and the board would remain informed at all �mes. Ms. Thompson explained how the board would work with Mr. Hopkins on a poten�al project. Commissioner Taylor asked if this process would be a public mee�ng or a closed session. Chair E�ng said that it should be a public mee�ng. Ms. Thompson explained that DRRAs have been denied in court because there was not enough in the so-called exac�on to grant ves�ng. She said there must be sufficient considera�on to make it a binding agreement. Commissioner Taylor said this issue may be irrelevant next year because the governor’s goal is to significantly decrease a municipality’s leverage regarding ves�ng. Chair E�ng agreed that this discussion may be unnecessary because the law will be undone at the next legisla�ve session. Commissioner Taylor said there is now a concerted effort to make Maryland an early ves�ng state. He felt that Maryland’s posi�on as a late ves�ng state is in a precarious posi�on. Commissioner Chizmar asked about the “dividing line” between the board and the Planning Commission regarding exac�ons. Ms. Thompson said the contract will reiterate what the Planning Commission has already granted, which the board is not necessarily approving. She said the board will be approving an exac�on. She said technically the board can negate the en�re contract. Commissioner Rutledge said that state law dictates that a local jurisdic�on or board may not enter into an agreement unless the Planning Commission determines the proposed agreement is consistent with the 9 comprehensive plan. He stated that if there are parts of the agreement the board does not like, they cannot renego�ate it, they can only deny the agreement and send it back for further nego�a�on. Ms. Thompson confirmed for Commissioner Taylor that this up or down vote is a poli�cal decision with no explana�on. She said it is “allowed to be arbitrary and capricious.” Commissioner Chizmar noted the agreement could s�ll go forward just without the ves�ng. Commissioners debated whether to “shelve” the DRRA proposal or codify it since the work has already been done. Mr. Small noted that Bel Air would be the only jurisdic�on in the county with DRRAs. Commissioner Taylor said he does not want to be involved in fast-tracking a development. He said he could not envision how an exac�on would make a less-desirable development more palatable. He said he needs more �me to determine how the DRRA process would work in prac�ce. Ms. Thompson said that legally the board cannot request an exac�on. Whatever is required to be done by the developer must be physically impacted by the development like road improvements. She said that ves�ng provides assurances to developers, and there has been significant reserva�on regarding massive economic development in town because of the lack and inconsistency of ves�ng. Commissioner Rutledge said he shared Commissioner Taylor’s “trepida�on.” He said this is about crea�ve commercial development and he ques�oned why other areas in the county do not have DRRAs. Chair E�ng said she is leaning toward pu�ng this legisla�on aside. She was uncertain whether the town was giving up too much and ge�ng back too litle. Furthermore, she felt the state legislature will be the deciding factor. B. Discuss September 9th Work Session Presenta�on by Maryland American Water Chair E�ng said she has Maryland American Water’s filing as well as documenta�on from Mr. Kline. She said she is developing a list of ques�ons related to its jus�fica�on for the rate increase and the �er system. Commissioner Chizmar said that he has ques�ons too. X. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Krantz said he has a received a mul�-year copier contract today. He said it is a five-year contract that he would like to put on the agenda for September 2. He said it is lower than the contract currently in place. He said that the cost is below the $25,000 threshold but because it is a five-year contract, he felt it prudent to put it before the board. Ms. Moody said the exis�ng contract ends in September and the new contract needs three to four weeks to get into place. She also added that there will be a $7,200 savings this year and a $9,600 savings for the following years. Chair E�ng asked Ms. Thompson to confirm that the town is permited to have a five-year contract. Ms. Moody said that there is nothing in the town’s procurement policy that prohibits the town from entering into a five-year contract. XI. COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS Chair E�ng discussed her alarm and concerns regarding today’s emergency on Interstate 95. XII. CLOSED SESSION Commissioner Taylor mo�oned to move the mee�ng into closed session. Commissioner Taylor read the reasons for the closed session as listed below. Commissioner Rutledge seconded the mo�on. Chair E�ng asked for roll call: Ayes: Commissioners Rutledge, Chizmar, Taylor, E�ng. Nays: None. Mo�on 10 carried 4-0. Chair E�ng said the mee�ng would not return to open session. The mee�ng closed at 8:30 pm. A. This por�on of the mee�ng will be closed under the provisions of the Maryland Open Mee�ngs Act General Provisions Art. §3-305(b)(1)(7) and (8). B. Topics of Discussion: 1. To Discuss the Appointment of Officials to the Town Boards, Commissions, and Commitees 2. To Obtain Legal Advice Regarding Town of Bel Air, MD v. 121 South Bond Street, LLC, District Court of Maryland for Harford County, Case No. D-09-CV-25-011432 C. Reasons for Closed-Session Discussion of Above Topics 1. Because public discussion of candidates’ names, qualifica�ons, experience, and background could discourage people from volunteering for public service or compromise their privacy rights. 2. Because public discussion of confiden�al informa�on and legal strategies can compromise the atorney-client privilege and inhibit the ability of the public body to receive candid and uninhibited legal advice. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Taylor mo�oned to adjourn the mee�ng. Commissioner Chizmar seconded the mo�on. All in favor. The mee�ng adjourned at 8:59 pm. APPROVED AS AMENDED: September 15, 2025 Signature on file _____________ Paula S. E�ng, Chair Board of Town Commissioners Signature on file_____________ Michael L. Krantz, Town Clerk 11