I wanted to inform you that we have a special Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow, from 2-4pm. These meetings, typically the second of each month, can be called for by the Mayor at will. I’m not entirely sure what precipitated this late December meeting, but what I do know is that the time was moved earlier due to the hectic nature of Midnight Madness. I do apologize for getting this newsletter out late, but the odd Council meeting date has thrown me off my normal schedule. Fortunately, we don’t have anything up for a public hearing and nothing significant up for final vote.

What we do have on our agenda are two items of note:

Moratorium update – The moratorium on new short-term rental (STR) licenses (R-50-25) will be withdrawn and reintroduced as an Ordinance, due to updated guidance from the law office. I am still in opposition to the underlying moratorium. I’ll detail my reasons below.

Mayor proposes new Deputy Chief-of-staff position. See below for details.

Committee assignments - We will also be voting on our committee assignments, and it looks like I will once again likely chair Environmental Matters and serve on the Transportation and Economic Matters Committees.

Stay healthy and safe,

Rob

Legislative action summary from last meeting

There was no final action on any legislation at our previous meeting.

Next Council meeting – 12/18/25 (agenda)

This meeting starts at 2pm and will be televised on local cable, YouTube, Facebook, and the City website.  You can submit public testimony at http://www.annapolis.gov/testimony. This will be an in-person meeting.

Public Hearings

There is no legislation up for a public hearing.

Legislation being introduced on first reader

• O-40-25 - Establishing a 12-Month Moratorium on New Short-Term Rental Licenses - I oppose the moratorium because it is an absolutely unnecessary legislative step that wastes time and money, takes drastic measures to solve an ill-defined problem (one I would argue we already have addressed in the code), would hurt neighborhoods that don’t have STR density issues, would cost us $100,000 in lost revenue, and revisits an issue we just passed substantial legislation to address not even 3 months ago.

Let me explain a bit more. It’s an unnecessary legislative step because we don’t need 12-month moratorium to take action. Let’s define the problems now and address them. No need to diddle-dally for an entire year. Per staff’s first annual August report on STRs, “By January 1, 2026, the DPZ will be able to report on whether increased enforcement tools or more resources are necessary”. So let me posit this: if staff is already ready as of January 1^st to speak to this issue, why do we need a moratorium? Short answer: we don't.

A moratorium is a drastic measure that will impact the entire City and all non-owner occupied STR owners, without properly identifying or addressing the actual issue at hand. If you think the issue is STRs in general, then this is a step you would appreciate. But I do not believe that all STRs are bad. I’ve heard countless neighbors testify over the course of my eight years on the Council, and I can say that there are entirely legitimate reasons to have STRs, even non-owner occupied STRs. They do serve a purpose. But they must be kept under control (i.e. density control) and not become a nuisance. We addressed the density issue with O-17-25 that, for the first time, established a 10% cap per blockface and a lottery to get us to that cap in 2 years, which addressed this long-standing issue we have heard that blocks with 50% or 60% or higher of STRs have a problem we need to address. The latter problem, nuisance STRs, we also have addressed back in 2023 that created code to provide a way for staff to revoke permits for nuisance properties. So what are the remaining issues that need to be resolved? If it’s enforcement, we have been told by staff that they are posting 30 unlicensed properties a week with the position we funded and filled in July, so let’s chat with them in January and see what else we can do now, without a moratorium, to address. But at this point, I do not see a reason to pass such a disruptive and drastic action that ignores the good work we have done over the past few years and punishes even locals who have invested into their own STRs and committed to following the law.

• O-41-25 - FY 2026 Changes in Exempt Service Job Classification – As I mentioned above, this legislation proposes to create a new Deputy Chief of Staff position in the Mayor’s Office, earning between $86,552 to $160,737, not counting benefits. I do know the Mayor plans to look at reshuffling the Mayor’s office staff, but I (and he as well, I’m guessing) don’t know yet if that will mean a proposed increase or decrease, or no net change, in the Mayor’s Office staffing levels. We will have to wait until the budget. Regardless, we will dig into this a bit more when it hits our committees to ensure that the pay is appropriate, understand the position duties and intent, and to determine how this will be paid for out of the current budget (probably paid for with unfilled positions). I can see the need/benefit to such a position, but I do have some concerns about the proposed levels of pay compared to other staff positions.

Legislation up for Second Reader (i.e final vote)

These are all standard pieces of legislation for a new term.

• R-47-25 - Standing Committee Appointments for the 2026-2030 Council Term - I intend to support.
• R-48-25 - Audit Committee Appointments for the 2026-2030 Council Term - I intend to support.
• R-49-25 - Budget Process Timeline for Fiscal Year 2027 - I intend to support, pending any input from you.

Community & Political updates

No updates this week. I wish you a happy holiday and New Year!