CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 1998 MEETING, #11

PRESENT

Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman
Council President Palmer Gillis
Council Vice President Robert Cannon
Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers
Councilman Frank Himelright
Councilman James Ireton

IN ATTENDANCE

CONVENING

The Mayor and Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. in the second floor court room of the Wicomico County Court House building. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and the Lord's Prayer was repeated. Council President Gillis called the meeting to order.

PRESENTATION FROM CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Cambridge City Commissioner Octavene Saunders presented a congratulatory letter to Mayor Tilghman from Mayor David Wooten. Gifts were given to each Councilmember and the Mayor on behalf of the City of Cambridge.

PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS

Councilwoman Lavonzella Siggers was presented a Certificate of Congratulations in recognition of her re-election to another term on Council. Ms. Portia Wright and Ms. Cynthia Polk presented the Certificate on behalf of District I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18, 1998

On a motion by Mr. Himelright and seconded by Mr. Cannon, the minutes of May 18, 1998 were unanimously approved.

PROPOSED ANNEXATION - DOUGLAS LINDERER - ADDITION TO SNOW HILL ROAD - PENINSULA HEALTH GROUP AND DEAF INDEPENDENT LIVING ASSOCIATES ANNEXATION

Public Works Director Wil Elliott introduced the proposed annexation request for Doug Linderer. The Linderer property (2.04 acres) lies directly across Snow Hill Road from the proposed Snow Hill Road - Peninsula Health Group and Deaf Independent Living Associates annexation. Mr. Elliott recommended that the Linderer property be included as part of the Snow Hill Road - Peninsula Health Group and Deaf Independent Living Associates annexation so the two would not have to be processed separately. A General Commercial zoning classification is requested with plans to develop the property with an 11,832 sq. ft. building for the purpose of selling and installing glass for autos, homes and businesses. The property is currently zoned Commercial in the County.

Impact on water and sewer is expected to be 7,200 gallons per day as opposed to 6,600 gallons per day for the original annexation area. A sewer main will run from the existing 12" main in Lincoln Avenue through the original annexation area to Snow Hill Road to serve the Linderer property and future developing properties. Water was to be extended easterly along Lincoln Avenue from its existing terminus between Hemlock and Edgar Drive through the original development area to Snow Hill Road. By including the Linderer property, Mr. Elliott noted it may be more efficient to extend the water westerly along Snow Hill Road from the existing terminus at Food Lion to the development sites. Stormwater will be managed on site for the Linderer property and outfall into the existing County system in Regency Drive, providing the easements and agreements are obtained from the owners of the land between the property to be annexed and the outfall. Tax revenues for this development are anticipated to be $16,500 per year compared to expenses of $9,311 per year.

After further discussion, the consensus of Council was to proceed with the annexation process.

PROPOSED ANNEXATION - CANAL PARK DRIVE - RUARK PROPERTY

Public Works Director Wil Elliott reported that Tom Ruark resubmitted an annexation request. The original request was to extend Canal Park Drive through the entire property to S. Division Street. The Canal Woods residents were successful in petitioning the Resolution to referendum, however, Mr. Ruark withdrew his request for annexation.

In the new annexation request, Canal Park Drive would be extended to a cul-de-sac with 60 units built next to the Canal Woods development. The remaining property would have an entrance from S. Division Street. A zoning classification of R5-A is requested with plans for a development of clusters of townhouses, single-family dwellings and a series of one-floor units similar to Spring Chase. A total of 300 units is expected upon completion with an average sale price of $125,000. Impact on water and sewer is expected to be 72,000 gallons per day with water and sewer extensions at the expense of the developer. Revenues exceeds expenses by approximately $227,402.

Mr. Mike Wigley, representing Davis, Bowen & Friedel, explained the concept of the proposed development. All construction traffic would enter via S. Division Street. The section next to Canal Woods would contain 60 units with Canal Park Drive extending into the area and looped around this portion of the property. Trees will be located in the center of the property providing a barrier between the two sections.

Mr. Ruark hoped this compromise would resolve the traffic concerns of the neighborhood. He was willing to restrict the property with 60 units in one section with no chance of extending Canal Park Drive into the other section.

Ms. Siggers referred to Mr. Ruark's February 26, 1998 letter and asked if he had met with all the Canal Woods residents (all four Associations). Mr. Ruark explained that when he left the Council work session in February, he thought there was an agreement. Three of the four individuals representing the four Associations spoke in favor of the compromise. He subsequently wrote the letter and reapplied for annexation. In about two weeks, a letter followed from Canal Woods stating they had changed their mind. At this point, he was not sure where he stood on a compromise.

Mr. Himelright inquired if an entrance could be provided for emergency vehicles and if one entrance off of S. Division Street would be sufficient for 240 units. Mr. Ruark felt that an emergency entrance could be provided and, if necessary, a second entrance could be added to S. Division Street although he preferred having only one entrance. Mr. Wigley opined that the walkway between the two sections may be wide enough to allow access for emergency vehicles.

Mr. Gillis questioned what would happen if Mr. Ruark changed his mind and wanted access from Canal Park Drive all the way through the property. City Solicitor Robert Eaton advised that this could be made a condition of the annexation. It would require a modification to change it, probably through a Resolution requiring advertisement. He also suggested that Council give consideration to making the buffer strip a legal barrier. In this way, the only way Canal Park Drive could be further extended is by condemnation.

In response to Mr. Himelright, Mr. Ruark reported that the first phase would begin as soon as approvals were given with a build out period of three years. His crews would be working from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Ms. Siggers expressed concern that a compromise had not actually been reached between Mr. Ruark and the Canal Woods Associations. She understood that Council would only proceed with the process upon a compromise and was also under the opinion this would come back in a work session. Mr. Gillis agreed that no formal compromise had been reached yet.

Mr. Gene Groten felt the people buying into Canal Woods should have known that Canal Park Drive would be extended and he did not see any reason why this road should not be extended through the Ruark property. In his opinion, emergency vehicles need access from Canal Park Drive to the other section.

Mr. Jack Elliott (Canal Woods IV) noted that a resolution had previously been presented to Council from the Canal Woods Associations to close Canal Park Drive to alleviate their concerns. After the original annexation request was withdrawn, one of the Canal Woods residents suggested 60 units for the parcel next to Canal Woods. However, this suggestion was not the opinion of the Steering Committee and they still want the road closed because of the additional traffic concerns. He recommended that Council close Canal Park Drive at its terminus. He further recommended that the Ruark property be annexed into the City, but as a separate development from Canal Woods.

Mr. Joe Mulligan (Canal Woods I) remarked that he was the member of the Steering Committee who pushed for the 60 units. A poll was conducted from Canal Woods I residents (representing almost the same amount of units as the proposed 60 units) which resulted in an overwhelming response in favor of the compromise. The renters were not consulted, but efforts were made to contact the owners. Of the 52 surveyed, 39 were in favor of the compromise, 4 against and 9 were incomplete. Mr. Mulligan also reported that Canal Woods II was almost as strongly in support of the compromise as Canal Woods I. The two associations in favor of the compromise represent 80 units, whereas the two associations against it represent 40 units.

Mr. Chuck Whitmore, a member of the Steering Committee for the Canal Woods Associations, believed they had an obligation to protect the property in their development. In his opinion, the reason it became effective to compromise was during the Council work sessions. Without the benefit of legal advice, there were five people demanding that a compromise be made. Mr. Whitmore recommended that this issue not come up at this time and opined that it would be very easy to have another referendum.

Mr. Bill Simms (Canal Woods II) commented that originally the Steering Committee voted unanimously for closure of Canal Park Drive, but has since had a split vote (2-2). Mr. Simms expressed concerns with a proposal for SSU dormitories to be built in the surrounding area and, within the last year, fourteen 2-story units were brought in on tractor trailers. All this development brings additional traffic problems and he felt he had to protect his investment in his property.

Mr. Bob Lawrence (Canal Woods I) was concerned with traffic, but also felt the proposed compromise by Mr. Ruark was the best solution to the problem. Mr. Lawrence stated that Canal Park Drive is a full-width City street, not a development road. In his opinion, if the City walked away from any community that had a full-width City street, and that community decided there was too much traffic, it would be a poor expenditure of taxpayers money.

Ms. Siggers stated she would again support a referendum from the public because she was very concerned with preserving communities. She hoped that the citizens would speak up even if another referendum came about.

Mr. Cannon related that Canal Park Drive has been platted since 1973 all the way to the Ruark property. It was anticipated to be a through road and was never planned to be a cul-de-sac. He did not recall Council trying to force a compromise at a work session. They were only trying to reach a fair and equitable solution for both parties.

Mr. Ireton remarked that he ran his campaign platform on neighborhoods and growth. He could not believe that this compromise would be a detriment to Canal Woods. The revenue generated from the accessible tax base would go a long way in funding items in the budget. He did not believe that a 2-2 tie warranted stopping what was platted since the early 70's. He also thought there were at least 120 cars going through Canal Woods in the summer to the pool. Mr. Ireton opined that if this type of quality project was suggested for his area, he did not believe the neighborhood would be against it.

Mr. Himelright felt that Mr. Ruark had bent over backwards to come up with a compromise. Several plans had been done at his expense and were rejected. The 60 unit suggestion represented the first feedback from Canal Woods. Mr. Himelright noted that the Honeysuckle Drive residents were against the Canal Woods development being built. He believed that a 2-2 split on the compromise was not sufficient for Council to close the road. In his opinion, if it was petitioned for referendum and all the facts come out, they would not get the 2,400 signatures as they did before.

Mr. Gillis stated this was the hardest issue he has had to deal with during his term on Council. Every document he has supports Canal Park Drive being a through street. Personally, he did not believe the 60 units represented the best deal for the City of Salisbury, but the proposal represented a compromise plan with nobody winning or losing.

Ms. Siggers noted that while she was in support of the annexation, she was still concerned with the indication that a compromise had been reached. Mr. Ruark's February 26 letter was not a true representation and should have been removed from the briefing book. Mr. Gillis reiterated that Mr. Ruark clarified he thought he had a compromise, but acknowledged on record that he believed he had a compromise at that time and since has found that not to be true.

After further discussion, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Himelright, Mr. Ireton and Mr. Gillis were in favor of moving forward with proposed annexation with a 60 unit limitation next to Canal Woods as proposed on the design. Ms. Siggers voted nay.

BUILDING PERMIT WAIVER - WICOMICO COUNTY TEEN ADULT CENTER

Building, Housing and Zoning Director Bill Holland introduced the Wicomico County Teen Adult Center's request to waive a $7,672 building permit fee and a plan review fee of $100. The Teen Adult Center is a non-profit organization providing services for persons with mental and physical disabilities. They will be rehabilitating the old Service Merchandise building which has been empty for several years.

Executive Officer John Pick reported that the original request also included a waiver of water tap and hookup fees. Mr. Holland only addressed the portion of the request relative to his department - building permit and plan review fee. Historically, Council has waived building permit fees, but not water tap and hookup fees. Mr. Jim McDonald, representing the Teen Adult Center, called today asking that Council table the portion dealing with waiving water tap and hookup fees and reconsider later.

Mr. Gillis thought the building already had city water and sewer hookup. Mr. Don Hackett, Executive Director of the Teen Adult Center, related that the existing hookups are not adequate to serve the number of people they will be servicing and additional bathrooms are needed.

Mr. Himelright was not in favor of waiving the building permit fee for a tax exempt organization. Mr. Gillis, however, did not recall any non-profit being denied a waiver. Mr. Cannon felt they had to handle it on a case-by-case basis in the absence of a policy. In this particular case, the building is being renovated and the business is non-profit so he was agreeable to waiving the building permit fee and the plan review fee.

Mr. Hackett noted they would score higher in their applications for grants with the waiver of these fees from the local government.

In Ms. Siggers opinion, it puts citizens at a disadvantage when they have to incur the expense or the lack of that revenue which would go into the General Fund for the community's benefit. She related she would abstain from voting on this issue and requested that Council schedule a work session to develop a policy for granting waivers. Mr. Gillis was concerned with setting a policy cast in stone and not allowing each sitting Council the flexibility of making a decision.

After further discussion, Mr. Himelright motioned and Ms. Siggers seconded to table the request until Council knew what the total package would cost taxpayers. Ms. Siggers and Mr. Himelright voted aye; Mr. Cannon, Mr. Ireton and Mr. Gillis voted nay.

Mr. Cannon motioned and Mr. Ireton seconded to waive the building permit fee and the plan review fee. Mr. Cannon, Mr. Ireton and Mr. Gillis voted aye; Ms. Siggers abstained; and Mr. Himelright nay. The waiver was granted for the building permit fee and the plan review fee.

ORDINANCE NO. 1687 - PUBLIC HEARING - 1ST READING - PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET

Executive Officer John Pick introduced Ordinance No. 1687 appropriating funds for Fiscal Year July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. The budget for all funds totals $25,374,545, an increase of 1% over Fiscal Year 1998. Highlights of the budget include: 1) no increase in the tax rate; 2) 5% increase in water and sewer rates; 3) funding of the pay plan on a 7% pay increase schedule; 4) $100,000 contribution to the operating reserve; 5) funding lower portion of the Northeast Collector Road; 6) $30,000 for the demolition program; 7) funding, through the Open Space Program, improvements to various neighborhood playgrounds and acquisition of a playground in the Church Street neighborhood; 8) funding for a drug free workplace program for all city employees not currently covered by a program; and 9) funding for a Information Services Department.

Ms. Siggers motioned and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1687 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Mr. Himelright motioned to amend page 2, in the And Be It Further Ordained paragraph, to change the location of the public hearing from Room 301 of the City/County Government Office Building to the Old Wicomico county Court House. Ms. Siggers seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Mr. Pick noted that another amendment needed to be made to the same paragraph (last line) - change not more than seven days to less than seven days. Mr. Himelright motioned to amend the last line in the And Be It Further Ordained paragraph on page 2 to read less than seven days prior to such public hearing. Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Mr. Pick pointed out an error on page 1 in the Be It Ordained paragraph, item 2. It should read special revenue District instead of special assessment District. Mr. Himelright motioned to change special assessment District on Page 1 in the Be It Ordinance paragraph, item 2 to read special revenue District. Ms. Siggers seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Comments were received from seven citizens and thirteen employees speaking in favor of including pay increases for employees in the budget. Some concern was expressed by one citizen that money was taken away from projects to fund the pay raises even though the raises are deserved. Another citizen voiced his opposition to the proposal for the Northeast Collector in regards to the amount City taxpayers would be paying and asked that the Code be reviewed for subdivisions allowing college students. One employee expressed dissatisfaction with waiving fees and giving money away to tax exempt organizations.

Mr. Gillis informed the public that Council was still in the process of gathering information on the budget. More meetings will be held and modifications will probably be made at the second reading. Mr. Gillis clarified that Council, as their highest priority, asked Mayor Martin to implement the new pay plan structure that was presented in the consultant's study. At that time, Council did not know what amount of money this would entail so they could only recommend the framework of the plan. Council would like to give every employee as much an increase as possible, but not enough information had been received yet to make that decision.

Mr. Cannon explained that the proposed 7.7% pay increase is an overall percentage. Some employees would get less and others more, depending on how their particular job classification was to the norm. However, nineteen street projects were taken off the list to help fund the proposed pay raises.

Mr. Himelright related that when the report came back, some employees were well below the minimum range and Council guaranteed those individuals would be brought up to the minimum which represents approximately $77,000.

Mr. Ireton remarked that before he was elected to Council, he was quoted in the newspaper indicating he was in favor of a 7% pay increase for employees. However, at that time he did not know that growth was only 1% and next year is only anticipated to be between 1 «% and 3%. He would try to do the best he could for the employees, but next year taxes may have to be raised. Mr. Gillis pointed out that taxes had not been increased since 1990 and Council raised it by five cents in 1997.

With no further discussion, all voted in favor of Ordinance No. 1687 for first reading as amended with the exception of Mr. Ireton who voted nay.

ORDINANCE NO. 1688 - PUBLIC HEARING - 1ST READING - REVISING AND INCREASING WATER AND SEWER RATES

Mr. Cannon motioned and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Ordinance No. 1688 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Ordinance No. 1688, as introduced by Executive Officer John Pick, implements a 5% rate increase for water and sewer. Section 4, Service or Connection Charges, reflects a 25% increase. The effect of a 5% water and sewer rate increase on a person receiving a minimum water bill would be a 47› per month increase. A family of four using 25,000 gallons would incur a $1.83 per month increase.

With no further discussion, the vote was unanimous approving Ordinance No. 1688 for first reading.

RESOLUTION NO. 603 - AMENDING THE RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A TAX DEFERRAL FOR SALISBURY SENIOR HOUSING

Mr. Jerry Ryan, Mr. Dave Nesbitt and Mr. Dave Simpson joined Council to address Resolution No. 603. City Solicitor Robert Eaton explained that a tax deferral was previously granted by another Resolution. At that time, the project was in two parts and owned by Salisbury Senior Housing Ltd. Partnership. The second tract, however, is now owned by Salisbury Housing II, LLC. Mr. Eaton pointed out that the Resolution should be corrected to change the name of Salisbury Housing Partnership to Salisbury Senior Housing Ltd. Partnership and change the name of the parties signing the Resolution.

Mr. Cannon motioned and Mr. Himelright seconded to approve Resolution No. 603 to bring it on the floor for discussion. Mr. Ryan noted that the request is an administrative change since there had been a change in partners between Phase I and Phase II. The Wicomico County Housing Authority is now a majority partner in Phase II along with Messrs. Ryan and Nesbitt. Their application through the Community Development Administration requires local support and it was at their request that the Resolution reflect the new entity.

Mr. Himelright questioned if the City could collect if the project went in default. Mr. Eaton related that the deferral of taxes would be a lien against the property, so whoever buys the property at foreclosure would have to pay the taxes first. Mr. Ryan reported that the first mortgage holder in Phase I requires them to make a deposit each month to the tax deferral account which assures the lender that the funds will be there.

Ms. Siggers thought this matter would have been discussed in a work session to clarify the owners before coming to Council table for approval. For future reference, she asked that Council give serious consideration to the deferrals and fees that are currently being waived. Council puts themselves in precarious situations such as trying to pay employees who are providing services for the taxpayers when funds are being given away that could have been used to pay City employees. She also noted that during her campaign, there was some uncertainty from the residents in Phase I on whether they were in the City limits. The street signs also tend to indicate it is in the County.

Mr. Cannon clarified that Council was only voting to approve the change in entities for Phase II. The tax deferral was already approved a few years ago. If there was a default, a lien would be placed against the property to collect the taxes.

In response to Mr. Richard Adkins query, Mr. Ryan stated that the Wicomico County Housing Authority is a 51% general partner and owner in the project. The collective owners of the property hires the Housing Authority to manage the project for a 6% administrative fee. Mr. Adkins expressed concern that tax deferrals are given when we don't know who is involved. He thought the County had tabled this issue, but Mr. Ryan reported that the County approved the initial tax deferral at the same time as the City in 1995.

Mr. Richard Insley was concerned with the appropriateness of granting tax deferrals at the expense of City taxpayers.

After further discussion, Mr. Cannon motioned to amend Resolution No. 603 to correct the name originally given, Salisbury Housing Partnership, to Salisbury Senior Housing Ltd. Partnership and to change the name of the Council President and Mayor. Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous. Resolution No. 603, as amended, passed unanimously.

AWARD OF BIDS

The following items were presented for approval by Purchasing Director Carol Turner, C.P.M., CPPB:

1. Disposal of remnant parcel on Preston Street . . . . . . . . .-0-

2. Contract No. 17-98-W
East North Pointe Drive Water Main (601-3705-632.70-22: #WMHD)
American Paving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $87,061.50

Item 1 - Mrs. Turner explained that Mr. Donald Baysinger was requesting that a small remnant of property approximately ten feet wide along Preston Street be deeded to him. It is currently one lot, however, it went before Planning & Zoning to resubdivide into two lots and was denied. Mrs. Turner believed if the City approved the disposal of the ten feet wide remnant, it would give Mr. Baysinger the square footage needed to go back to Planning & Zoning for approval without having to seek a variance. It was her understanding the neighborhood was mostly single-family homes with very little rental.

Mr. Baysinger stated he would again request to divide the lot into two parcels with plans to build two 3-bedroom houses (approximately 1,000 sq. ft. homes).

Mr. Himelright did not think we should disturb an existing home ownership neighborhood with rentals. He did not have a problem with the houses if they were for owner occupied, but he was opposed to rentals. Mr. Gillis noted that Mr. Baysinger has the right to build one 5-bedroom house on it now which could be rental. Mr. Ireton was concerned that these houses may not be the same quality as the original houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Siggers was concerned with giving away property when there could be the potential of receiving funds.

Ms. Becky Swartz, a 13-year resident of the area, was concerned that these would be two small rental properties and suggested building one nice house comparable to the others in the neighborhood. In her opinion, the neighborhood was going down because of the rentals and the police department was beefing up patrolling. Ms. Kay Records was tired of "cracker jack" houses being built on postage size lots. In her opinion, renters tend to cause problems in neighborhoods.

After further discussion, Mr Himelright called for the question. Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Himelright motioned to deny the disposal of the remnant parcel and Ms. Siggers seconded. All voted in favor of denying the disposal of the remnant parcel request with the exception of Mr. Cannon who abstained.

Item 2. Mr. Himelright motioned to approve. Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Mr. Richard Adkins complimented Council on their stand for opening up public comments and publishing the Council agenda in the newspaper. Ms. Siggers expressed appreciation to the Commissioner from Cambridge and the representatives from District I for their presentations.

With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

CITY OF SALISBURY CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: May 27, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand or remain in the State (economic development project) and to consult with counsel to seek legal advice
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(4) and 10-508(a)(7) PRESENT: Mayor B. Tilghman, Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers, Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove, City Solicitor Robert Eaton, SWED Director Dave Ryan

At 12:35 p.m., in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Cannon motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand or remain in the State (economic development project) and to consult with counsel to seek legal advice. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.

After discussing the legal parameters of annexation and the negotiations to date, Council requested certain issues to be clarified and scheduled a June 3, 1998 closed work session at 12:30 p.m. to further discuss the matter.

At 1:53 p.m., Mr. Cannon motioned to adjourn the closed session. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CITY OF SALISBURY CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: June 3, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction)
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous

CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) PRESENT: Mayor B. Tilghman, Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers, Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove

At 9:20 a.m., in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Cannon motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction) as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1). Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

After discussing the issues presented, no decisions were made at this time. At 10:25 a.m., Mr. Cannon motioned to adjourn the closed session and reconvene into open session. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CITY OF SALISBURY CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: June 3, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State (economic development) and to consult with counsel to seek legal advice
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(4) and 10-508(a)(7)
PRESENT: Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers, Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove, City Solicitor R. Eaton, SWED Director D. Ryan

At 12:30 p.m., Mr. Himelright motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand or remain in the State (economic development project) and to consult with counsel to seek legal advice. Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

After receiving an update on the negotiations to date and discussing the areas of concern, a consensus of support was given for the project, however, there were still some issues to be resolved. At 1:31 p.m., Mr. Himelright motioned to adjourn the closed session. Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: June 3, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction)
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1)
PRESENT: Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers, Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove

At 1:32 p.m., Mr. Cannon motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) - appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.

After discussion regarding the personnel issue, Mr. Pick was asked to present a proposal to Mayor Tilghman. Mr. Himelright motioned to adjourn the closed session at 1:53 p.m. Ms. Siggers seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: June 3, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction)
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1)
PRESENT: Mayor B. Tilghman (arrived 7:07 p.m. and left at 7:25 p.m.), Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers, Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove

At 6:52 p.m., in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Himelright motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) - appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction. Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

After further discussion of the proposal presented to Mayor Tilghman on the personnel issue, Mr. Himelright motioned to adjourn the closed session at 7:40 p.m. and reconvene into open session. Mr. Cannon seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

TIME & PLACE: June 5, 1998; Room 301 City/County Government Building
PURPOSE: Personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction) and consult with counsel to seek legal advice
VOTE TO CLOSE: Unanimous
CITATION: Annotated Code of Maryland Section 10-508(a)(1) and 10-508(a)(7)
PRESENT: Council President P. Gillis, Council Vice President R. Cannon, Councilwoman L. Siggers (arrived 4:42 p.m.), Councilman F. Himelright, Councilman J. Ireton, Executive Officer J. Pick, City Clerk B. Colegrove, City Solicitor R. Eaton (present only during the portion to give legal advice)

At 4:34 p.m., in Room 301 of the City/County Government Building, Mr. Himelright motioned to convene into Closed Executive Session to discuss a personnel issue (appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom it has jurisdiction) and consult with counsel to seek legal advice as permitted under the Annotated Code of Maryland Sections 10-508(a)(1) and 10-508(a)(7). Mr. Ireton seconded and the vote was unanimous. Ms. Siggers was not present during the vote to close.

After discussion, Council consented to hiring two attorneys to handle the personnel issue (4-1 vote). At 5:53 p.m., Mr. Cannon motioned to adjourn the Closed Session. Mr. Himelright seconded and the vote was unanimous.