On the agenda: Berlin Public Meeting Packet — Data Center (Oct 13)

MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Meeting Agenda
Buckingham Presbyterian Church
20 S. Main Street
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
REGULAR SESSION – Buckingham Presbyterian Church
1. 7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER

2. 7:05 PM
a)
b)
c)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Zack Tyndall (Strategic Plan: DS1)
Work Session Minutes of 9.28.26
Regular Session Minutes of 9.28.26
Closed Session Minutes of 9.28.26

3. 7:10 PM

REMARKS FROM OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBERS

4. 7:15 PM
a)

SWEARING-IN CEREMONY (Strategic Plan: DS1, AS2)
Swearing-in of Councilmembers by Mayor Zackery Tyndall
i.
District 1 Councilmember Matthew “Matt” Stoehr
ii.
District 4 Councilmember Anthony “Tony” Weeg
iii.
At-Large Councilmember Jay Knerr

5. 7:20 PM

NOMINATION & SELECTION OF COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT – Mayor Zack Tyndall
(Strategic Plan: DS1, AS2)
**15-MINUTE RECEPTION BREAK**

6. 7:35 PM
a)

SWEARING-IN OF NEW BOARDS/COMMISSION MEMBER(S)
Newly Appointed Member to Planning Commission – Mayor Zack Tyndall
(Strategic Plan: DS1, AS2)

7. 7:40 PM
a)

PRESENTATION(S):
Life Saving Awards, Berlin Police Department – Police Chief Howard Drewer
(Strategic Plan: DS2, AS1)
Data Centers Overview – Councilmember Jack Orris (Strategic Plan: DS3, AS1)

b)

8. 8:00 PM
ITEM(S) FOR APPROVAL:
A public comment period will be offered after discussion by the Mayor and Council for each
Item for Approval. Any person who may wish to speak will be given two (2) minutes or such
time as may be deemed appropriate by the Mayor.
a)
Motion 2026-57: Allowing the Town to Close on MWIFA Loan Funding for the
Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1A (which was previously referred
to as Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement – Phase 1) separate from MWIFA
Loan Funding for Any Other Projects – Finance Director Natalie Saleh
(Strategic Plan: DS3, AS3)

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 1 of 68

a)

Resolution 2026-09: Declaring the Town’s Reasonable Expectation to Reimburse
from Proceeds of a Future Borrowing Expenditures Paid for the Berlin Lead
Service Line Replacement Phase 1A Prior to Closing on the Borrowing – Finance
Director Natalie Saleh (Strategic Plan: DS3, AS3)

9. 8:15 PM
a)

FIRST READING (Public Hearing to be held on Monday, October 26, 2026)
Ordinance 2026-08: Authorizing Town General Obligation Debt to Finance,
Reimburse or Refinance Costs of the Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement
Phase 1A; Providing that Details of Any Such Debt Shall be Fixed or Provided for
by Resolution; Pledging the Town’s Full Faith and Credit and Unlimited Taxing
Power to Payment of Any Such Issued Debt and Allowing Such Debt to be Paid in
the First Instance from Other Available Sources; and Generally Relating to Any
Such Debt – Finance Director Natalie (Strategic Plan: DS4, AS2)

10. 8:30 PM

REPORT(S): Departmental Reports
(Strategic Plan: DS1, DS4)

11. 8:35 PM
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Strategic Plan: DS4; DS5)
Anyone wishing to speak during COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC at the Regular Session may do
so for up to five (5) minutes or as determined by the Mayor. Please state your name, street, and
the subject you wish to address.
12. 8:40 PM

COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL

13. 8:45 PM

COMMENTS FROM THE MAYOR’S OFFICE

14. 8:50 PM

COMMENTS FROM THE PRESS

15. 8:55 PM

ADJOURNMENT

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 2 of 68

Agenda Item 2 a

BERLIN MAYOR AND COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Work Session
Monday, September 28, 2026
5:00 PM

WORK SESSION – Worcester County Library, Berlin Branch

Present: Mayor Zack Tyndall, Vice President Dean Burrell, Councilmembers Steve Green, Jay Knerr, and
Jack Orris.
Absent: Councilmember Shaneka Nichols
Planning Commission Present: Chairman Matt Stoehr, Newt Chandler, Pete Cosby, Dirk Widdowson,
Janelle Gerthoffer, Erich Pfeffer, and Logan Hall
Planning Commission Absent: Steve Scheiber
Staff Present: Town Administrator Mary Bohlen, Town Legal Consultant Emily Morris, Acting Planning
Director Ryan Hardesty, Human Resources Director Kelsey Jensen, Mayor’s Executive Assistant Sara
Gorfinkel, and Associate Town Administrator Kate Daub.
This meeting was broadcast live via Facebook. Mayor Tyndall called the meeting to order at
approximately 5:00 PM.
Mayor Tyndall explained that the meeting's purpose was to continue discussion of the Town’s accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance ahead of the October 1st deadline by which the Town must adopt an
ordinance under state requirements. He said that the Mayor and Council and the Planning Commission
had been working constructively toward meeting the deadline. He then turned the meeting over to Ms.
Emily Morris of EKM Law, legal counsel to the Town’s Planning Department. Ms. Morris continued the
presentation and recommended using the summary document included in the meeting packet to guide
the discussion, given the limited meeting time. She noted that the summary highlighted revisions made
since the previous discussion.
Ms. Morris said the proposed ADU size limits had been revised to allow 350 to 600 square feet of livable
space, replacing the previous combination of a fixed square-footage cap and a percentage limit. She said
a definition of “accessory dwelling structure” had also been added following further discussion at a
recent Planning Commission meeting. For an ADU built above a garage, she said the definition would
consider the entire building envelope, including the garage, rather than only the residential portion. She
said the revisions also addressed semi-attached ADUs, such as those connected to a primary residence
by a breezeway. She said the intent was generally to apply size and design limits similar to those for fully
detached ADUs.
Mr. Chandler asked whether an addition to an existing residence could be classified as an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU). He expressed concern that a homeowner who otherwise complies with applicable
setback and lot requirements should be permitted to construct an addition, including one connected to
the principal residence by a breezeway, without the addition necessarily being classified as an ADU. Ms.
Morris acknowledged that the proposed ordinance did not fully address this distinction. She explained

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 3 of 68

that, under the proposed language, a separate dwelling unit could technically qualify as an ADU and
therefore be subject to the applicable size limitations. The discussion then focused on whether the
absence of a kitchen or other residential facilities would prevent an addition from meeting the definition
of an ADU.
Planning Commission Chairman Matt Stoehr raised the example of a detached pool house containing a
bar or cooking facilities, living space, and a bathroom and asked whether such a structure could qualify
as an ADU. Ms. Morris indicated that it potentially could, depending on the facilities provided. This
prompted further discussion regarding what constitutes a kitchen or cooking facility and whether a
typical pool house containing certain residential amenities could inadvertently fall within the definition
of an ADU.
Mr. Stoehr observed that pool houses commonly contain bathrooms and may include facilities for food
preparation without being designed or intended to function as independent dwelling units. He
emphasized the importance of distinguishing between accessory structures that merely contain certain
residential amenities and those that are permanently designed and equipped to function as separate
dwelling units.
The members discussed whether an ADU should be required to contain a full bathroom, cooking
facilities, and permanent sleeping accommodations. Mr. Stoehr stated that occasional overnight use of a
pool house by family members or guests should not, by itself, cause the structure to be classified as an
ADU. Ms. Morris referenced the existing definition of a dwelling unit, which requires permanent
provisions for sanitation, cooking, eating, sleeping, toilet and bathing functions, and other activities
routinely associated with daily life. Based on that definition, it was noted that a conventional pool house
would not necessarily satisfy all the elements required to constitute a dwelling unit.
Mayor Tyndall acknowledged the practical enforcement challenges associated with the issue, particularly
because the Town Code does not currently provide a clear distinction between these types of structures.
The discussion highlighted the need for objective standards that distinguish an ADU from other
residential additions and accessory structures based primarily on the structure’s permanent design,
configuration, and facilities rather than its occasional or temporary use.
The presence of a cooking range was discussed as a potential objective indicator of residential use. Mr.
Pfeffer noted that a permanently installed cooking range has traditionally helped distinguish a dwelling
unit from other accessory spaces, although the availability of modern appliances and the presence of
cooking equipment in workshops, pool houses, and similar structures can complicate that distinction.
Members considered whether the ordinance should include specific language addressing cooking ranges
or pool houses but generally favored avoiding overly specific provisions where established zoning or
building-code terminology could adequately address the issue.
The discussion identified three principal characteristics that would help distinguish an ADU from another
accessory structure, including dedicated sleeping or bedroom accommodations, a kitchen equipped with
a cooking range or stove, and a full bathroom. Members noted that a living area containing a couch
would not necessarily constitute permanent sleeping accommodations and that a half bathroom,
standing alone, would not provide the facilities necessary for a complete dwelling unit. Ms. Morris
indicated that this approach was generally consistent with the existing definition of a dwelling unit,

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 4 of 68

which considers the collective presence of permanent facilities necessary for ordinary daily residential
activities. The group therefore supported retaining the language as drafted rather than adding a specific
exclusion for pool houses.
Ms. Morris reviewed additional revisions to the proposed ordinance. She explained that the occupancy
provision had been revised from a maximum of three adults to two adults plus two minor-aged
immediate family members and reiterated that the proposed ADU size range was 350 to 600 square feet.
She also noted that ADUs located within historic districts would remain subject to Historic District
Commission review and approval under applicable standards, while the Planning Commission would
confirm compliance with the design requirements established elsewhere in the ordinance.
Mr. Chandler raised concerns regarding permissible lease terms for ADUs and questioned whether the
ordinance should require annual leases rather than allow short-term rentals. Ms. Morris explained that
the State legislation is intended to expand housing opportunities and noted the concern that permitting
short-term rentals could result in ADUs being used for seasonal or transient accommodations rather than
longer-term housing. She stated that State law allows municipalities to regulate short-term rentals but
that the draft ordinance currently relies on the Town’s existing short-term rental regulations. Accordingly,
an ADU could be used as a short-term rental if it meets the Town Code's applicable permanent-residency
requirements.
Members also discussed the potential use of ADUs for seasonal J-1 employee housing. Ms. Morris noted
that the proposed occupancy restriction of two adults would prevent larger groups of seasonal workers
from occupying a single ADU. Members observed that seasonal employee housing often accommodates
substantially more individuals and that limiting an ADU of up to 600 square feet to two adults could
make such use financially impractical. Ms. Morris clarified that the two adult occupants would not be
required to be related or married and that the draft ordinance did not otherwise establish a minimum
lease term.
The discussion then turned to addressing requirements for ADUs. Ms. Morris explained that an earlier
draft had sought to avoid assigning separate addresses to ADUs so as not to create the appearance of
two independent dwelling units on a single property. Ms. Hardesty subsequently consulted Worcester
County, which assigns 9-1-1 addresses, and said that the County recommended that ADUs receive
distinct address designations for emergency-response purposes. She suggested using the primary
structure’s street address followed by a unit designation. Mayor Tyndall proposed using traditional halfaddresses instead, noting that such addresses are common in older communities and could suit Berlin.
Ms. Hardesty indicated that the County had not specifically recommended half-addresses but agreed
that the option could be investigated.*
Members returned to the proposed occupancy limitation of two adults and two minor immediate family
members and discussed how the provision would apply to occupants approaching the age of majority
and whether the required relationship between adult and minor occupants should be more clearly
defined. The discussion included the possibility of requiring an adult occupant to have legal guardianship
of any minor occupants rather than allowing unrelated minors to reside with unrelated adults. Members
also acknowledged that less common family arrangements could arise, such as an 18-year-old sibling
serving as the legal guardian of younger siblings. Ms. Morris agreed to revise the provision to address
legal guardianship and the applicable age of minority.
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 5 of 68

Ms. Morris next reviewed proposed design requirements intended to encourage converting or reusing
existing structures rather than constructing additional buildings. She explained that, based on previous
discussions, language had been incorporated into both the Historic District Commission and Planning
Commission sections encouraging applicants to use existing structures on a property where feasible. She
said the intent was to minimize changes to the existing character of properties and allow ADUs to
integrate more naturally into established development.
Councilmember Knerr questioned the use of the word “shall” in the design requirements and whether
“must” would establish a stronger mandatory standard. Ms. Morris explained that, in statutory drafting,
“shall” denotes a mandatory requirement rather than a recommendation. Members briefly discussed the
distinction between mandatory terms such as “shall,” “will,” and “must” and discretionary terms such as
“should,” “may,” and “can.” Ms. Morris confirmed that “shall” was intended to establish a binding design
requirement.
Members then returned to the proposed occupancy and legal-guardianship provisions after identifying a
potential interaction with language elsewhere in the ordinance concerning immediate family members.
Mr. Hall noted that the ordinance already referenced an owner’s immediate family members in another
context and questioned how that provision would interact with a requirement that minor occupants be
under the legal guardianship of an adult ADU occupant. He expressed concern that requiring both an
immediate-family relationship and legal guardianship could create unintended complications in
situations involving extended family members, including in-laws and minors. Ms. Morris suggested that
defining permitted minor occupants by reference to immediate family relationships could provide an
alternative to relying exclusively on legal guardianship.
Ms. Morris clarified that the ordinance’s definition of “immediate family member” serves a separate
purpose. She explained that the property must be owned by a natural person rather than an LLC and
that the owner-occupancy and qualifying-family-member provisions are intended to prevent a property
from effectively functioning as a duplex occupied by two unrelated households without an ongoing
connection to the owner. Mr. Hall stated that he had previously understood ADUs to be limited to
occupancy by immediate family members. Ms. Morris clarified that Maryland law requires ADUs to be
permitted as rental units and that the proposed owner-occupancy provisions were intended to maintain
an appropriate connection between the property owner and the dwelling unit, rather than restrict ADU
occupancy exclusively to family members.
Members then discussed the circumstances under which an owner could rent either the principal
dwelling or the ADU. Ms. Morris explained that the property must be owned by a natural person and
that, under ordinary circumstances, the ordinance was intended to prevent both dwelling units from
being rented simultaneously. Mr. Widdowson asked whether the property would be required to serve as
the owner’s primary residence or whether a secondary residence could qualify. Ms. Morris responded
that the Town intended to apply the same primary-residency standard currently used for short-term
rentals, with residency determined through the Maryland State Department of Assessments and
Taxation (SDAT).
Ms. Morris explained that this approach would provide flexibility while maintaining an ongoing
connection between the owner and the property. Mayor Tyndall noted that relying on the Town’s

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 6 of 68

existing short-term-rental residency standard would also avoid creating a separate residency
determination process specifically for ADUs.
Mr. Widdowson expressed concern regarding the practical enforcement of the proposed owneroccupancy and rental restrictions. Mayor Tyndall acknowledged that enforcement would be, at least in
part, complaint-driven and emphasized the importance of informing applicants of the applicable
occupancy and rental requirements during the ADU approval process. Ms. Hardesty added that the Town
incorporates proactive measures into its code-enforcement efforts, while acknowledging that continuous
monitoring of individual properties would not be feasible.
Ms. Gerthoffer asked how the proposed ordinance would identify and treat LLC ownership. Ms. Morris
explained that an LLC would not qualify for purposes of the ADU owner-occupancy requirements
because a corporate entity cannot establish permanent residency. She noted that the Maryland State
Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) maintains records that could verify property ownership.
Ms. Morris distinguished LLC ownership from ownership through a living trust established for estateplanning purposes, explaining that a living trust could potentially qualify as a pass-through ownership
arrangement where the individual who established the trust retains the requisite ownership interest.
The discussion then turned to a proposed time-limited special exception available through the Board of
Appeals for circumstances in which a property owner temporarily could not satisfy the owner-occupancy
requirement. Ms. Morris explained that the provision was intended to address legitimate temporary
absences, such as military deployment or an elderly property owner relocating to assisted living while
retaining ownership of the property and relying on rental income. In such circumstances, the owner
could apply to the Board of Appeals for permission to rent both the principal dwelling and the ADU for a
limited period.
Ms. Morris clarified that the ordinance would not establish an exhaustive list of circumstances qualifying
for the exception. Rather, she said the Board of Appeals would consider each application individually and
determine whether good cause existed to temporarily waive the owner-occupancy requirement. She
confirmed that, if an exception were granted, an absent owner could be permitted to rent both the
principal dwelling and the ADU simultaneously for the approved period.
Members distinguished circumstances involving a legitimate need for temporary relocation from routine
seasonal absences, such as an owner choosing to reside in another state for several months. Members
also expressed concern about responsibility for property maintenance and neighborhood-related issues
during an owner’s absence. Ms. Morris noted that the Board of Appeals could impose appropriate
conditions as part of any approval. Members generally recognized the provision as a way to maintain the
ordinance’s owner-occupancy requirement while providing limited flexibility for circumstances
warranting temporary relief. Ms. Morris said it would be difficult to identify every possible qualifying
circumstance within the ordinance and that the Board of Appeals process would provide flexibility for
legitimate cases while ensuring exceptions were not automatically or easily granted.
She then reviewed proposed revisions to the amnesty program for existing ADUs. She noted that
observations of existing structures throughout Town suggested that some units may exceed the
proposed maximum of 600 square feet of livable space and that certain properties may contain more

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 7 of 68

than one existing unit. She indicated that properties containing multiple units would present separate
issues requiring review by the appropriate Town department.
To address existing ADUs exceeding the proposed 600-square-foot maximum, Ms. Morris presented a
new concept for consideration. Under the proposal, she said an existing ADU of up to 800 square feet
could potentially qualify for amnesty, subject to an additional ADU-related fee for the portion of the unit
exceeding 600 square feet. Existing ADUs larger than 800 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet could
be required to obtain approval from the Board of Appeals. Ms. Morris emphasized that the concept was
developed for discussion and invited members to provide direction on how larger existing units should
be treated.
Councilmember Orris questioned the rationale for allowing existing ADUs exceeding 600 square feet to
qualify for amnesty when newly established ADUs would be limited to 600 square feet. Ms. Morris
explained that applying a strict 600-square-foot limitation to existing units could create practical
difficulties for units that only modestly exceed the maximum. By way of example, she noted that an
otherwise qualifying 650-square-foot ADU could be rendered ineligible for amnesty or potentially
require physical alteration solely to comply with the size limitation. She asked whether members would
instead prefer to allow existing ADUs to qualify for amnesty regardless of size.
Members discussed the competing considerations associated with granting amnesty to larger existing
ADUs. Ms. Morris noted that larger units could have greater infrastructure impacts and suggested that
an additional fee could account for those impacts while still allowing an otherwise qualifying existing
unit to remain. Conversely, Mr. Cosby cautioned that unrestricted amnesty could unintentionally benefit
property owners who established dwelling units without complying with applicable requirements.
Mayor Tyndall emphasized the need for a practical mechanism to bring existing ADUs into compliance
and onto the Town’s official records. He noted that if the amnesty requirements were too restrictive,
owners might be discouraged from disclosing existing units. Ms. Hardesty added that registration or
licensing was important not only for regulatory purposes but also for public safety, noting that an
occupied accessory dwelling unknown to the Town or emergency responders could create challenges
during an emergency.
Ms. Morris explained that applicants seeking amnesty would be required to provide evidence that the
ADU existed before the applicable cutoff date, along with documentation of any building, electrical, and
plumbing approvals. She acknowledged, however, that some existing units may have been constructed
without all required permits.
Mr. Widdowson raised a separate concern about the construction sequence when a property owner
proposes both a primary dwelling and an ADU on a vacant lot. He noted that an applicant could
potentially obtain approval for both structures, construct and occupy the smaller ADU first, and
indefinitely postpone construction of the primary residence if the building permit contained no
meaningful completion deadline. Ms. Morris stated that the ordinance was intended to prevent that
outcome by requiring the ADU to be constructed concurrently with or after the primary dwelling.
Mr. Hall expressed concern that the proposed amnesty program could unintentionally incentivize owners
of existing garages, studios, or other accessory structures to claim those structures were already being
used as ADUs to receive more favorable treatment. He noted that the amnesty provisions could allow
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 8 of 68

greater square footage and reduced fees than the requirements applicable to a new ADU conversion.
Ms. Morris responded that an owner would need to provide evidence showing the structure was
occupied and used as an ADU as of October 1, 2025. Members discussed the challenges associated with
establishing historical use and the types of evidence that might be considered, including testimony from
neighbors and other supporting documentation.
Members also expressed concern that, despite the proposed cutoff date, the amnesty program could
encourage property owners to attempt to establish or characterize units as qualifying ADUs before the
amnesty application period closes. Ms. Morris reiterated that the requirement to demonstrate qualifying
use as of October 1, 2025, was intended to prevent that result. Mayor Tyndall emphasized the need for
an objective standard for determining eligibility and reiterated that the broader purpose of the amnesty
program was to encourage owners of existing unregistered ADUs to come forward so those units could
be documented and brought into compliance.
The group discussed the process that would apply after the proposed amnesty period ends on April 1,
2027. Ms. Morris explained that an owner who did not participate in the amnesty program would
thereafter be required to pursue approval through the standard process. Members raised questions
regarding properties containing multiple unregistered or noncompliant units, particularly because the
proposed amnesty program would not apply to multiple ADUs on a single property. They also questioned
how the Town would respond if an owner declined to seek amnesty and continued renting noncompliant units.
Ms. Morris stated that continuing violations would be subject to enforcement and fines. Mayor Tyndall
noted that the proposed penalties were being strengthened to more closely align with the Town’s shortterm rental enforcement provisions. Ms. Morris explained that the revised enforcement language would
provide an initial 30-day warning, followed by a $ 100-per-day fine and, for continued violations, $200
per day. She added that the Town could seek injunctive relief requiring an owner to discontinue unlawful
occupancy. Mayor Tyndall suggested the ordinance should also include an appropriate mechanism to
revoke or otherwise terminate ADU authorization when violations persist.
Councilmember Orris returned to oversized ADUs that had previously been created or occupied without
proper authorization. Ms. Morris described the proposed graduated approach, explaining that an
existing ADU between 600 and 800 square feet could qualify for amnesty upon payment of an additional
ADU-related fee, adding that an existing ADU greater than 800 but no more than 1,200 square feet
would require Board of Appeals approval and would also be subject to the additional fee. She noted that,
alternatively, the ordinance could require Board of Appeals approval for every existing ADU exceeding
600 square feet.
Councilmember Green supported retaining the graduated approach, noting that the 600-square-foot
limitation was itself a newly established standard and that some flexibility for existing units was
reasonable. Members also supported Board of Appeals review for substantially oversized units because
that process provides additional accountability, notice to neighboring property owners, and an
opportunity for public input. Mayor Tyndall observed that the proposed process would provide a
mechanism for bringing existing units into compliance without granting automatic approval. Following
further discussion, members expressed general support for the graduated approach while
acknowledging that no regulatory framework could anticipate every circumstance.
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 9 of 68

Councilmember Orris then asked the group to consider written comments from a Town resident about
potential stormwater impacts associated with ADU development. As summarized during the meeting,
the resident’s comments expressed concern about the long-term effects of ADU development on
impervious surface, particularly within impaired watersheds and areas with a history of flooding. The
comments noted that the Town’s existing stormwater regulations use a 5,000-square-foot disturbance
threshold, which may not adequately account for smaller development projects that incrementally
increase impervious surface over time.
Ms. Morris said the comments raised important issues but suggested stormwater management would
benefit from a broader, more comprehensive review rather than being addressed solely through the ADU
ordinance. She specifically raised concerns about situations where stormwater is discharged onto
another property and suggested documenting such arrangements through a recorded covenant or
similarly enforceable agreement rather than an informal letter of permission. Although she was not
opposed to incorporating stormwater-related provisions into the ADU ordinance, she questioned
whether a comprehensive amendment to the Town Code would be more appropriate.
Mr. Hall raised a related concern regarding whether the Town has a reliable baseline documenting
existing impervious surface on individual properties. Without such a baseline, he noted, it could be
difficult to measure cumulative impacts or determine when stormwater-management requirements
should apply. He suggested that building-permit applications for new ADU structures should, at a
minimum, document existing impervious surface and that the Town should consider establishing
minimum stormwater-management requirements for construction involving grading or other
development activity associated with ADUs.
Ms. Morris agreed these concepts warranted further consideration but said any ADU-specific
requirement should distinguish between new construction and converting an existing structure. She
noted that converting an existing building generally would not alter the structure’s existing stormwater
impact. Mr. Chandler observed, however, that a conversion could still increase impervious surface if
additional parking or other improvements were constructed in connection with the ADU.
Mayor Tyndall agreed that a comprehensive approach applicable to development generally might be
preferable to imposing requirements specifically on ADUs. As an interim measure, Ms. Morris suggested
adding language stating that building permits for new accessory dwellings are “encouraged” to
incorporate on-site stormwater management rather than making such measures mandatory. She noted
that engineered stormwater-management plans can impose significant design and cost requirements.
Members expressed support for encouraging on-site stormwater management for new ADU construction
while the Town undertakes a broader review of its stormwater regulations.
Members then discussed whether building-permit submissions would provide sufficient information to
identify impervious surfaces and track cumulative development. Mr. Hall raised concern that a property
owner could undertake several smaller projects over time, each falling below the 5,000-square-foot
threshold, while collectively creating a substantial increase in impervious surface. Ms. Hardesty
explained that the Town currently relies on surveys submitted with applications and calculates square
footage from those documents, referring projects that exceed the applicable threshold for additional
review. Mr. Pfeffer described practices used in other municipalities where applicants are required to
submit a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor identifying both pervious and impervious lot coverage.
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 10 of 68

He noted that such a requirement could provide property-specific information without requiring a Townwide mapping layer, although the Town would need to incorporate corresponding provisions into its
general code.
Mayor Tyndall summarized the revisions identified during the work session and indicated that Ms.
Morris would incorporate them into the ordinance. He stated that the proposed changes did not appear
to alter the ordinance so substantially as to preclude it from moving forward to the Public Hearing
scheduled during the Regular Session immediately following the work session. He then asked members
whether they were comfortable advancing the ordinance for consideration at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Hall sought clarification regarding the Planning Commission’s role in reviewing new ADU construction
and conversions. Ms. Morris confirmed that the Planning Commission would review applicable ADU
applications outside the Historic District, except for matters handled exclusively through the Board of
Appeals process.
With no further matters raised, Mayor Tyndall adjourned the work session and announced that the
regular session would begin approximately five minutes later. He directed Ms. Morris to incorporate the
revisions identified during the work session into the ordinance materials for presentation during the
Regular Session meeting.
Following no further comments, Mayor Tyndall adjourned the work session meeting at approximately
6:05 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Kate Daub
Associate Town Administrator
* R. Hardesty followed up with the appropriate agency of Worcester County and it was determined that
½ addresses were not permissible within the County, therefore the designation would need to be “Unit”
followed by a number or letter.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 11 of 68

Agenda Item 2 b
Reg. Session 09.28.26

BERLIN MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Meeting Minutes
Monday, September 28, 2026

6:00 PM

REGULAR SESSION – Worcester County Library – Berlin Branch

Present: Mayor Zackery Tyndall, Vice President Dean Burrell, Councilmembers Steve Green, Jay Knerr,
Shaneka Nichols, and Jack Orris.
Staff Present: Town Administrator Mary Bohlen, Associate Town Administrator Kate Daub, Finance Director
Natalie Saleh, Police Chief Howard Drewer, Acting Planning Director Ryan Hardesty, Water Resources
Director Jamey Latchum, Public Works Director Jimmy Charles, Mayor’s Executive Assistant Sara Gorfinkel,
and Human Resources Director Kelsey Jensen.
This meeting was also broadcast live via Facebook. After the moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance,
Mayor Tyndall called the meeting to order at approximately 6:21 PM.
1. Approval of Minutes:
a) Work Session Minutes of 9.14.26
b) Regular Session Minutes of 9.14.26
On the motion of Councilmember Orris, seconded by Councilmember Knerr, the minutes of 9.14.26 were
approved by the following vote:
Name
Dean Burrell, VP
Steve Green
Jay Knerr
Shaneka Nichols
Jack Orris
Voting Tally

Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
X
X
X
X
X
5

Recused

Absent

2. Presentation(s):
a) Citation – Recognition of Town Administrator Mary Bohlen’s Years of Service and Retirement
Mayor Tyndall recognized Town Administrator Mary Bohlen during what he described as her final Mayor
and Council meeting after 35 years of service to the Town of Berlin. He noted that although she agreed
to remain with the town through the municipal election process because of the Town Administrator's
responsibilities in conducting elections, this would be her last regular council meeting. He thanked
her for agreeing to stay on through that period and expressed the town's appreciation for her
dedication. Mayor Tyndall presented her with flowers on behalf of the Mayor, Council, town
employees, and residents, and mentioned that a retirement celebration was planned for the following
week.
As he read a formal citation, Mayor Tyndall reflected on Ms. Bohlen's long career, noting that she
began working for the town on July 5, 1991. He said she had begun in customer service before
serving as Grants Administrator, Special Projects Administrator, Deputy Town Administrator, Acting
Town Administrator on multiple occasions, and eventually Town Administrator. He remarked that it
took some persuasion to convince her to accept the Town Administrator role, but said she did a
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 12 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

fabulous job in the position. He said many of the administration's accomplishments would not have
been possible without her support and assistance. He thanked her for her leadership, dedication,
and commitment to Berlin's residents, visitors, and employees, describing her contributions as
invaluable and recognizing her steady presence over three and a half decades of service.
b) Summary of Reconnecting Neighborhoods Grant, work completed in Phase 1 and plans for Phase 2
Mayor’s Office Executive Assistant Sara Gorfinkel and Bike and Pedestrian Coalition Chairperson
Patti Stevens attended the meeting to present. Mayor Tyndall thanked them for their work on the
project. He said they had successfully navigated numerous challenges, including funding
reductions, efforts to restore funding, community engagement, and changes in vendors and agency
personnel. He described their work as phenomenal and said the town was extremely grateful for
their efforts.
Ms. Gorfinkel explained that the project's most significant outcome was that Berlin had successfully
moved into Phase 2 of the grant process. She said this had not been guaranteed after a large portion
of the project's funding was rescinded. She noted that the grant's original concept was to build a
pedestrian bridge over Route 113, but the feasibility study and extensive public engagement during
Phase 1 ultimately steered the project in a different direction. She said the study revealed that Berlin
would be better served by lowering speed limits along Route 113, improving pedestrian crossings at
major intersections, and creating a shared-use path along the corridor.
Ms. Gorfinkel reviewed the background information used in the original grant application, explaining
that Route 113 creates both physical and socioeconomic divisions within Berlin. She said residents
on the eastern side of the highway face challenges accessing destinations such as the grocery store,
hospital, and other community resources due to limited pedestrian connectivity. Working with
engineers through the Maryland Department of Transportation, the town studied three major
intersections along Route 113: Old Ocean City Boulevard, Flower Street, and Main
Street/Germantown Road. She said the analysis focused on both where people needed to travel and
the obstacles they faced when crossing.
She explained that engineers initially explored possible locations for a pedestrian bridge, particularly
near Henry Park where land ownership issues would be less complicated. However, Ms. Gorfinkel
said that throughout the public engagement process, residents repeatedly expressed concerns that
a bridge would not be convenient for everyday travel. She said people noted that they would often
have to go significantly out of their way to reach the bridge and believed many residents would
continue crossing Route 113 at grade rather than using a distant structure.
As a result, Ms. Gorfinkel said the study concluded that spending a large amount of money on a
single bridge serving only one location was not the most effective solution. She explained that the
bridge would also create ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the town. Instead, the study
recommended focusing on three strategies: lowering speed limits, improving pedestrian
accommodation at all major intersections, and designing a shared-use path. She said those
improvements would benefit the entire corridor and could be achieved at a much lower cost.
Discussing progress already made, Ms. Gorfinkel reported that conversations with Maryland State
Highway Administration District 1 officials had been very encouraging. She said the state indicated
that reducing speed limits along Route 113 was feasible and could be accomplished relatively
quickly through coordination among the appropriate agencies. She also said site visits with state
engineers produced immediate results. When officials reviewed conditions near the hospital and
Food Lion, they recognized that pedestrian infrastructure improvements were incomplete and
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 13 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

agreed additional work was needed to improve safety. According to Ms. Gorfinkel, District 1 had
already begun reviewing opportunities to use existing highway safety funding to make improvements
at those locations without requiring town funding.
She also spoke about plans for a shared-use path along Route 113. Although she acknowledged
numerous technical challenges involving design, easements, and engineering, she said state
officials viewed the concept very favorably and considered it a practical way to improve mobility and
connectivity throughout Berlin. Ms. Gorfinkel added that she now felt much more confident these
improvements would be completed than she had about the original bridge proposal.
Turning to funding, Ms. Gorfinkel credited Mayor Tyndall’s advocacy efforts to help the town recover
from the loss of federal dollars. She explained that, through discussions with transportation officials
and help from the National League of Cities, the town identified an unused federal earmark it could
redirect to Berlin. She said the town could combine those funds with County Rails to Trails funding
already available, allowing Berlin to meet matching requirements and move into the next phase. The
resulting funding package will support design work, pre-construction activities, and further planning
for the recommended improvements.
Ms. Stevens then described what she called a major shift in attitude among state transportation
officials over the course of the project. She said that through public meetings, community feedback,
data collection, photographs, and presentations, what originally seemed like an ambitious vision
gradually became viewed as a common-sense transportation solution. She recalled that residents
consistently explained why a single pedestrian bridge would not fit the way people actually move
around Berlin. She said those practical observations helped transportation officials better
understand the community's needs.
Ms. Stevens added that transportation engineers often bring solutions that work well in larger urban
settings but are less effective in smaller rural communities. She said the town's extensive public
engagement process successfully communicated those distinctions and helped shape a more
appropriate plan for Berlin. She reported that she and Ms. Gorfinkel had recently drafted the scope
of work for Phase 2 and submitted it to the state, which was already moving it through the
contracting process. According to Ms. Stevens, consultants would soon begin design work related to
the recommended improvements.
She also noted that state transportation officials had expanded their focus beyond the project's
original scope. After observing students and residents walking along Old Ocean City Boulevard and
other nearby areas, the state committed to pursuing additional improvements there as well. Ms.
Stevens concluded by saying that the project had evolved into something more beneficial than
originally envisioned. She expressed excitement that Berlin now had an opportunity to achieve
broader safety and connectivity improvements that would serve more residents than the originally
proposed pedestrian bridge.
Councilmembers supported the project's direction and noted that the new recommendations
seemed far more achievable than the original bridge proposal. Councilmembers raised questions
about sidewalk improvements along Old Ocean City Boulevard west of Main Street. Ms. Gorfinkel
explained that the state had identified pedestrian accessibility and connectivity improvements in
that area as an important need. She said the town has advocated for sidewalks along Old Ocean City
Boulevard for years through multiple channels, including annual transportation priority requests to
the state. While state officials have acknowledged the need, she explained that available
construction funding remains limited because projects not already included in the state's six-year
transportation plan face significant funding challenges.
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 14 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

The discussion also touched on recently installed crosswalk improvements. Ms. Gorfinkel explained
that town officials' years of advocacy led to those enhancements. She noted that staff consistently
raised the need for crosswalks during meetings with state transportation officials and that the visible
improvements now appearing throughout town reflected those continuing efforts. Mayor Tyndall
added that the town is still discussing additional safety enhancements near the war memorial
intersection, including roadway markings intended to improve driver awareness without adversely
affecting the area's appearance.
Several councilmembers expressed excitement that public participation had significantly influenced
the project's outcome. Councilmember Orris said many residents who attended meetings and
shared their thoughts helped shape a solution that was more practical and beneficial than the
original concept. He also expressed satisfaction that the council was leveraging funding from the
former Rails to Trails initiative as part of the overall funding strategy. Ms. Gorfinkel clarified that while
portions of existing funding were being used as matching funds for grant requirements, the broader
Rails to Trails concept had not been abandoned and remained a separate initiative for future
consideration.
Ms. Gorfinkel added that while the pedestrian bridge may no longer move forward, she remained
proud of the original proposal. She explained that the ambitious bridge concept likely helped Berlin
secure the federal grant because the program specifically sought bold, transformative ideas that
would reconnect divided communities. She said the bridge concept allowed the town to secure
funding and begin a process that ultimately identified more effective solutions. Ms. Stevens agreed,
explaining that the real objective had always been to solve the challenges created by Route 113 and
reconnect neighborhoods within Berlin. In her view, the town had successfully achieved that
objective by identifying a comprehensive set of improvements that could realistically be
implemented.
Mayor Tyndall observed that the outcome also demonstrated that local government in Berlin
responds to public feedback rather than simply pursuing predetermined plans. He said the process
proved that community engagement can directly influence decision-making and produce tangible
results. Ms. Stevens also noted that this effort has expanded Berlin's leadership role in statewide
pedestrian safety discussions. She explained that local officials now have direct relationships with
state leaders working on pedestrian safety initiatives and expressed confidence that Berlin could
become a model community for transportation and pedestrian improvements elsewhere in
Maryland.
4. Public Hearing(s): (First Readings held on Monday, September 14, 2026)
a) Ordinance 2026-06: Amending Chapter 16, Entitled Fire Prevention and Protection, Article II, Entitled
Outdoor Burning
Acting Planning Director Ryan Hardesty presented Ordinance 2026-06, which amended Chapter 16 of
the town code on fire prevention and protection, specifically outdoor burning regulations. Ms.
Hardesty explained that the ordinance established additional requirements for authorized burns and
clarified notification responsibilities.
Mayor Tyndall opened the public hearing at 6:41 PM.
Following no public comments, Mayor Tyndall closed the public hearing at 6:42 PM.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 15 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

On the motion of Councilmember Orris, seconded by Vice President Burrell, Ordinance 2026-06:
Amending Chapter 16, Entitled Fire Prevention and Protection, Article II, Entitled Outdoor
Burning, was approved by the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5
5. Discussion(s):
a) Sale of Parcel 57
The Council considered the sale of Parcel 57 to Coastal Ventures Properties, LLC, which had assigned
its interests to Heron Park Development LLC under provisions already in the development agreement.
Mayor Tyndall directed council members to a revised settlement sheet included in their meeting
packets.
He explained that one proposed change involved reimbursement for a previously approved traffic
study costing $14,250. While the council had already agreed to reimburse that expense, he noted that
the original arrangement called for reimbursement after closing. He added that the developer
requested that the payment be included directly on the settlement statement so the funds would be
deducted at closing.
Mayor Tyndall further explained that the developer requested reimbursement for one-half of the costs
of engineering and design work evaluating the possibility of a four-way stop at the intersection near
Cheers and Old Ocean City Boulevard. He reported that the total study cost was $4,500, with the
developer requesting that the town pay $2,250 and the developer absorb the remaining half. Because
that reimbursement exceeded what the council had originally approved, he explained that it required
additional authorization.
Additionally, Mayor Tyndall explained that the study evaluated whether a four-way stop might be
appropriate at the intersection but did not guarantee that a four-way stop would ultimately be installed.
Rather, he said the study was intended to provide engineering analysis and recommendations. He then
explained that the developer had already paid for the study and was asking the town to share in the
expense after the fact.
On the motion of Councilmember Knerr, seconded by Councilmember Orris, motion to approve
the Parcel 57 settlement sheet, including the town's $2,250 share of the cost, was approved by
the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 16 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

Voting Tally

5

b) Sidewalks
Town Attorney David Gaskill revisited a discussion that began during an August 10th Mayor and Council
meeting about whether the town should assume responsibility for repairing and maintaining sidewalks
along town streets. Mr. Gaskill explained that the council's general direction appeared to favor shifting
responsibility for structural sidewalk repairs from individual property owners to the town. Ms. Bohlen
noted that staff had continued exploring what such a program would look like and needed additional
guidance regarding practical issues such as snow removal, routine maintenance, and ongoing
responsibilities if the town assumed greater ownership of sidewalk repairs.
Councilmember Orris clarified that he did not get the impression from the group that the intent was
not to have the town construct new sidewalks but rather to repair and maintain existing ones. The
discussion then shifted to new development requirements. Vice President Burrell questioned whether
current rules requiring sidewalks in front of certain new homes always make sense, citing examples of
isolated sidewalk segments that do not connect to any larger pedestrian network. Mayor Tyndall
suggested that requiring sidewalks in every circumstance can impose unnecessary costs on builders
and property owners while providing little public benefit.
The Council also discussed how any expanded repair program would interact with the town budget.
Ms. Bohlen explained that the existing cost-share program already depends on annual funding
appropriations and suggested that any future sidewalk repair program should remain subject to
available budgeted funds. A lengthy discussion followed regarding what exactly constitutes
"maintenance." Councilmember Knerr said he envisioned the town assuming responsibility only for
structural repairs, while leaving snow removal, weeding, debris removal, and similar routine upkeep
to adjacent property owners.
Discussion then turned to a pending sidewalk-related request from the Berlin Fire Company. Mayor
Tyndall explained that the Fire Company had applied through the town's existing sidewalk cost-share
program. Although the request involves sidewalk repairs, he said the sidewalk is closely connected to
a driveway used by emergency vehicles entering and exiting the fire station. Mayor Tyndall
acknowledged that approving assistance for the fire company could set a precedent for other property
owners seeking similar help where driveways and sidewalks overlap.
He continued, saying the Fire Company request should move forward because of its public safety
importance, while also recognizing that the broader policy implications needed further study.
Questions were also raised regarding permitting requirements. Ms. Hardesty explained that permits
would still be required for sidewalk work occurring within the public right-of-way, both to ensure
compliance with standards and to allow the town to review proposed repairs.
The discussion concluded with concerns about fairness and consistency. Mayor Tyndall pointed out
that many sidewalks in Berlin front state highways such as Main Street, Broad Street, and Bay Street
rather than town-owned roadways. He asked how residents would react if the town funded repairs on
municipal streets but not on state-owned roads. The Council acknowledged that such a policy could
create tension among residents and agreed that it would require further evaluation before finalizing
any ordinance revisions.
Questions were raised about how towns such as Snow Hill, Pocomoke City, Ocean City, and even
communities like Montego Bay handle sidewalk ownership, repairs, and cost recovery. Mr. Gaskill
described how residents in Ocean City's Montego Bay community received notice that sidewalks
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 17 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

would be replaced and were then billed for the work. Mayor Tyndall asked staff to research how nearby
jurisdictions manage sidewalk repairs, what cost-sharing mechanisms they use, and how they
address situations where property owners fail to pay.
The conversation then shifted to Walnut Hill, where ongoing sidewalk deterioration has created public
safety concerns. Councilmember Green recommended beginning to evaluate the most critical
sidewalk repair areas and estimate costs so available budgeted funds could potentially address the
worst conditions. Public Works Director Jimmy Charles explained that the town had already examined
sidewalk conditions in Walnut Hill and had estimates related to potential repairs. However, he noted
that ownership questions remain unresolved because the town owns the streets, but not necessarily
the sidewalks.
Mayor Tyndall explained that adopting the ordinance discussed earlier could resolve some ownership
questions, but it would also create new policy challenges that should be carefully considered before
moving forward. Mr. Gaskill noted that Walnut Hill's situation is further complicated by the
neighborhood's homeowner’s association and the mature walnut trees that largely damage many
sidewalks. According to Mr. Gaskill, the HOA governing documents assign responsibility for the trees
to the community, and the neighborhood's design and identity intentionally incorporated them.
Councilmembers discussed whether public funds should repeatedly repair sidewalks that tree roots
will continue to damage over time. Vice President Burrell argued that if taxpayer dollars are spent on
sidewalk repairs, the repairs should provide long-term value and not require recurring reconstruction
every few years. Mayor Tyndall noted that discussions with Walnut Hill representatives have been
ongoing for years and that staff has explored alternatives that could improve safety without simply
recreating the same conditions that caused the sidewalks to fail. He emphasized that public safety is
the primary concern, especially in areas where children and pedestrians risk tripping and falling.
While several members supported finding a solution, they agreed that additional consideration is
needed before spending any of the currently budgeted sidewalk funds. Ms. Bohlen indicated that the
money remains available during the current fiscal year and that there is no immediate pressure to
commit the funds before policy questions are resolved. Mayor Tyndall directed staff to continue
researching options and return with information organized around key policy questions for a future
discussion.
4.

(Continued) Public Hearing(s): (First Reading held on Monday, September 14, 2026)
b)

Ordinance 2026-07: Amending Chapter 108, by adding a new section 719 in Section of Article II,
Entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units”
Mayor Tyndall introduced Town Legal Consultant Emily Morris to review revisions to the proposed
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance discussed during the evening’s earlier joint work session
with the Planning Commission. As she walked through the proposed changes, Ms. Morris explained
that the ordinance defines a dwelling unit as a single residential unit that provides complete and
independent living facilities for no more than two adults. She said the definition includes permanent
provisions for sanitation, cooking, eating, sleeping, toileting, bathing, and other functions associated
with daily living. She added that the ordinance would allow up to two children or wards, age 17 or
younger, to live with the adult occupants. Ms. Morris noted that the definition specifically excludes
multifamily apartment units, manufactured homes not attached to permanent foundations, mobile
homes, recreational vehicles, trailers, and other structures designed to be relocated.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 18 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

Continuing her presentation, Ms. Morris reviewed provisions governing detached accessory dwelling
units. She explained that a detached ADU could be constructed at the same time as the principal
residence, but it could not be occupied until the primary dwelling had been fully completed and was
ready for occupancy. She also highlighted a requirement that each approved ADU receive a separate
half-address to assist emergency responders and support public safety needs.
Ms. Morris then discussed newly added stormwater management language. She said the ordinance
encourages applicants, whenever feasible, to incorporate on-site stormwater management
practices capable of addressing runoff generated by the ADU and any associated impervious
surfaces such as driveways, additions, or decks. She noted that recommended methods could
include rain gardens, dry wells, rainwater harvesting systems, and other stormwater management
techniques already recognized elsewhere in the town code. Mayor Tyndall directed council members
and residents to several sections of the meeting packet, including the full ordinance text, a markedup version showing revisions discussed during prior work sessions, and a summary document
outlining the proposal. Ms. Bohlen clarified that the marked-up version included in the packet did not
yet reflect the latest changes reviewed during the meeting.
During the discussion, Councilmember Orris thanked Ms. Morris for adding stormwater
management language to the ordinance and said he was encouraged to hear that a broader review of
the town’s stormwater regulations was being considered. He stated that Berlin's stormwater policies
are overdue for a comprehensive evaluation and viewed the ADU ordinance as only one piece of a
much larger conversation about flooding, drainage, and runoff throughout the community.
Mayor Tyndall then opened the public hearing at 7:17 PM. Before taking comments, he provided a
reminder that Maryland law requires municipalities to adopt accessory dwelling unit regulations by
October 1st, 2026.
Resident Edward Hammond said he strongly supported the inclusion of stormwater management
provisions in the ordinance but believed those requirements should be mandatory rather than
voluntary. He argued that allowing accessory dwelling units will inevitably increase impervious
surface coverage throughout town and said it would not be unreasonable to require property owners
to mitigate the additional runoff created by those improvements.
While thanking the Mayor and Council for including stormwater considerations in the draft, Mr.
Hammond described the provision as only a first step. He said Berlin continues to struggle with
flooding and drainage problems that have been compounded by development decisions made over
many years. He pointed to recent examples where additional impervious surfaces had been added in
areas already experiencing drainage issues and expressed concern that existing regulations do not
adequately address cumulative impacts over time. He encouraged the Council to view the ADU
ordinance as the beginning of a larger effort to modernize the town’s stormwater management
standards, noting that Berlin has already spent significant time, money, and resources addressing
flooding issues that could potentially be reduced through stronger stormwater requirements.
Mayor Tyndall closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 PM.
On the motion of Councilmember Green, seconded by Councilmember Orris, motion to approve
Ordinance 2026-07: Amending Chapter 108, by adding a new section 719 in Section of Article II,
Entitled “Accessory Dwelling Units”, was approved by the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 19 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

Jay Knerr
Shaneka Nichols
Jack Orris
Voting Tally

X
X
X
5

6. Items) for Approval:
Mayor Tyndall revised the agenda to consider Item 6d first to accommodate those in attendance on behalf
of the motion.
c) Motion 2026-37: Real Property Tax Abatement 9930 Deer Park Road
Mr. Gaskill explained that the Council had discussed the matter earlier in the summer, but took no
formal action then. He said the item was returning to the agenda so the Council could complete the
process. Mayor Tyndall asked whether Council members had any questions. Hearing none, he
invited comments from the property owners, Michael and Kathy Cluster, who were present at the
meeting. They indicated they simply hoped to have the matter finalized. Mayor Tyndall responded
that the town also wanted to help them resolve the issue.
On the motion of Councilmember Orris, seconded by Councilmember Nichols, motion to approve
Motion 2026-37: Real Property Tax Abatement 9930 Deer Park Road, was approved by the following
vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5
Following the vote, staff discussed logistical details regarding signatures and final paperwork. Ms.
Bohlen explained that clean copies of the documents would be available the following morning and
coordinated with the property owners and Mayor Tyndall to obtain the necessary signatures.
a) Resolution 2026-07: Re-establish Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Financing Policy
Ms. Bohlen explained that the resolution reflected the direction discussed at the previous Council
meeting. She said the revised policy creates two financing tiers, noting that Tier One applies to one
through three EDUs and allows repayment over a twenty-four-month period, and Tier Two applies to
four or more EDUs. She explained that the policy also establishes a five-percent financing and
administrative fee.
She also noted that several provisions already contained within existing agreements, including the
town's ability to place a lien on a property for nonpayment, remain unchanged. She reminded the
Council that the policy would be applied on a case-by-case basis and would primarily serve as a tool
that could be used when needed rather than something automatically applied to every situation. She
said the intent was to have a policy in place so future Councils would not need to revisit the issue each
time a financing request arose.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 20 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

Councilmember Orris asked whether the title should be modified to clarify that the financing policy
applies only to situations involving EDU compliance or "true-up" calculations rather than new
development. Ms. Bohlen responded that the resolution already states it applies when additional
EDUs are required based on actual usage determinations.
On the motion of Councilmember Knerr, seconded by Vice President Burrell, Resolution 2026-07:
Re-establish Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) Financing Policy, was approved by the following
vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5
b) Resolution 2026-08: Updated Town Fee Schedule to include addition of ADU-related permit fees
Ms. Morris presented Resolution 2026-08 to update the Town fee schedule to include permit fees and
enforcement provisions associated with the newly adopted ADU regulations. Ms. Morris explained
that the proposed schedule includes a $300 amnesty registration fee and a $500 registration fee
thereafter. She said conversions of existing accessory structures would be charged $350, reflecting
the Town's desire to encourage the reuse and conversion of existing buildings instead of the
construction of entirely new structures.
Ms. Morris also described a new certificate process through which property owners may obtain an
official document verifying that an accessory structure has been authorized as an ADU. She said
some owners may choose to record the certificate voluntarily, while in certain cases involving
historic district approvals or environmental considerations, it would be required. She added that the
proposed fee for that certificate would be $150.
She further explained that the resolution establishes fines for unregistered ADUs beginning April 1,
2027. Under the proposal, she explained that properties operating an unregistered ADU would be
subject to a $100-per-day fine. If the violation continued after a thirty-day warning period, she noted
the penalty would increase to $200 per day. Ms. Morris said separate housing code violations would
carry fines of $100 per week until certificate-of-occupancy issues were resolved.
Councilmember Knerr asked whether thirty days would provide sufficient time for a property owner
to come into compliance after receiving a notice of violation. Ms. Morris explained that the purpose
of the thirty-day period was not to allow enough time to complete permits, inspections, and
construction corrections. Instead, she said the expectation would be that the owner cease the
unauthorized use of the dwelling unit until compliance could be achieved. Councilmember Nichols
then raised concerns about situations involving tenants already living in an unregistered ADU and
questioned whether renters could have legal protections requiring additional notice before vacating.
Ms. Morris responded that landlord-tenant law was outside her area of expertise, and the discussion
was poised to continue into broader questions about enforcement and tenant rights.
Councilmember Nichols sought clarification about how the proposed ADU enforcement process
would work when tenants were already occupying an unauthorized unit. Ms. Morris said she could
not speak in detail about landlord-tenant law but noted that the ordinance provides the Town with
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 21 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

the ability to seek injunctive relief through the courts if necessary. Councilmember Knerr said his
concern was that tenant removal can be a lengthy process and asked whether the Town could
quickly require a tenant to vacate. Ms. Morris responded that such matters are generally not the
Town’s responsibility. She explained that the Town’s role is to ensure the property owner complies
with local regulations. If a property owner chooses to rent a unit that is not legally authorized, she
said that responsibility rests with the owner rather than the Town.
The discussion continued as Councilmember Nichols described potential situations in which a
tenant refuses to vacate an unauthorized ADU after the property owner is notified of a violation. Ms.
Morris emphasized that the Town’s enforcement efforts would be directed at the property owner, not
the tenant. She explained that the Town would continue assessing fines until the property was
brought into compliance and would not waive penalties simply because the owner had chosen to
lease a unit that was not legally authorized. While acknowledging that these situations could create
challenges for property owners, she reiterated that landlord-tenant disputes fall outside the Town’s
responsibility and that compliance with local regulations ultimately rests with the property owner.
The conversation then shifted to the administration of the Town’s growing inventory of licensing and
registration programs. Councilmember Orris noted that the Planning Department is now responsible
for tracking rental licenses and business licenses and asked whether additional software resources
might eventually be necessary to manage ADUs, short-term rentals, and related programs. Ms.
Hardesty explained that the Town already has access to a module within its existing Tyler
Technologies software system that is designed to handle those functions. She said the Town is
currently awaiting final authorization from Tyler before the module can be fully deployed and utilized.
Ms. Morris also informed the Council that the ADU ordinance was designed to accommodate future
impact fees for larger units. She explained that the fee structure is tied to the size of the ADU relative
to the primary residence and includes a formula that can be adjusted once the Town completes its
impact fee study. Mayor Tyndall added that Beacon was prepared to present information related to
the study and staff were working through scheduling for a future presentation. Ms. Morris further
highlighted a provision that allows residents who are at least 65 years old or who are recognized as
disabled by the Social Security Administration to request a waiver of certain ADU-related fees.
Councilmembers expressed appreciation for the inclusion of that provision.
On the motion of Councilmember Green, seconded by Councilmember Nichols, Resolution
2026-08: Updated Town Fee Schedule to include addition of ADU-related permit fees, was
approved by the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5
d)

Motion 2026-56: Recommendation of Bid Award for RFP #2026-03 Berlin Lead Service Line
Replacement, Phase 1 A
Mr. Nicholas Bradley with DBF Engineering presented the motion for approval to award the
construction contract to Teal Construction in the amount of $1,938,930. He explained that bids had
originally been received on April 1st and his team had spent the intervening months securing
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 22 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

additional funding necessary to proceed with construction. Mr. Bradley noted that additional funding
had recently been approved through the Maryland Board of Public Works, allowing the project to
move forward.
Councilmember Orris asked whether Teal Construction was a new contractor for the Town. Water
Resources Director Jamey Latchum indicated that the company had worked on previous projects and
was highly qualified for this type of work.
On the motion of Vice President Burrell, seconded by Councilmember Knerr, Motion 2026-56:
Recommendation of Bid Award for RFP #2026-03 Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1
A, was approved by the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5
7. Reports: Town Administrator’s Report/Department Reports
Associate Town Administrator Kate Daub reminded the group that upcoming meetings would be held
at alternative locations because of scheduling limitations at Town Hall. She explained that all
October meetings, as well as the first meeting in November, would take place at Buckingham
Presbyterian Church on South Main Street. She also said a work session scheduled for October 19th
would be held at the Berlin Police Department.
Mayor Tyndall noted that the October 13th meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m. because Town Code
requires the organizational meeting following the municipal election to be held at that time. He
explained that the meeting would begin with routine business before transitioning into the swearingin of newly elected council members. He also reviewed the municipal election results. Because no
write-in candidates filed by the required deadline, he said the election was canceled. As a result, the
incumbents and unopposed candidates would assume office without a formal election.
Councilmember Knerr was congratulated on his reelection, while incoming council members Tony
Weeg and Matt Stoehr were congratulated on their election to the Council. Mayor Tyndall also noted
that Councilmember Green would be transitioning to a role as County Commissioner and Vice
President Burrell would be concluding his service, with both recognized for their contributions to the
Town. He reminded outgoing members that their final official meeting would be October 13th.
Ms. Bohlen then reiterated that this would be her final Council meeting and reflected briefly on her
service. She said it had been an honor and a privilege to serve the Town and thanked them for the
opportunity. Mayor Tyndall thanked her for her work and service.
Mayor Tyndall also recognized that Wastewater Superintendent Jamey Latchum had earned his Class
6 Wastewater Spray Irrigation certification and is now one of only two individuals in the State of
Maryland with that designation.
8. Comments from the Public

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 23 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

Mr. Richard Dize of Pitts Street addressed the Mayor and Council regarding ongoing parking problems
on his street. He said residents and visitors routinely park in front of fire hydrants, block sidewalks,
and obstruct driveways. He said he has seen vehicles parked entirely on sidewalks, forcing
pedestrians into the roadway. However, he said the issue that most frequently affects him is vehicles
blocking his driveway, which he stated occurs almost every weekend.
Mr. Dize said he regularly contacts the Police Department when vehicles block his driveway, and
officers typically respond quickly. He explained that officers often locate the owner of the vehicle and
have it moved, but in his experience citations are rarely issued. He argued that motorists should be
fined for blocking driveways rather than simply being told to move. Mr. Dize described situations in
which he was unable to get into or out of his driveway because vehicles were parked across it and
expressed frustration that violators faced no consequences beyond being asked to relocate their cars.
He said the issue had reached a point where he no longer felt sympathetic toward offenders and
wanted stronger enforcement. He added that police officers had suggested he bring the matter to the
attention of the Council for consideration.
Police Chief Howard Drewer stated that the issue had already been discussed during a department
head meeting. He explained that the Town had recently ordered four “No Parking, Do Not Block
Driveway” signs that could potentially be installed in problem areas. He noted that similar concerns
had been raised by other residents, including Mayor Tyndall, and that his department had explored
possible curb-marking solutions.
Mr. Bartosz Rafinski addressed the Council regarding the Town’s smart meter opt-out fee case before
the Maryland Public Service Commission. He said Council members have a responsibility to oversee
Town administration and questioned the validity of a cost analysis submitted to support the opt-out
fee. Mr. Rafinski argued that the study overstated both the time required to read meters and the
administrative work associated with processing meter readings. Using his own calculations, he
contended that the figures presented were inconsistent with the electric department’s budget and did
not accurately reflect actual operating costs.
Mr. Rafinski also raised concerns about the case's legal expenses. He said records he obtained
showed approximately $30,000 in legal fees had been incurred through the end of August and argued
that the Town was spending significant taxpayer funds to defend a fee that affects only a small
number of customers. He questioned whether the fee's potential revenue would justify the ongoing
expense and urged the Council to reconsider eliminating the smart meter opt-out fee altogether. He
concluded that residents already pay substantial taxes and utility costs and should not have to pay
additional fees to opt out of smart meters.
9. Comments from the Council
Councilmember Orris revisited his interest in participating in any future comprehensive review of the
Town's stormwater regulations. He said he would welcome the opportunity to assist staff and
contribute to the discussion as the process moves forward. He asked Chief Drewer about changes
involving automated traffic enforcement. Specifically, he asked whether municipalities now have
greater authority to establish speed-camera corridors outside traditional school zones.
Chief Drewer responded that the issue remains more complicated than it may appear. He explained
that ongoing litigation and regulatory questions about automated enforcement systems, including
speed cameras and red-light cameras, have created uncertainty about implementation. He said
speed cameras remain primarily limited to designated school zones, and broader expansion into
other corridors, particularly state-controlled roadways, remains under debate. Downing noted that
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 24 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

past discussions about Route 50 faced challenges because the roadway falls under the jurisdiction
of the Maryland State Highway Administration. He offered to provide Orris with additional information
as more guidance becomes available.
Councilmember Orris thanked the Police Department for increased patrols in the West Street and
Abbey Lane area, noting that residents had observed both the additional enforcement presence and
Chief Downing's direct involvement. He said residents appreciated the extra attention.
He also briefly revisited the Town Hall renovations, noting the project appears to be progressing well.
Looking ahead, he said he would like the Council to revisit discussions regarding the future of the
Welcome Center building. Councilmember Orris referenced prior presentations and meetings with
interested parties and suggested the Council keep the issue on its radar as renovation work
continues.
Finally, Councilmember Orris shared a resident-raised idea regarding the future community center
project. He asked whether the site could have a display or information board to keep the public
informed about the project's progress. Ms. Gorfinkel responded that a QR code linking to updated
project information would likely be a more effective and cost-efficient solution than printed
materials, since it would allow real-time updates.
Councilmember Greene raised the issue of the Town's proposed smart meter opt-out fee. He said
that after further consideration, reviewing information related to the Public Service Commission
case, and observing a video showing how quickly a manual meter reading could be completed, he
regretted his vote in support of the proposed $17 monthly opt-out charge. He explained that he had
recently discussed the matter with legal counsel and understood that if the Public Service
Commission approves the proposed tariff, the Town would be required to charge the approved
amount and would be unable to simply alter or waive the fee without going through an additional
regulatory process. Because a decision in the case is not expected until December, Councilmember
Green said he believed the Council still has an opportunity to reconsider its position before a final
ruling is issued.
While emphasizing that he still supports the one-time opt-out fee approved as part of the program,
he said he no longer supports the ongoing monthly charge. He noted that a $17 monthly fee amounts
to more than $200 annually and exceeds $2,000 over a ten-year period for residents who choose not
to participate in the smart meter program. Councilmember Green then made a motion directing staff
and legal counsel to explore available options with the Public Service Commission to delay or modify
the pending proceeding related to the monthly opt-out fee. He said his goal was to preserve the
Council's ability, and potentially the ability of the incoming Council, to reconsider whether the
monthly charge is appropriate before a final decision is rendered.
Mayor Tyndall responded that the matter is more complicated than simply reversing course. He
noted that the Town has already invested significant time and money in the Public Service
Commission process, including legal expenses, filings, and hearings. He cautioned that substantially
changing direction at this late stage could require repeating portions of that process in the future.
Mayor Tyndall also defended the rationale behind the fee, stating that residents who choose to opt
out are requesting an alternative service method that requires additional staff time and separate
administrative processes. He argued that without a cost recovery mechanism, the expense
associated with servicing those accounts would effectively be shifted to other utility customers. He
acknowledged frustrations with the regulatory process itself and reiterated that municipalities have

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 25 of 68

Reg. Session 09.28.26

long advocated for greater local control over utility matters, but said current state law requires the
Town to follow Public Service Commission procedures.
Finance Director Natalie Saleh explained that the opt-out program requires the Town to operate two
separate systems simultaneously. They said maintaining mechanical meters, scheduling and
conducting manual meter reads, creating separate data entry processes, generating specialized
billing records, and preserving equipment and expertise for a small subset of customers all create
ongoing administrative and operational costs. Ms. Bohlen noted that the formal position of the Public
Service Commission and of the Office of People’s Council was that any customer who opts out of the
smart meter program must bear the cost and that the rest of the customer base should not subsidize
those customers. She also emphasized that while serving ten customers may not seem significant
today, the Town must establish a structure capable of handling future participation and ensuring
costs associated with the opt-out program are properly accounted for.
As the discussion concluded, attention returned to Councilmember Green's motion. Mayor Tyndall
stated that his concerns appeared to be more appropriately addressed through a legal inquiry rather
than a formal motion. He suggested that Councilmember Green submit his questions in writing to
Ms. Bohlen and Ms. Saleh so they could be forwarded to the Town's legal counsel for review.
10.

Comments from the Mayor’s Office – None.

11.

Comments from the Press – None.

12.

Adjournment:
Mayor Tyndall read the statutory Closed Session statement and outlined the purpose of moving into
the closed meeting following adjournment of the Regular Session.
On a motion by Councilmember Orris, seconded by Vice President Burrell, motion to adjourn and go
into Closed Session was approved by the following vote:
Name
Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No Abstain
Recused Absent
Dean Burrell, VP
X
Steve Green
X
Jay Knerr
X
Shaneka Nichols
X
Jack Orris
X
Voting Tally
5

Respectfully submitted,
Kate Daub
Associate Town Administrator

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 26 of 68

Agenda Item 2 c
09.28.26 Closed Session Minutes - Redacted
Page 1 of 1

CLOSED SESSION
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BERLIN MARYLAND
Monday, September 28, 2026
Present: Mayor Zack Tyndall, Vice-President Dean Burrell, Councilmembers Steve Green, Jay Knerr,
Shaneka Nichols, and Jack Orris
Staff Present: Town Administrator Mary Bohlen, Human Resources Director Kelsey Jensen, Associate
Town Administrator Kate Daub, and Town Attorney Dave Gaskill
Others present: none
Location: Berlin Branch Library, 13 Harrison Avenue, Berlin, MD 21811
Authority to close session: Pursuant to Maryland General Provisions Article; Sec 3-305(b):
(1) To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,
compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or
officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one
or more specific individuals;
Beginning at approximately 8:38 PM, the motion and vote to go into Closed Session were held in the 2nd
floor meeting room and streamed live via Facebook. Mayor Tyndall read the Closed Session Summary,
which is attached and incorporated into these Minutes upon approval. With no questions or comments,
Councilmember Orris moved to adjourn to Closed Session and Vice President Burrell seconded. The vote
to proceed into Closed Session was as follows:
Name
Dean Burrell, VP
Steve Green
Jay Knerr
Shaneka Nichols
Jack Orris
Voting Tally

Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No
Abstain
X
X
X
X
X
5

Recused

Absent

The Facebook feed was ended, and all others left the room.
REMAINDER OF MINUTES REDACTED FOR OPEN RECORD
Following a motion by Councilmember Nichols, second by Councilmember Orris, with all in favor, the
Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,

Kelsey Jensen
Human Resources Director
Attachments: Closed Session Summary of September 28, 2026.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 27 of 68

BERLIN MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION
Meeting Agenda
Worcester County Library - Berlin Branch
13 Harrison Ave.
Monday, September 28, 2026
*8:30 PM
(*immediately following Regular Meeting)

1. Statement of closure – Mayor Zack Tyndall
2. Public comments or questions regarding the purpose for closure.
3. Motion to close and adjournment to Closed Session
Closed Session Agenda: STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CLOSE SESSION, General Provisions Article
§3- 305(b):
(1) To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,
compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials
over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more
specific individuals;
b. Personnel matter

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 28 of 68

Closed Session Summary
To be included in the minutes in the next Open Meeting

1. Statement of the time, place, and purpose of the closed session:
a. Time of closed session: Monday, September 28, 2026, 8:30 PM (immediately following Regular Meeting)
b. Place (location) of closed session: Worcester County Library, Berlin Branch, 13 Harrison Avenue
Berlin, MD 21811, 2nd floor
c. Purpose of the closed session: Personnel Matter
d. Date and time that we will return to public meeting: Tuesday, October 13, 2026, 7:00 PM
2. Record of the vote of each member as to closing the session:
a. Motion to close meeting made by: Councilmember Orris
b. Second by: Vice President Burrell
c. Members voting in favor: 5
d. Members opposed: 0
e. Members abstaining: 0
f. Members absent: 0
3. Statutory authority to close session:
This meeting was closed under the following provisions of General Provisions Article § 3-305(b):
(1) To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion,
compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials
over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more
specific individuals;
b. Personnel Matter
Listing of each topic actually discussed, persons present, and each action taken in the session:
Topic description
Personnel Matter

Persons present for discussion

Action taken/each recorded vote

Z. Tyndall, D. Burrell, J. Knerr, S.
Nichols, S. Green, J. Orris, D. Gaskill, No Action or Vote taken.
K. Jensen, & K. Daub

This statement was made by: Mayor Zack Tyndall, presiding officer
List members who have received open meetings training (at least one member must be in attendance
during closed session): Mayor Zack Tyndall, Councilmember Jack Orris, Town Administrator Mary Bohlen,
Human Resources Director Kelsey Jensen, Town Attorney David Gaskill, Associate Town Administrator Kate
Daub, and Planning Commission Chair Matt Stoehr.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 29 of 68

Agenda Item 7 b

Data Centers & Town of Berlin

Jack Orris
Councilmember, Town of Berlin · ESAM Legislative Committee member
October 13, 2026

Two-Part Discussion • From Pause to Possible Rules
PART 1 • MORATORIUM DISCUSSION

PART 2 • ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT

What information Berlin may need before setting
long-term rules: power, cost, water, land use,
safety, transparency, and process.

How municipalities can prepare for proposals:
definitions, thresholds, utility facts, applicantfunded review, legal boundaries, and
decommissioning.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 30 of 68

Disclaimers
General and illustrative presentation. This material proposes a moratorium for review and presentation is illustrative in nature.

Not an endorsement, and not an objection. Nothing here should be cited as evidence of an official statement for or opposed to a data
center within town limits by the Mayor & Council, individual elected officials or town staff.

The author's views alone. The findings, conclusions, and opinions in this presentation are the author's own. They do not reflect the position
of the Town of Berlin or Town of Ridgley, the author(s), the Eastern Shore Association of Municipalities, or the Maryland Municipal League.

VERIFY BEFORE YOU RELY ON ANY OF IT

This is a planning summary. It is not an engineering study and it is not legal advice. Confirm every figure, citation, and statutory
reference against the primary source, and obtain advice from your own municipality's attorney before acting on anything in this
presentation.

PART 1

Moratorium Discussion

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 31 of 68

BERLIN TOWN COUNCIL • DISCUSSION DRAFT

Data Centers & Berlin
A temporary pause to understand the infrastructure, landuse, and public-policy questions before setting long-term
rules.

The goal is information + a clear process through preparation—
not a predetermined outcome.

County Resolution text

October 2026

1 • WHY THIS MATTERS

A data center is more than a building.
The local questions include

• How much electricity would the project require?
• Can existing infrastructure(s) serve that load and facility reliably?
• What new substations, lines, or equipment could be needed?
• What are the effects on water, noise, land use, and emergency
response?

Illustrative view of a center layout; Evstudio.com

Key idea

The right planning question is not simply whether a project is attractive. It is whether the Town has enough
information and appropriate standards to evaluate it consistently.

Source: Data Center News, “Data Centers And The Power Grid” (Jan. 15, 2026); Urban Institute (Sept. 11, 2026).

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 32 of 68

2 • LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE

There are potential benefits and potential impacts.
Potential impacts to examine

Potential benefits to examine

• New digital infrastructure

• Noise, generators, and emissions

• Jobs and contracting opportunities

• Land-use, traffic, and emergency-response needs

• Construction activity and investment

• Electricity demand and grid upgrades

• Potential tax or other local revenue

• Water and cooling requirements

The magnitude of each item depends on the specific project.

This slide intentionally presents both sides without assigning a value judgment. Sources: Urban Institute; Data Center News.

3 • WHAT A MORATORIUM WOULD DO

A pause can create time for a defined planning process.
1

2

3

4

5

PAUSE

STUDY

DRAFT

PUBLIC REVIEW*

DECIDE

Temporarily pause
(moratorium)

Gather utility, planning, water,
safety & financial information

Develop possible zoning and
development standards

Invite residents and subject
matter experts

Adopt, revise, or decline the
proposed framework

Important: a moratorium should have a defined scope, duration, work plan, public process, and end point.

*Note: Town Strategic plan lists applicable attributes in SWOT analysis
https://media.berlinmd.gov/app/uploads/2025/02/21105812/Berlin-Strategic-Plan_Report_FY24.pdf

Example: West Chicago, Illinois adopted a 180-day temporary moratorium in 2026 while studying data centers and possible zoning updates.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 33 of 68

4 • WHAT SHOULD BERLIN REVIEW?

Six practical questions for a public checklist.
POWER

COST

Load, interconnection, reliability

Who pays for upgrades?

WATER

LAND USE

Cooling methods and demand

Where, setbacks, screening, noise

SAFETY

TRANSPARENCY

Fire, fuel, generators, access

How is information shared to the public?

Discussion topics drawn from municipal planning examples and data-center infrastructure guidance; they are not proposed Berlin regulations.

5 • WHAT COULD THE RULES ADDRESS?

Possible standards —
DEFINE

What counts as a data center? What size triggers additional review? Local Demand/applications?

DISCLOSE

Load, water, generators, site plans, expected operations

REVIEW

Utility, engineering, planning and public review

CONDITION

Setbacks, noise, water, safety, cost responsibilities

MONITOR

Reporting, enforcement and periodic review

A framework can make decisions more consistent and easier to understand.
Illustrative framework only. Any local ordinance would require legal, planning, utility and technical review, as well as incorporation of existing State regulatory standards and review.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 34 of 68

6 • THE COUNCIL CONVERSATION

Before we decide, what do we need to know?

INFORMATION

RULES

PROCESS

Do we have enough project
and infrastructure information?

Do our existing rules address
this type of development?

Would a temporary, defined
review give the public and
Town staff time to prepare?

The objective is a transparent process that gives Berlin the information and standards needed to
make future decisions responsibly.

Prepared for public discussion. This presentation does not recommend a particular final outcome.

SOURCES & VISUAL NOTES

References for the discussion draft
Primary source provided for this presentation
Data Center News — “Data Centers And The Power Grid” (Jan. 15, 2026)
https://datacenternews.org/data-centers-and-the-power-grid/

Additional context
Urban Institute — “25 Questions for States and Cities to Ask During a Moratorium…” (Sept. 11, 2026)
U.S. Department of Energy / ENERGY STAR — data-center cooling and efficiency resources
Wikimedia Commons — electrical-substation reference material

The deck uses original illustrative graphics rather than photographs of a proposed Berlin project.

Town of Berlin Mayor & Council discussion • October 2026

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 35 of 68

PART 2

Ordinance Development
A practical municipal framework: definitions, infrastructure facts, legal boundaries, applicant
funding, decommissioning, and shared drafting resources.

EASTERN SHORE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES · SEPTE MBER 2026

Data Centers on the
Eastern Shore
What each type needs, what it delivers, and what towns actually control

Brad Sears
Commissioner, Town of Ridgely · Chair, ESAM Legislative Committee

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 36 of 68

2

Power decides everything else

10–15 MW

~1 MW

Several years

Commonly cited capacity of a rural
distribution feeder

Available at one Mid-Shore business park

For a new substation and new transmission

Under 2 MW

2 to 25 MW

Above that

Edge or enterprise

Single tenant or small colocation

Needs 40+ acres and transmission

Looks like an office or a warehouse — and
will walk in as one if your code lets it.

If a proposal comes to one of your towns,
this is almost certainly the one.

Few parks here have both. Arrives as an
annexation request or a county project.

The realistic conversation on this Shore:

Only the serving utility can confirm what is available at a specific site.

2-b • SCALE MATTERS

Data centers range from a small room to a multi-building campus.
There is no single official size standard. For planning, power demand (MW) and physical footprint are both useful measures.

MICRO / EDGE

SMALL

< 1 MW

1–5 MW

MEDIUM

Often < 5,000 sq. ft.

Small, distributed or specialized facilities

~5,000–20,000 sq. ft.

Enterprise / regional facilities

5–20 MW

Enterprise or smaller colocation

~20,000–100,000 sq. ft.

20–100+ MW

LARGE

~100,000–1M+ sq. ft.

Large colocation / major facilities

100–500+ MW

HYPERSCALE

Often 500,000+ sq. ft. campus
Cloud, AI & very large campuses

VERY LARGE CAMPUS

500 MW–1 GW+ Emerging frontier-scale projects Multiple buildings / phases
For local regulation, thresholds can be based on square footage, electrical load, campus acreage, or a combination.

Illustrative ranges, not official industry definitions. Sources: U.S. DOE; state/local planning references; Data Center News (Sept. 2026).

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 37 of 68

3

A county pause is not your shield
Six Shore jurisdictions have acted. No county measure reaches inside a town.

JURISDICTION

ACTION

DURATION

Queen Anne's County

Moratorium on data center applications · June 2026

12 months

Caroline County

Resolution 2026-012 · unincorporated areas only · July 2026

12 months

Worcester County

Resolution 26-18 · adds cable landing stations · July 2026

12 months

Town of Ridgely

Resolution 2026-03 · recommendation due April 2027 · Aug 2026

12 months

Town of Federalsburg

Adopted with stated intent to consider a ban · Aug 2026

36 months

Wicomico County

Moratorium in unincorporated areas · Aug 2026

12 months

HOW LONG IS DEFENSIBLE?

Twelve months is the Shore norm; Federalsburg's thirty-six is the outlier.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), upheld a 32-month moratorium 6–3 — but held only that it was not a
per se taking, and set no duration rule in either direction. It allowed that a pause beyond one year "may well" merit special skepticism, then declined to make
that a rule. What carried those 32 months was a trial-court finding that the agency acted diligently and in good faith. Length is defended by the record of work,
not by a neighbor's precedent.

Caroline's pause excluded its own municipalities, and the live proposal in that county sits inside Federalsburg's town limits. A county pause next door may
raise the pressure on your town, not relieve it.

4

The water problem is fire flow, not cooling

5,000–10,000 GPD

720,000 gallons

16,100 GPD

What closed-loop cooling actually uses at 50
MW

A single fire event at 3,000 gpm for four
hours

Ridgely's spare water capacity, against a
200,000 GPD system

That floor does not scale down much. A smaller building does not buy a proportionally smaller fire flow requirement.
The remedy is not a municipal capital project. Where the system cannot deliver the rate, the answer is a developer-funded on-site tank and
pump. Write it in as a condition.

Action: commission a hydrant flow test and a hydraulic model at your business park. It also serves insurance rating and capital planning.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 38 of 68

Jobs: Be careful which number you repeat

5

WHAT YOU CAN DEFEND

WHAT'S IN THE PRESS

8 to 18

Brookings brief: data processing +56%, telecom +43% — implying
100 to 200 jobs in a typical county.

permanent jobs at 50 MW, from field benchmarks of 0.15–0.35 fulltime positions per megawatt

The same two authors' working paper, dated three days earlier:

Wages are the strong part: network support $76,220 · systems
administration $99,130 · all occupations $50,980

•
•

•

Data processing +26%, and it does not survive a statistical
correction
Telecom employment near zero
27–68% of employment cells suppressed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics

A developer's consultant has read the working paper. So has your loudest opponent.

Ask applicants for full-time-equivalent headcount at year five — not construction plus operations combined.

Decommissioning: The building outlasts the tenant

6

3 to 7 years equipment turnover. These facilities are typically held in single-purpose entities that own one asset and nothing else.
"A promise to remove the building is worth whatever that entity is worth on the day you need it. A bond is worth its face
amount."

REQUIRE

REFUSE

•
•
•

•
•
•

•

Surety bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow
Jurisdiction named as obligee, expressly
Indexed third-party estimate, re-run at the applicant's expense at
least every five years
Posted before the building permit; binds successors

A parent-company guarantee
An insurance policy
A lien on the property

All three fail exactly when the owner fails.

The precedent is already in your county code: utility-scale solar decommissioning. Borrow the structure.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 39 of 68

Where you are not in charge

7

Two legal boundaries that surprise municipal officials.

PREEMPTION

ANNEXATION

2 MW generally the certificate threshold — that is low

Your point of maximum leverage — and it comes with two traps.

If a developer proposes generation to serve the load rather than back
it up, that generation needs a State certificate, your zoning may be
preempted outright.

The five-year rule, § 4-416. You generally cannot allow a use
substantially different from what county zoning permitted, without
the county's express approval. The county sits inside your annexation
whether you want it there or not — and a code home rule county can
repeal its assent unless rights have vested.

Washington County v. Perennial Solar (2019), reaffirmed by the Supreme Court
of Maryland in 2022.

•
•

Carved out: emergency backup generation
Not carved out: generation built to serve load

What you keep is a right to participate and "due consideration" of
your plan. Advisory weight. Not a veto.

Contract zoning is prohibited. You can negotiate utility timetables,
cost allocation, and environmental conditions. You cannot promise a
zoning classification as a precondition of annexation.
Maryland authorizes development agreements, but a town must have
adopted enabling procedures first. Many small towns never did.

Four things to do before anyone knocks

8

Cheap to adopt now. Nearly impossible once an applicant is across the table.

1

Define the use Size thresholds plus aggregation language — and name the accessory infrastructure: substations, backup generation, battery
storage, cable landing stations. A pending Worcester County zoning appeal turns on exactly that gap.

2

Get utility facts in writing Feeder headroom, a hydrant flow test, and your actual water appropriation and discharge permit limits. Design
capacity is probably not your binding number.

3

Adopt an applicant-funded escrow Before an application — or you review a nine-figure project on a fee schedule written for a strip mall. Keep
yourself as the consultant's client.

4

Write the decommissioning security Instrument, amount, escalation, trigger, successors. Borrow the structure from utility-scale solar.

And one to obtain rather than write. The statewide Data Center Impact Analysis was due September 1 under Chapter 10 of the 2025 Special Session.
Delivery is unconfirmed — ask the Department of Legislative Services, and do not calendar your drafting around a report you have not seen.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 40 of 68

9

Authority is never shared. The expensive part can be.

Every one of us adopts and enforces our own ordinance, and no working group changes that. What can be shared is the drafting, the
legal research, the consultants, and the data.

One definition

One formula

One consultant

One protocol

and one threshold

for decommissioning

shared, for acoustics

for cross-boundary notice

"The aquifer does not respect corporate limits, and neither does developer arbitrage. If our thresholds differ,
we have simply told a developer which town to call first."

Thank you

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 41 of 68

Agenda Item 8 a

MOTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL 2026-57

A motion of the Mayor and Council of the Town of Berlin, the legal name of which is Mayor and
Council of Berlin (the “Town”), AUTHORIZING LOAN FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED BY
THE MARYLAND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION
(“MWIFA”) FOR A PROJECT GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS BERLIN LEAD SERVICE
LINE REPLACEMENT PHASE 1A SEPARATE FROM MWIFA LOAN FUNDING FOR ANY
OTHER PROJECTS.
The Maryland Department of the Environment had previously preliminarily approved the
provision of loan funding through MWIFA for the following three projects of the Town that were
generally referred to as:
Task #1 – Berlin Lead Service Line Inventory (“Task #1”)
Task #2 – Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement – Phase 1 (“Task #2”)
Task #3 – Berlin RT 346 Water Supply and Treatment Project (“Task #3”).
Pursuant to Motion 2025-18, approved by the Council of the Town on March 10, 2025 and
approved by the Mayor of the Town on March 10, 2025, the Town determined to close on MWIFA
loan funding for the projects identified above as Task #1 and Task #2 on the same date and to close
on MWIFA loan funding for the project identified as Task #3 on a different date.
The project that had been referred to as Task #2 is now generally referred to as Berlin Lead Service
Line Replacement Phase 1A or by a similar name (“Phase 1A”), and MWIFA and the Maryland
Board of Public Works have approved closing on loan funding for Phase 1A.
Accordingly, the Mayor and Council hereby authorize the Town to close on MWIFA loan funding
for Phase 1A separate from MWIFA loan funding for any other projects. The provisions of this
Motion supersede the inconsistent provisions of Motion 2025-18.

[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Page 1 of 2
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 42 of 68

APPROVED this __________________ day of ___________________, 2026, by the Council of
the Town of Berlin, Maryland, by the vote indicated below:
Name

Counted toward quorum
Aye

No

Abstain

Recused Absent

, VP

Voting Tally

_________________________________________
_________________, Vice President of the Council
APPROVED this ____________________ day of __________________, 2026, by the Mayor of
the Town of Berlin.

__________________________________________
Zack Tyndall, Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________
Kate Daub, Acting Town Administrator

Page 2 of 2
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 43 of 68

Agenda Item 8 b

RESOLUTION 2026-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
BERLIN (THE “TOWN”) MAKING A DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL
INTENT REGARDING THE TOWN’S REASONABLE EXPECTATION
TO REIMBURSE FROM PROCEEDS OF A FUTURE BORROWING
EXPENDITURES PAID PRIOR TO CLOSING ON THE BORROWING IN
CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS
“BERLIN LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT PHASE 1A,” AND
GENERALLY RELATING THERETO.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Mayor and Council of Berlin, a municipal corporation of the State of
Maryland (the “Town”), is in the process of undertaking a project generally referred to as “Berlin
Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1A” or by similar names (“Phase 1A”) that was previously
referred to as “Task #2 - Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement – Phase 1” (“Task #2”); and
WHEREAS, the Maryland Water Infrastructure Financing Administration (“MWIFA”) had
previously preliminarily approved providing the Town with (i) base loan funding in an original
aggregate principal amount of up to $698,763 for Task #2, and (ii) principal forgiveness loan funding
in an original aggregate principal amount of up to $969,890 for Task #2; and
WHEREAS, MWIFA had also previously approved providing the Town with (i) base loan
funding in an original principal amount of up to $86,020 for a project generally referred to as “Task
#1 – Berlin Lead Service Line Inventory” (“Task #1”), and (ii) principal forgiveness loan funding in
an original principal amount of up to $86,020 for Task #1; and
WHEREAS, the Town previously had expected to issue to the Administration (i) a single
general obligation bond evidencing the combined base loan funding for Task #1 and Task #2 in the
maximum original aggregate principal amount of $784,783, the interest on which was expected to be
excludable from gross income for purposes of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and the related U.S. Treasury Regulations (collectively, the “Code”), and (ii) a single
general obligation bond evidencing the combined principal forgiveness loan funding for Task #1 and
Task #2 in the maximum original aggregate principal amount of $1,055,910, the interest on which, if
any, would be includable in gross income for purposes of Section 103 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2025-02, adopted by the Council of the Town (the
“Council”) on March 10, 2025, approved by the Mayor of the Town on March 10, 2025, and effective
on March 10, 2025 (the “Original DOOI”), the Town expressed its reasonable expectation to pay
costs of Task #1 and Task #2 prior to closing on the MWIFA loans therefor and to use proceeds of a
tax-exempt bond to be issued in the maximum original principal amount of $784,783 in order to
reimburse all or a portion of such previously paid project costs; and
WHEREAS, the Original DOOI does not differentiate between the amounts of such taxexempt borrowing allocated to Task #1 and Task #2; and

Page 1 of 4
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 44 of 68

WHEREAS, Task #2 has been renamed as described in the first WHEREAS clause of these
Recitals, the cost for Phase 1A has been increased from $1,668,653 to $2,286,853, and MWIFA and
the Maryland Board of Public Works have approved making the Town two loans solely for purposes
of Phase 1A as follows: (i) base loan funding of up to $1,007,863 in original principal amount, and
(ii) principal forgiveness loan funding of up to $1,278,990 in original principal amount; and
WHEREAS, the Town anticipates borrowing money for costs of Phase 1A, such borrowing
to be evidenced by one or more series of general obligation bonds or other evidences of indebtedness
to be issued by the Town to MWIFA (collectively, or individually by series, the “Bonds” or,
individually, a “Bond”); and
WHEREAS, the base loan funding will be evidenced by a Bond issued by the Town to
MWIFA in the maximum original principal amount of $1,007,863, the interest on which will be
excludable from gross income for purposes of Section 103 of the Code, and the principal forgiveness
loan funding will be evidenced by a Bond issued by the Town to MWIFA in the maximum original
principal amount of $1,278,990 that is subject to principal forgiveness and, therefore, will not be
issued on a tax-exempt basis for purposes of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town reasonably expects to spend non-borrowed Town funds on costs of
Phase 1A prior to issuance of the Bonds to MWIFA, and to reimburse the Town from proceeds of the
Bonds for all or a portion of such moneys expended; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.150-2 of the U.S. Treasury Regulations (the “Reimbursement
Regulations”) provides that a local government funding “original expenditures” intended to be
reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt “obligations” must make a declaration of “official intent”
in order to qualify such original expenditures for reimbursement from a “reimbursement bond,” all
within the meaning of the Reimbursement Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Town is an “issuer” for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations and the
Council of the Town wishes to adopt this Resolution for the purpose of evidencing the clear and
official intent of the Town to reimburse from tax-exempt reimbursement bond proceeds original
expenditures made in connection with Phase 1A.
SECTION 1. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BERLIN that:
(a)
The Recitals to this Resolution are deemed a substantive part of this Resolution and
are incorporated by reference herein, and capitalized terms defined in the Recitals to this
Resolution and not otherwise defined herein will have the meanings given to such terms in the
Recitals hereto.
(b)
“Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1A” (or a similar name) is the name
by which Phase 1A is generally identified in applicable materials of the Town. It is hereby
expressly recognized that expenditures for Phase 1A and/or issuance of any Bonds may occur in
the current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year. References in this Resolution to Phase 1A shall

Page 2 of 4
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 45 of 68

be deemed to (i) be to Phase 1A as it may be referred to by similar but not the exact same names
in applicable Town materials, including any Town budget, and (ii) include any changes in the
scope of activities of Phase 1A and/or the name of Phase 1A made by the Town in accordance
with applicable law, including (without limitation) in future fiscal years. References in this
Resolution to costs of Phase 1A shall be deemed to be to expenditures that constitute capital
expenditures and, to the extent applicable, (i) costs of issuance of any borrowing relating to Phase
1A and (ii) capitalized interest.
(c)
References in this Section to the tax-exempt Bonds to be issued by the Town for
purposes of Phase 1A shall be construed to mean only the portion of such financing issued or
incurred by the Town for purposes of Phase 1A in the event any particular financing is sized to
cover one or more other projects in addition to Phase 1A.
SECTION 2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with the Reimbursement
Regulations, the Town hereby makes this declaration of its reasonable expectation to expend nonborrowed funds on costs of Phase 1A prior to the issuance of the Bonds and to use proceeds of the
tax-exempt Bonds, which tax-exempt Bonds and/or interim financing will qualify as a
“reimbursement bond” for purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations, to reimburse all or a
portion of such original expenditures made with respect to Phase 1A. This Resolution is intended
to be a declaration of official intent within the meaning of the Reimbursement Regulations.
SECTION 3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the maximum original aggregate
principal amount of the tax-exempt Bonds to be issued to finance or reimburse costs of Phase 1A
is $1,007,863.00.
SECTION 4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provisions of this Resolution shall
be liberally construed in order to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution may be executed (i) in
counterparts and/or (ii) to the extent not prohibited by applicable law, by electronic, stamped or
facsimile signature, and all executed counterparts of this Resolution shall be treated as one and the
same resolution.
SECTION 6. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective
upon adoption and approval.
[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

Page 3 of 4
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 46 of 68

ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________, 2026 by the Council of the Town of Berlin, Maryland,
by the following vote:
Name

Counted toward quorum
Aye

No

Abstain

Recused Absent

, VP

Voting Tally

__________________________________________
_________________, Vice President of the Council
APPROVED this ____________________ day of __________________, 2026, by the Mayor of
the Town of Berlin.

__________________________________________
Zack Tyndall, Mayor
ATTEST:

________________________________
Kate Daub, Acting Town Administrator
#245805;50016.029

Page 4 of 4
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 47 of 68

Agenda Item 9 a

ORDINANCE 2026-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL (THE “COUNCIL”) OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
OF BERLIN (THE “TOWN”) AUTHORIZING AND EMPOWERING THE TOWN TO
ISSUE AND SELL FROM TIME TO TIME, UPON ITS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, ONE
OR MORE SERIES OF (1) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN ORIGINAL
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,286,853, AND (2) GENERAL
OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, PROVIDED THAT THE ORIGINAL
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ANY SERIES OF REFUNDING BONDS
SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THIRTY PERCENT (130%) OF THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS REFUNDED THEREFROM,
FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF FINANCING, REIMBURSING OR REFINANCING
COSTS OF A PROJECT THAT THE TOWN GENERALLY REFERS TO AS “BERLIN
LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT PHASE 1A,” TOGETHER WITH RELATED
COSTS AS PROVIDED HEREIN; DETERMINING THAT ANY SUCH SERIES OF
BONDS BE SOLD TO THE MARYLAND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
ADMINISTRATION (THE “ADMINISTRATION”) BY PRIVATE SALE, WITHOUT
PUBLIC BIDDING; PROVIDING THAT THE COUNCIL BY RESOLUTION SHALL
DETERMINE OR PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DETAILS OF ANY SUCH SERIES OF
BONDS OR REFUNDING BONDS (EACH, A “SERIES OF OBLIGATIONS” OR
“OBLIGATIONS”), INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO ANY DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
ACCOUNT REQUIRED BY THE ADMINISTRATION FOR ANY REFUNDING BONDS
SOLD TO THE ADMINISTRATION; PROVIDING THAT ANY SUCH SERIES OF
REFUNDING BONDS WILL BE SOLD BY PRIVATE SALE UNLESS THE COUNCIL BY
RESOLUTION DETERMINES OTHERWISE; WITH RESPECT TO ANY
OBLIGATIONS SOLD TO THE ADMINISTRATION, AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL
BY RESOLUTION OF ONE OR MORE LOAN AGREEMENTS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION AND, WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH LOAN AGREEMENT,
ACKNOWLEDGING THE ADMINISTRATION’S RIGHTS THEREUNDER; WITH
RESPECT TO ANY OBLIGATIONS SOLD TO THE ADMINISTRATION, MAKING A
PLEDGE OF CERTAIN REVENUES RECEIVABLE FROM THE STATE OF
MARYLAND, AND ACKNOWLEDGING CERTAIN PAYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE TOWN; PLEDGING THE TOWN’S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND UNLIMITED
TAXING POWER TO PAYMENT OF ANY ISSUED OBLIGATIONS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE IMPOSITION OF AD VALOREM TAXES UPON ALL REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT FOR
UNLIMITED MUNICIPAL TAXATION TO PAY SUCH ISSUED OBLIGATIONS;
IDENTIFYING OR PROVIDING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOURCES
FROM WHICH DEBT SERVICE ON ANY SERIES OF ISSUED OBLIGATIONS WILL
BE PAYABLE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE; AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL BY
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR POST-CLOSING MODIFICATIONS AFFECTING
ANY SERIES OF THE OBLIGATIONS; PROVIDING THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS MAY
BE TAKEN OR PROVIDED FOR BY RESOLUTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REISSUANCE OF ANY OF THE OBLIGATIONS; PROVIDING THAT ANY
OBLIGATIONS MAY BE CONSOLIDATED WITH OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 1 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 48 of 68

TOWN; AUTHORIZING TOWN PERSONNEL TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING AS MAY BE DELEGATED
BY THE COUNCIL BY RESOLUTION; PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED; AND OTHERWISE
GENERALLY RELATING TO THE SALE, ISSUANCE, DELIVERY AND PAYMENT OF
AND FOR ANY SUCH SERIES OF OBLIGATIONS.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Mayor and Council of Berlin, a municipal corporation of the State of Maryland
and a municipality within the meaning of the Enabling Act and the Refunding Act identified below
(the “Town”), is authorized and empowered by Sections 19-301 to 19-309, inclusive, of the Local
Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland (the “Enabling Act”), and Sections C7-19,
C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter of the Town of Berlin (the “Charter”), to borrow money for any
proper public purpose and to evidence such borrowing by the issuance and sale of its general
obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined to undertake a project that it generally refers to as
“Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1A” or by similar names (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project involves the replacement of existing water lines that contain lead,
focusing primarily on William Street; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the Project the Town may acquire or pay for, as applicable,
unimproved or improved land; other property interests; site and utility improvements (including,
without limitation, paving, repaving, curb, water, sewer, gutter, stormwater, sidewalk and
landscaping replacements/improvements); testing, study, survey, architectural, engineering,
planning, design, document development, bidding, demolition, razing, removal, acquisition,
construction, reconstruction, improvement, installation, modification, renovation, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, equipping, inspection, construction management, financial, legal and administrative
expenses; contingencies; costs of activities related to any of the foregoing; and costs of any
borrowing for the Project (collectively, “Costs of the Project” or “Costs”); and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined to borrow money for the public purpose of
financing, reimbursing or refinancing all or a portion of the costs of one or more components of
the Costs of the Project by issuing one or more series of its general obligation bonds; and
WHEREAS, the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (the “Safe Drinking Water
Act”), authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) to award grants to
qualifying states to establish and capitalize drinking water treatment revolving loan funds
(“SRFs”) for the purpose of providing loans and certain other forms of financial assistance to
finance, among other things, the construction and improvement of publicly-owned and privatelyowned water supply systems; and
WHEREAS, as contemplated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the General Assembly of
Maryland has amended the Maryland Water Infrastructure Financing Administration Act
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 2 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 49 of 68

(previously known as the Maryland Water Quality Financing Administration Act), codified at
Sections 9-1601 through 9-1622, inclusive, of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of
Maryland (the “MWIFA Act”), establishing an SRF designated the Maryland Drinking Water
Revolving Loan Fund (the “Fund”) to be maintained and administered by the Maryland Water
Infrastructure Financing Administration (previously known as the Maryland Water Quality
Financing Administration, and referred to in this Ordinance as the “Administration,” including
with respect to any successors thereto); and
WHEREAS, the MWIFA Act authorizes the Administration, among other things, to make
a loan from the Fund to a “local government” (as defined in the MWIFA Act) for the purpose of
financing or refinancing all or a portion of the cost of a “water supply system” project (as defined
in the MWIFA Act); and
WHEREAS, the Town is a “local government” within the meaning of the MWIFA Act, the
Project is a “water supply system” project within the meaning of the MWIFA Act, and the Town
has applied to the Administration for a loan or loans from the Fund for purposes of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the MWIFA Act authorizes a local government to issue one or more bonds,
notes or other evidences of obligation (each, a “loan obligation” as defined in the MWIFA Act) to
evidence its indebtedness under a loan agreement with respect to a loan from the Administration,
to sell any such bond, note or other evidence of obligation to the Administration at private sale,
without public bidding, and to establish a dedicated source of revenues for repayment of such loan;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of the MWIFA Act, the Enabling Act, Sections C7-19,
C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter and any other applicable law, the Town has determined to borrow
money from the Administration for the public purpose of financing, reimbursing or refinancing Costs
of the Project or such components of Costs of the Project as the Administration shall approve; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance and sale of any series of the general obligation
bonds contemplated hereby, and pursuant to the MWIFA Act, the Town will enter into one or more
loan agreements with the Administration; and
WHEREAS, the Administration and the Maryland Board of Public Works have approved the
Administration making two loans to the Town for purposes of financing, reimbursing or refinancing
Costs of the Project, one such loan to be in a maximum original principal amount not to exceed
$1,007,863 and the other such loan to be in a maximum original principal amount not to exceed
$1,278,990 (for an original aggregate loan principal amount not to exceed $2,286,853), with one loan
being a “base loan” and the other loan being a “principal forgiveness loan” within the meanings of
the Administration’s loan programs; and
WHEREAS, as of the date of introduction of this Ordinance, the Town and the Administration
anticipate that (i) the base loan will be evidenced by the issuance by the Town to the Administration
of a series of bonds in the form of a single general obligation installment bond, the interest on which
will be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and (ii) the principal
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 3 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 50 of 68

forgiveness loan will be evidenced by the issuance by the Town to the Administration of a series of
bonds in the form of a single general obligation bond the payment of which is subject to forgiveness
as described herein and the interest on which (if any) is includable in gross income for federal income
tax purposes; provided that, the final structure of any such financing (including, without limitation,
whether one or more separate series of the bonds will be issued for the Project and the final original
principal amount of any series of bonds) and the tax status of interest payable on any such series of
bonds issued by the Town to the Administration shall be determined by the Council of the Town (the
“Council”) by resolution as provided for in the Enabling Act and this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the issuance to the Administration of any series of bonds provided
for herein, the Town may desire to currently refund or advance refund all or a portion of such series
of bonds pursuant to the authority of Section 19-207 of the Local Government Article of the
Annotated Code of Maryland (the “Refunding Act”) and any other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Town has determined to pledge its full faith and credit and unlimited taxing
power to the prompt payment of debt service on any issued series of bonds or refunding bonds
authorized hereby; and
WHEREAS, the Town expects to pay the principal of, and interest on, as applicable, any
issued bonds or refunding bonds in the first instance from revenues received by the Town in
connection with the operation of the water supply system serving the Town and surrounding areas
(referred to herein as the “water supply system”), including fees for use of or connection to such
system, all to the extent lawfully available for such purpose or, with respect to the bonds and any
refunding bonds sold to the Administration, any other dedicated source of revenues agreed to by the
Town and the Administration and provided for by the Council by resolution; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of any series of refunding bonds authorized by
this Ordinance that are issued to the Administration, the Administration may require the Town to
establish, fund and maintain for a period of time acceptable to the Administration from non-debt
sources a debt service reserve account in a manner that satisfies the Administration’s debt service
coverage requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Town, as authorized by the MWIFA Act, may pledge any moneys that the
Town is entitled to receive from the State of Maryland, including the Town’s share of the State income
tax, to secure its obligations under any loan agreement with the Administration provided for herein;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of the Enabling Act, the Refunding Act and the Charter,
as applicable, the Town shall issue any series of general obligation bonds or refunding bonds
authorized hereby in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in a resolution or
resolutions to be adopted by the Council.

__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 4 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 51 of 68

SECTION 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE
COUNCIL OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BERLIN that:
(a)
The Recitals to this Ordinance are deemed a substantive part of this Ordinance and
incorporated by reference herein. Capitalized terms used in this Ordinance and not otherwise defined
in the Sections of this Ordinance shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Recitals.
(b)
Subject to the provisions of subsection (i) of this Section 1, references in this
Ordinance to any official by title shall be deemed to refer (i) to any official authorized under the
Charter, the code of ordinances of the Town (the “Town Code”) or other applicable law or authority
to act in such titled official’s stead in the event of a vacancy in such position or during the absence,
disability or unavailability of such titled official, (ii) to any person who has been elected, appointed
or designated to fill such position in an acting or interim capacity under the Charter, the Town Code
or other applicable law or authority, (iii) to any person who serves in a “deputy,” “associate” or
“assistant” capacity as such an official, provided that the applicable responsibilities, rights or duties
referred to herein have been delegated to such deputy, associate or assistant in accordance with the
Charter, the Town Code or other applicable law or authority, and/or (iv) to the extent an identified
official commonly uses another title not provided for in the Charter or the Town Code, the official,
however known, who is charged under the Charter, the Town Code or other applicable law or
authority (including this Ordinance) with the applicable responsibilities, rights or duties referred to
herein. References in this Ordinance to “officials” of the Town shall be construed to also refer to
employees of the Town.
(c)
References in this Ordinance to the “principal amount” of any of the Bonds, the
Refunding Bonds or the Obligations (each as defined herein) shall be construed to mean the par
amount of such Bonds, Refunding Bonds or Obligations, as applicable.
(d)
References in this Ordinance to the “Project,” “Costs of the Project” and “Costs”
are intended to include any modifications or amendments to components of the Project as provided
for in Town budgetary materials or made by other appropriate actions and that are acceptable to
the Administration to the extent such modifications or amendments impact Obligations issued to
the Administration.
(e)
References in this Ordinance to any statutory or legislative authority shall be deemed
to refer to such statutory or legislative authority as replaced, supplemented or amended, to the extent
applicable.
(f)
To the extent that applicable laws, orders, regulations or other authority allow for
signatures of Town officials to be made by digital, facsimile, electronic or other means, the provisions
of such applicable laws, orders, regulations or other authority allowing signatures to be made in a
manner other than manually shall apply to any signatures of Town officials provided for in or
contemplated by this Ordinance, including on this Ordinance. In addition, this Ordinance may be
executed in counterparts.

__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 5 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 52 of 68

(g)
As of the date of introduction of this Ordinance, the Administration refers to the
Project as “Berlin Lead Service Line Replacement Phase 1A.” The Town and the Administration
may use different names to identify the Project.
(h)
References in this Ordinance to interest on any series of the Obligations being
excludable from or includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes shall be construed
as referring to the provisions of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
and related U.S. Treasury Regulations.
(i)
It is the intention of the Council that if the position of the Town Administrator of the
Town (the “Town Administrator”) is vacant or the incumbent Town Administrator is absent, disabled
or unavailable at any time the corporate seal of the Town is to be impressed on or affixed to any of
the Obligations or any related documents, agreements, instruments or certificates, that such
impression or affixing of the Town seal shall be attested to by the following Town officials in the
following order of priority: (A) first, by any incumbent Acting Town Administrator or Interim
Town Administrator of the Town (in either such case, the “Acting Town Administrator”), (B)
second, if there is no incumbent Acting Town Administrator or in the absence, disability or
unavailability of any incumbent Acting Town Administrator, by any incumbent Associate Town
Administrator of the Town (the “Associate Town Administrator”), and (C) third, if the position of
Associate Town Administrator is vacant or in the absence, disability or unavailability of any
incumbent Associate Town Administrator, by the Finance Director of the Town (the “Finance
Director”); provided that, no such official may both execute any Obligation or related document,
agreement, instrument or certificate on behalf of the Town and attest to the impression or affixing
of the Town seal thereon; however, any such official may both execute and attest to the impression
or affixing of the Town seal on any standard closing certificates.
SECTION 2.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that pursuant to the
authority of the Enabling Act, the MWIFA Act, Sections C7-19, C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter
and any other applicable law, the Town hereby determines to borrow money and incur indebtedness
for the public purpose of financing, reimbursing or refinancing any one or more components of Costs
of the Project in whole or in part, all to the extent permitted by the Administration. The total Costs
of the Project not otherwise payable from other sources is not expected to exceed Two Million Two
Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars ($2,286,853).
SECTION 3. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that:
(a)
To evidence the borrowing and indebtedness authorized in Section 2 of this
Ordinance, the Town, acting pursuant to the authority of the Enabling Act, the MWIFA Act, Sections
C7-19, C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter and any other applicable law, hereby determines to issue
and sell from time to time, upon its full faith and credit, one or more series of its general obligation
bonds in an original aggregate principal amount not to exceed Two Million Two Hundred Eighty-Six
Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars ($2,286,853) (individually, a “series” of the Bonds and,
collectively, the “Bonds”). Each such series may consist of one or more bonds and any bond may be
issued in installment form and/or draw-down form. The proceeds of each series of any issued Bonds
are hereby appropriated for the purposes outlined or provided for in this Ordinance.
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 6 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 53 of 68

(b)
As of the date of introduction of this Ordinance, based on communications between
the Town and the Administration, the approval of the Maryland Board of Public Works, and
preliminary approvals given by the Administration to date, it is anticipated that the Town will issue
to the Administration one series of the Bonds consisting of a single general obligation installment
bond the interest on which is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes in the
maximum original principal amount not to exceed $1,007,863 and a separate series of the Bonds
consisting of a single general obligation bond the principal of which is subject to forgiveness and the
interest on which (if any) is includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes in the
maximum original principal amount not to exceed $1,278,990. Notwithstanding such current
expectation, and with the Administration’s consent and any necessary additional approvals of the
Maryland Board of Public Works, the Council may determine by resolution (i) to issue to the
Administration more than two separate series of the Bonds in a maximum original aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $2,286,853 in order to finance, reimburse or refinance Costs of the Project, (ii)
the structure of each such series of the Bonds, and (iii) the tax status of any interest payable on each
such series of the Bonds.
SECTION 4.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that pursuant to the
authority of the Enabling Act, the MWIFA Act, Sections C7-19, C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter
and any other applicable law, the Town hereby determines to sell each series of the Bonds to the
Administration by private sale, without public bidding, for cash, in a direct purchase transaction due,
in part, to the ability to issue any series of the Bonds as draw-down obligations, the ability to negotiate
certain terms with the Administration, the beneficial formulas by which the Administration
establishes interest rates on bonds purchased by the Administration, the lower costs of issuance
typically incurred with a private sale to the Administration as compared to a public sale at competitive
bid or a negotiated underwriting and, to the extent agreed to by the Administration, the ability to
structure one or more series of the Bonds as obligations that are subject to principal forgiveness.
SECTION 5. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the proceeds of each
series of the Bonds shall be used and applied by the Town exclusively and solely for the public
purposes described in Section 2 of this Ordinance, unless, with the approval of the Administration, a
supplemental ordinance is enacted by the Council to provide for the use and application of such
proceeds for some other proper public purpose authorized by the MWIFA Act, subject to the
provisions of Section 12 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that pursuant to the
authority of the Enabling Act, Sections C7-19, C7-19.1 and C7-21 of the Charter, and any other
applicable law, the Council, prior to the issuance, sale and delivery of any series of the Bonds, shall
adopt a resolution or resolutions specifying, prescribing, determining or providing for the
determination of, providing for, or approving or providing for the approval of, the types of matters,
details, forms (including, without limitation, the form or substantially final form of the Bonds of such
series), documents or procedures as may be required by the Enabling Act, the MWIFA Act, the
Charter, other applicable law or this Ordinance or as the Council may deem appropriate for the
authorization, sale, security, issuance, delivery, payment or prepayment of or for such series of the
Bonds. A resolution shall or may set forth, determine or provide for the determination of, provide
for, or approve or provide for the approval of, among other things, as applicable, the original aggregate
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 7 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 54 of 68

principal amount of such series of the Bonds; the designation of such series of the Bonds; the
denomination or denominations of such series of the Bonds; the maturity or maturities of such series
of the Bonds; the principal installment or installments, or the method of determining the principal
installment or installments, payable on such series of the Bonds; the rate or rates of interest, or the
method of determining the rate or rates of interest, which may be fixed or variable (and which may
include a rate of zero percent (0.0%)), payable on such series of the Bonds; provisions relating to the
payment of any late fees or penalties with respect to such series of the Bonds; the components of the
Costs of the Project on which proceeds of such series will be expended, if limited in any way;
provisions for the further appropriation and disposal of such proceeds; provisions relating to the
prepayment of such series of the Bonds, if applicable; provisions for the application of unexpended
proceeds of such series of the Bonds; provisions relating to the sale to the Administration of such
series of the Bonds by private sale, without public bidding; provisions relating to the principal
forgiveness of such series of the Bonds, if applicable; the identification of any dedicated sources of
revenue required by the Administration pursuant to the MWIFA Act; certifications, representations,
determinations, designations or elections relating to the tax-exempt status of interest payable on such
series of the Bonds, if applicable; and all other terms and conditions upon which such series of the
Bonds will be issued, sold and delivered. By resolution the Council may delegate to one or more
Town officials the authority to make any determinations, approvals or decisions contemplated by this
Section 6 with respect to a series of the Bonds. Any resolution may specify, prescribe, determine or
provide for the determination of, or approve or provide for the approval of, the details required or
authorized by this Section 6 for more than one series of the Bonds.
SECTION 7.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that:

(a)
Pursuant to the authority of the Enabling Act, the Refunding Act, Sections C7-19, C719.1 and C7-21 of the Charter and any other applicable law, the Town is hereby authorized and
empowered to issue and sell from time to time, upon its full faith and credit, one or more series of
general obligation bonds (each, a “series” of the Refunding Bonds and, collectively, the “Refunding
Bonds”) for the purpose of currently refunding or advance refunding any of the Bonds issued pursuant
to the authority of this Ordinance then outstanding, including prepaying or paying all or any portion
of outstanding principal, prepayment premium and/or interest accrued or to accrue to the date of
prepayment, purchase or maturity of the Bonds to be refunded, and paying costs and expenses in
connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of such series of the Refunding Bonds, and, to the
extent determined by the Council by resolution, interest on such series of the Refunding Bonds, for
the public purpose of (A) realizing a savings in the total cost of debt service on a direct comparison
or present value basis or (B) debt restructuring that is permitted by applicable law; provided that, the
original aggregate principal amount of any such series of the Refunding Bonds may not exceed one
hundred thirty percent (130%) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds refunded therefrom.
Any such series of the Refunding Bonds may consist of one or more bonds and any bond may be
issued in installment form and/or draw-down form. Prior to the issuance, sale and delivery of any
series of the Refunding Bonds, the Council shall adopt a resolution or resolutions authorizing such
series of the Refunding Bonds and specifying, prescribing, determining or providing for the
determination of, or approving or providing for the approval of, the same types of matters, details,
forms, documents, procedures or determinations detailed in Section 6 hereof that may be made or
addressed with respect to each series of the Bonds, to the extent applicable with respect to such series
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 8 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 55 of 68

of the Refunding Bonds, and as otherwise may be authorized or required by applicable law, including
the purposes of the Refunding Act to be served by undertaking such refunding. Unless the Council
determines otherwise in a resolution providing for any series of the Refunding Bonds, pursuant to the
authority of the Refunding Act, each series of the Refunding Bonds shall be sold at a private sale,
without soliciting bids (including, without limitation, through a direct purchase transaction). Any
such sale on a private basis is hereby determined to be in the public interest due to the ability to time
the market, negotiate with potential purchasers and thereby achieve a beneficial interest rate or rates
and other beneficial terms (including restructuring terms, if applicable) by undertaking a private sale
and, with respect to a private sale that involves a direct purchase transaction, the lower costs of
issuance typically incurred with such method of private sale as compared to a negotiated underwriting
or a public sale at competitive bid. By resolution the Council may delegate to one or more Town
officials the authority to make any determinations, approvals or decisions with respect to a series of
the Refunding Bonds. Any resolution may specify, prescribe, determine or provide for the
determination of, provide for, or approve or provide for the approval of, the details required or
authorized by this Section 7 for more than one series of the Refunding Bonds. The proceeds of each
series of any issued Refunding Bonds are hereby appropriated for the purposes outlined or provided
for in this Ordinance.
(b)
In the event any series of the Refunding Bonds is sold to the Administration and the
Administration requires that the Town establish a debt service reserve account to be funded from
sources other than proceeds of such series of issued Refunding Bonds in order to provide security for
such series of the Refunding Bonds as a condition to the issuance of such series of the Refunding
Bonds, provisions relating to the establishment, funding and maintenance of such debt service reserve
account (including, without limitation, increases or decreases in the amount to be retained in such
account and replenishment of such account) and the investment and application of moneys held in
such debt service reserve account shall be determined, approved or provided for by the Council by
resolution (unless pursuant to then-applicable law an ordinance is required), and any such debt service
reserve account may be identified in the applicable Loan Agreement (as defined in Section 9(a)
below) as a dedicated source of revenues contemplated by the MWIFA Act.
(c)
To the extent any series of the Refunding Bonds is sold to the Administration, the
Council by resolution may specify, prescribe, determine or provide for the determination of,
approve or provide for the approval of any determinations contemplated by this Ordinance that
may be made with respect to any series of the Bonds, including, without limitation, entry into a
new Loan Agreement with the Administration or any modification to an existing Loan Agreement,
as applicable, and provisions for the potential forgiveness of any such series of the Refunding
Bonds.
SECTION 8.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the Council is
hereby authorized, by resolution, to make any further determinations or approvals or provide for any
matters or actions deemed necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance of any series of the
Refunding Bonds, whether or not sold to the Administration, including, without limitation, (i) any
determination authorized by the Refunding Act, (ii) to commit or provide for the commitment of the
Town to pay to the purchaser or purchasers of any series of the Refunding Bonds (A) any commitment
fee or similar fee and any legal costs in connection with such purchaser’s or purchasers’ agreement
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 9 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 56 of 68

to purchase such series of the Refunding Bonds and/or (B) any breakage compensation or other
amount that may be determined to be due to such purchaser or purchasers in the event the Town fails
to deliver such series of the Refunding Bonds and, in connection therewith, to approve or provide for
the approval of, and the execution and delivery of, any agreement relating to such payment or
payments (which such agreement may, but shall not be required to be, contained within any purchase
or similar agreement for such series of the Refunding Bonds), and (iii) to approve or provide for any
offering documents, credit enhancement, liquidity enhancement, ratings, or continuing disclosure
undertakings relating to such series of the Refunding Bonds.
SECTION 9. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that:
(a)
As required by the MWIFA Act, the Town is hereby authorized to enter into one or
more Drinking Water Loan Agreements with the Administration (each, a “Loan Agreement” and
collectively, the “Loan Agreements”) in connection with (i) any series of the Bonds, and (ii) any series
of the Refunding Bonds sold to the Administration. The final or substantially final form of any Loan
Agreement shall be approved by the Council by resolution and the completion, execution and delivery
of such Loan Agreement shall be authorized by the Council by resolution.
(b)
The Town hereby acknowledges that the provisions of any Loan Agreement may
allow for, among other remedies, all payments on the series of the Bonds or the Refunding Bonds
subject to such Loan Agreement to be declared immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of
any event of default provided for in such Loan Agreement.
SECTION 10. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that as authorized by
Section 9-1606(d) of the MWIFA Act, and contingent upon the issuance of any Bonds or Refunding
Bonds to the Administration, the Town hereby pledges any moneys that the Town is entitled to receive
from the State of Maryland, including the Town’s share of the State income tax, to secure its
obligations under any Loan Agreement. Any such pledge may be evidenced and detailed in the
applicable Loan Agreement.
SECTION 11. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the Town is hereby
authorized and directed to pay any fees or costs provided for in any Loan Agreement that are not
payable from proceeds of the Bonds or from the proceeds of any Refunding Bonds sold to the
Administration, including, without limitation, any administrative fees and any ongoing fees or costs.
The obligation of the Town to pay such amounts shall be absolute and unconditional as further
provided in any Loan Agreement.
SECTION 12. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Ordinance, the Town shall use and apply proceeds of each
series of the Bonds and of any series of the Refunding Bonds sold to the Administration only as
permitted by the related Loan Agreement, the Safe Drinking Water Act (as defined in such Loan
Agreement) and the MWIFA Act (which may be referred to in each Loan Agreement as the “Act”).

__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 10 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 57 of 68

SECTION 13. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that:
(a)
The full faith and credit and unlimited taxing power of the Town are hereby pledged
to the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on each series of the Bonds and the Refunding
Bonds (each, a series of the “Obligations,” individually, an “Obligation” and, collectively, the
“Obligations”) issued by the Town as and when the same are payable and to the imposition of the
taxes hereinbelow described as and when such taxes may become necessary in order to provide
sufficient funds to meet the debt service requirements of each series of the Obligations. Subject to
the further provisions of this Section 13, the Town hereby covenants with the registered owners of
each series of the issued Obligations to impose ad valorem taxes on all real and tangible personal
property in the Town that is subject to assessment for unlimited municipal taxation at a rate and in
an amount sufficient to pay the principal of and the interest on the Obligations in each fiscal year
in which any of the Obligations are outstanding and to take any further action that may be lawfully
appropriate from time to time during the period that the Obligations of such series remain
outstanding and unpaid to provide the funds necessary to pay promptly the principal thereof and
the interest due thereon. If the proceeds from the taxes so imposed in any such fiscal year are
inadequate for such payment, additional taxes shall be imposed in the succeeding fiscal year to
make up such deficiency.
(b)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section 13, the principal of
and interest on each series of the Obligations will be payable in the first instance from revenues
received by the Town in connection with the operation of the water supply system, including charges
for the use of or connection to the water supply system, to the extent lawfully available for such
purpose. To the extent of any funds received or receivable as described in this subsection (b) in any
fiscal year, the taxes required to be imposed in accordance with subsection (a) of this Section 13 may
be reduced proportionately.
(c)
The foregoing provisions shall not be construed so as to prohibit the Town from
paying the principal of and interest on any series of the Obligations from the proceeds of the sale of
any other obligations of the Town (including, without limitation, with respect to any series of the
Bonds, from the proceeds of any series of the Refunding Bonds) or from any other funds legally
available for that purpose. Within any applicable limitations of Maryland or federal law (including,
without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations issued
thereunder), the Town may apply to the payment of the principal of or interest on any series of the
Obligations any funds received by it from the State of Maryland or the United States of America, or
any governmental agency or instrumentality, or from any other source, if the funds are granted or paid
to the Town for the purpose of assisting the Town in accomplishing the type of project or projects
which such series of the Obligations are issued to finance, reimburse or refinance or are otherwise
available for such purpose, and to the extent of any such funds received or receivable in any fiscal
year, the taxes hereby required to be imposed may be reduced proportionately.
(d)
Any source of revenues referred to in this Section 13, and any additional source of
revenues agreed to by the Town and the Administration and provided for by the Council by resolution,
if applicable, may be identified as a dedicated source of revenue contemplated by the MWIFA Act in
any Loan Agreement entered into by the Town with the Administration in connection with a series of
the Bonds or the Refunding Bonds issued to the Administration. Any applicable Loan Agreement
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 11 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 58 of 68

exhibits may describe such dedicated revenues by references that are similar but not identical to any
references contained in this Ordinance or in any resolution relating to such series of the Obligations.
Any such source of dedicated revenues may be identified as being subject to annual appropriation.
SECTION 14.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that in addition to the
refunding authority provided for in Section 7 of this Ordinance, subsequent to the sale, issuance and
delivery of any series of the Bonds or the Refunding Bonds to the Administration, the Council by
resolution may specify, prescribe, determine or provide for the determination of, or approve or
provide for the approval of, any amendments or modifications to such series of the Bonds or the
Refunding Bonds and/or the related Loan Agreement or Loan Agreements and any other
documents, agreements or instruments executed and delivered in connection with the sale, issuance
and delivery of such series of the Bonds or the Refunding Bonds, and/or provide for the execution
and delivery of additional documents, agreements, certificates or instruments relating to such
amendments or modifications (including, without limitation, any bond or bonds to be issued and
exchanged for one or more of such series of the Bonds or the Refunding Bonds originally issued
and delivered and any new or restated Loan Agreement), whether or not such amendments or
modifications constitute a refunding or reissuance for purposes of federal and/or Maryland law.
The provisions of this Section 14 shall also apply to any series of the Refunding Bonds that is not
sold to the Administration, to the extent applicable.
SECTION 15. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that by resolution, the
Council may make any appropriate arrangements (including, without limitation, by authorizing one
or more appropriate officials to make any elections, designations, determinations or filings on the
Town’s behalf) in the event any right of the registered owner of an Obligation to put or cause the
redemption or prepayment of such Obligation at its option, or any change in the interest rate of an
Obligation, or any other modification to an Obligation could lead to a reissuance of such Obligation
for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations issued
thereunder.
SECTION 16.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the Council by
resolution may determine that any series of the Obligations authorized hereby may be consolidated
with any bonds and/or refunding bonds authorized by the Council, as applicable, and issued as a
single series of obligations.
SECTION 17.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that with respect to any
Obligations and any Loan Agreement, by resolution the Council shall delegate to one or more
specified officials the authority to finally approve (to the extent the final form thereof is not approved
by resolution), execute and deliver the same, and by resolution the Council may delegate to one or
more specified officials the authority to negotiate, approve, execute and deliver, as applicable, any
other documents, certificates or instruments relating to any of the Obligations or any Loan Agreement.
The following Town officials: the Mayor, the Town Administrator, any Acting Town Administrator,
the Associate Town Administrator, the Finance Director and all other appropriate officials of the
Town, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to (i) take any and all action necessary to
complete and close the sale, issuance and delivery of any of the Bonds and the Refunding Bonds
authorized hereby, (ii) negotiate, approve, execute and deliver all documents, certificates and
instruments necessary or appropriate in connection with any such sale, issuance and delivery, to the
__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 12 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 59 of 68

extent authority with respect to the same has not been delegated by the Council to any specified
official(s) in accordance with the preceding sentence, and (iii) carry out the transactions contemplated
by this Ordinance, any ordinance supplementing or amending this Ordinance, any resolution adopted
in furtherance of this Ordinance (as the same may be further supplemented or amended), and any such
documents, certificates or instruments executed and delivered in connection with a series of the
Obligations, all to the extent such action is within the scope of such official’s authority and such action
has not been specifically delegated to one or more officials by resolution of the Council.
SECTION 18.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the title of this
Ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Section C3-10 of the Charter.
SECTION 19. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate the transactions authorized or
contemplated by this Ordinance.
SECTION 20. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED AND ENACTED that this Ordinance shall
become effective at the expiration of twenty (20) calendar days following approval by the Mayor or
passage by the Council over the Mayor’s veto, subject to the provisions of Section C3-12 of the
Charter.
[CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 13 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 60 of 68

THIS ORDINANCE was introduced and read at a meeting of the Council of the Town of
Berlin, Maryland held on the ____________ day of _____________, 2026, and thereafter the title of
this Ordinance was published.
A PUBLIC HEARING was held and this Ordinance was passed this _________ day of
_____________, 2026, by the Council of the Town of Berlin, Maryland, by the vote as indicated
below:
Name

Counted toward Quorum
Aye
No
Abstain

Recused

Absent

__________________________________________
Name:
Vice President of the Council
APPROVED on this __________ day of _________________, 2026 by the Mayor of the
Town of Berlin, Maryland and effective at the expiration of twenty (20) calendar days thereafter on
the ___________ day of ____________________, 2026 (the 21st day following the Mayor’s
approval).

__________________________________________
Zack Tyndall, Mayor and President of the Council
ATTEST:

________________________________
Kate Daub, Acting Town Administrator
#245790;50016.029

__________________
Underlining
: Indicates material added to this Ordinance after introduction
Strike-through
: Indicates material deleted from this Ordinance after introduction
Page 14 of 14
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 61 of 68

Agenda Item 10

October 13, 2026
Weekly Report

Departments This Week:
Economic and Community Development
• Attending and speaking at the Maryland Main Street Conference October 5–7.
• Completed all requested FOIA materials.
• Working with Worcester Goes Purple on the Christmas Cookie Crawl fundraising event.
• Working with the Ocean City–Berlin Rotary Club on Merry Marketplace.
• The Berlin Farmers Market runs through October, with the final market scheduled for Sunday,
October 25 and the last 2nd Sunday Art and Vintage Market & Mini Makers Market is Sunday,
October 13.
• Continuing to work on fall and holiday events, as well as the 2027 Town event schedule.
• Working with the Beach to Bay Heritage Area and Taylor House Museum on elements of the
museums historic walking tour.
• Berlin will be featured on HallmarkChannel.com as a holiday destination, including a narrative
and photos prepared for the feature.
• Will be on vacation October 8–12 and returning October 13.
• Wrote MHAA Mini-Grant for interpretation signage in partnership with the Taylor House
Museum
Electric
• Trimmed trees numerous areas
• Replaced cross arms on numerous poles 210 circuit
• Replaced AMI demand meters
• Trenched in service to a new house
• Disconnected services for repairs
• Reconnected new service
• Stored old meters
• Cataloged old meter
• Changed out a faulted transformer
• Labeled primary wires
Finance Director
Continues to work on:
• FY 2026 Audit completion, outstanding reports for auditors.
• FY 2026 quarter performance. Preparation of financial highlights.
• FY 2026 capital projects for fixed assets.
• ChargePoint station contract review and billing reconciliations.
o AMI meter opt-out PSC tariff and hearing, meetings, discussions
• Tyler's credit card processing and fees
• New credit card processing discussions.
• Grants, water loans, public works bond, electric AMI meters bond
1|Page
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 62 of 68

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Opioid settlements, outstanding plan, and questions. Program implementation with Hope 4
Recovery.
Bank accounts review, collateral coverage, positive pay implementation.
CDA Bond paperwork, bond records information for USDA office.
Delinquent accounts review
Public Service Commissioner's reports and submissions, PCA calculations - Michelle
DBF invoices review and processing
EA invoices review and processing
Credit card payments and processing- Shirley
Bank reconciliations - Melissa
Journal entries and invoices - Linda
Electric rate study paperwork and necessary reports for evaluation
Working with Booth and Assoc-in process
Water and electric meter readings- Michelle
Check processing and credit card payments, review registers, checks, and the Town’s card
payments - Shirley
Department meetings scheduled, projects, and planning.
Implementation of new Tyler modules for code enforcement, assets, and project accounting

Human Resources Department
• Processed payroll and all related reports on 10/02/26.
• Scheduled an initial round of interviews for Human Resources and Town Administrator. We are
still working through the applications to determine if additional interviews should be scheduled
at this time.
• Working on the payroll schedule and holiday schedule in ADP for 2027.
• Completed/updated the Town-wide holiday and meeting schedule for 2027, the organizational
chart, the phone list, and the staff birthdays and anniversaries
• Continuing to work with Natalie to ensure the Town is enrolled in the FAMLI program, we
intended to seek a private plan through a consortium with MABE, MML, and MACO, but I
received notice from someone in another county that they are not continuing with the
consortium, while I have not seen the official notice, they did receive that notice from MACO, so
I am exploring what that means for us. We are still required to declare our intent to join a
private plan or enter the state plan by November 15th. Regardless, we will need to do
something and need to file quarterly reports, so still working with ADP on the same.
• Working on a Human Resources Succession Guide for my replacement.
• Attended the annual SHRM conference in Ocean City, from October 4-6, 2026.
• Completed all onboarding paperwork with the two new Councilmembers, Stoehr and Weeg,
congratulations!
• Working with One Digital as they are establishing the use of a third party for all COBRA notices
for the Town, at no cost to the Town, but working with them to complete the paperwork to
enroll the Town in the program. This will take a small administrative burden off of both Human
Resources and Finance, as we currently handle the billing and payments.
• Developed three new policies for the Town: Personal Relationships Policy, Flex Time Policy, and
a Time Theft Policy. These are new policies to the Town and will be brought to the Council for
approval at one of the October Mayor and Council Meetings.
• Open positions:
o Administrative Assistant II - Administration (on hold)
2|Page
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 63 of 68

o
o
o
o
o
o

Police Officer - entry-level and lateral - Police
Police Communications Officer - full or part-time - Police
Plant Operator I - Wastewater
Human Resources Director - Administration
Town Administrator - Administration
Customer Service Representative - Customer Service/Finance (coming soon)

Planning Department
• Preparing for the 10/7/26 HDC meeting
• Preparing for the 10/7/26 BZA meeting
• Department presentation for new Council members
• Updated the Development Project list
• Working on a Performance Evaluation
• Announced the Halloween/Christmas house decorating contest on social media. More details to
come.
• Meeting to discuss Boards and Commission members with expiring terms
• Researched the City of Salisbury’s sidewalk repair code
• Working on revising the Rental License applications
• Ongoing review of development projects
• Received applications for: Building permits- 8, Grading/Excavation permits- 2, Fence permits- 2,
Contractors License- 1, Business License- 1, LTR- 1, PIA- 3
• Released applications for: Building permits- 2, Fence- 1, Grading- 2
• Issued door tags/verbal warnings/corrective action letters for: Grass- 2, Exterior- 9, Ditch
drainage- 2, Vehicle- 2, Rental license- 1, Complaint inspections
• Updating the Rental license spreadsheet- Chanita
• ESRI training - Meghan
• Cybersecurity training- Meghan
• Webinars for Water Resources related items- Meghan
• Submitted zoning data to MD Dept of Planning- Meghan
Police Department
• 9/7 Sgt Collins Graduated Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, School of Police
Staff and Command
• 9/23 Sgt. Collins & K9 Dock Crisfield clam bake security detail
• 9/30-10/2 Chief Drewer FBI national Academy Assoc. conference
• 10/3 Chief Drewer, Capt. Fisher Funeral services for Chief Bacorn of Denton PD
Public Works
• PW put up 25mph signs along Buckingham Ln. to help slow traffic to a safer speed in that area.
• SDP comfort station is coming along. We are hopeful that it will be completed and able for park
patrons to use here soon.
• We have 3 upcoming events we are assisting with this month, Fall Cruisers, Octoberfest, and
Trunk or Treat. We will provide crewing, traffic control, and trash collection during these events.
• PW continues to get data on the number of trash cans we’re emptying each week. We hope to
optimize our routes and get more accurate data about where the heaviest pickup areas are by
doing this.
• Trash collection and recycling collection continues as normal.
• Daily maintenance in parks and town owned areas is taking place.
3|Page
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 64 of 68

•

Weekly street sweeping and street maintenance is taking place around time as well.

Water Resources
• Marking meters throughout the Town
• Cut grass throughout the Town
• Prepared and reviewed our Capital Improvements 5 Year Plan
• Maintenance on lawn mowers and tractors
• Maintenance equipment at the WWTP
• Training- JL
• Orientation with the newly appointed Council Members
• Hauled Sludge
• Cleaned Lift Stations
• Jetted Sewers

4|Page
10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 65 of 68

UNDERSTANDING YOUR MONTHLY PCA

TOWN OF BERLIN
Electric Dept.

How Berlin adjusts for changes in the cost of supplying electricity.

The Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) is a monthly adjustment that reflects the changes in the actual cost of supplying electricity to
Berlin’s customers.
Most electric utilities include a monthly adjustment that reflects changes in the cost of producing or purchasing electricity. This
adjustment helps ensure that the actual cost of supplying power is accurately and proportionally reflected on customer bills.
1 POWER COSTS CHANGE

2 BERLIN CALCULATES THE PCA

3 THE BILL ADJUSTS

These costs include purchased
energy, capacity, transmission, and
fuel/ oil for Berlin’s generators.

The monthly factor compares power
supply costs with the amount already
recovered through the base powercost rate.

The PCA may increase or decrease as
power supply costs and the annual
true-up change.

Why Berlin uses a PCA:
A practical way to reflect changing costs

Base rates have not changed for more than a decade

• Electricity supply costs can change from month to month,
just like the prices of gasoline and other fuels.
• The PCA adjusts the power supply portion of the bill
without requiring Berlin to rewrite its base rates every time
costs change.

• Berlin’s base electric rates have remained unchanged for
over 10 years.
• The PCA allows changes in purchased power and
generation-related costs to be reflected separately and
transparently.

COMMON QUESTIONS
“Why does the PCA change?”

“Is the PCA a separate service?”

The cost of purchased power and operating Berlin’s
generators can change on a monthly & annual basis. These
costs can increase seasonally as well, during periods of high
usage and demand, such as in the summer. The PCA follows
those underlying costs and the annual cost reconciliation.

No. It is part of the rate structure used to recover power
supply costs. It is designed and intended to recover costs,
not to create a separate, unrelated charge.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 66 of 68
Questions? 410-641-2770 – www.berlinmd.gov

TOWN OF BERLIN RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRIC CHARGES
2025
Customer Charge ($/month)
Energy Charge First 500 kWh ($/kWh)
Energy Charge Over 500 kWh ($/kWh)
PCA ($/kWh)
Environmental Surcharge ($/kWh)
Franchise Surcharge ($/kWh)
USP Surcharge ($/month)

2026
Customer Charge ($/month)
Energy Charge First 500 kWh ($/kWh)
Energy Charge Over 500 kWh ($/kWh)
PCA ($/kWh)
Environmental Surcharge ($/kWh)
Franchise Surcharge ($/kWh)
USP Surcharge ($/month)

Janaury
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September October
November December
$
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.03531
0.02537
0.0232 0.022040
0.029260
0.039900
0.050620
0.043410
0.035400
0.032760
0.036480
0.042870
0.00015
0.00015
0.00015 0.000150
0.000150
0.000150
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062 0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.000620
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Janaury
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September October
November December
$
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60 $
4.60
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.098920
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.084650
0.08007
0.03524
0.04752
0.04824
0.06079
0.06634
0.07289
0.07046
0.06739
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.000142
0.00015
0.00015
0.00015
0.00015
0.00015
0.00015
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.00062
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 67 of 68

Check Run Report
will be posted
when available.

10.13.26 MC Regular Session_pg. 68 of 68