A few evenings ago, the Spy tuned into the Town of St. Michaels Commissioners meeting to hear more about a proposed business registration process for retail and commercial enterprises in that town. To our surprise, a significant number of business owners rose to speak, in person or on Zoom, to oppose this new piece of legislation.
The tone and concern expressed that evening reminded us of a recent interview we had with the representatives of the St. Michaels Restaurant Association. In that conversation, Chris Agharabi, owner of Ava’s and Theo’s, and Jennifer Stevens, the general manager of Bistro St. Michaels, felt confused and disappointed with the town’s Commissioners ongoing discussions about such critical things like parking, garbage removal, and their decision to reduce the town’s marketing budget without reaching out to the business owners most impacted in those categories.
In short, they sensed an unexpressed anti-business sentiment on the part of the town’s leadership.
Bob Hockaday, who co-owns the Guilford and Company jewelers with his wife, as well as a number of commercial spaces in town, suggests in his interview with the Spy that he has the same vibe related to the newly proposed registration, and inspections and fees of all St. Michaels businesses with the exception of lodging facilities.
On the other hand, St. Michaels Commissioner David Breimhurst, a advocate for the new regulation, believes that this regulation will significantly enhance the public’s safety. While he rejected the premise that the Commissioners are anti-business, David notes that he heard loud and clear from business owners that issues regarding to inspections and fines need to be far more clear as the proposal moves forward.
Bob Hockaday
David Breimhurst
Bob Hockaday’s comments are approximately five minutes in length. David Breimhurst’s remarks are approximately ten minutes in length.
DANNA MURPHY MURDEN says
My husband and I have been a business owner and a property owner pushing close to 50 years. We have had a St.Michaels address this whole time but have never lived in the town limits. I am sorry but we have not received any news letter on any subject since the one many years ago about the Perry Cabin Project. I used to receive an email letter from Kim Weller but don’t even get that anymore. The reason you just had your 57 people that you are so upset about is because the word just got out to people by word of mouth. If you think putting something in the Star Democratic is getting the word out I am sorry but I hardly know anyone that gets it anymore. After 50 years I gave up my subscription. You have my address you send a water bill and I certainly get a very very large tax bill you could certainly send a letter with important information. Last fall we got a citation because we didn’t have numbers on our building. I know why the should be there for the Fire Department but you know what when we bought the building they were not there and all these years and many many years of interactions with the town it was never mentioned and we just never thought about it. It would have been much kinder to send us a letter stating that we needed the numbers instead of the citation. In my email to the town though I told them I understood the need of the numbers but I didn’t think that the Fire Department would have any problem in locating us as they use our property to pass the boot. As do other organizations do for fund raising. My husband went bought the numbers and put them up. My point is I think some common sense needs to prevail with the town where none was shown in our situation. I do not know if this is true or not because I have not seen this new set of rules and regulations but I hear that the rentals such as air nibs and other such type rentals in town are exempt. If that is true then I am appalled because you have places where people are sleeping and not being inspected. I would think they would be on the top of the list for inspections, what more dangerous situation then to sleep in a place that isn’t regularly inspected . Before any new laws are made I think the town needs a big sit down with the business people in a location that can hold more than ten people like maybe the Fire Department or one of the schools where there is room for a large amount of people very well socially distanced.
Paulette Florio says
Ms. Murphy,
The town office has made a huge effort to keep anyone who lives, works, visits or owns a business or just loves St. Michaels informed of everything that gones on here. If you call the office, 410-745-9535, and give them your email address you will be kept up-to-date on all issues. If you look at your water bill, you will see that your email is requested so you can receive the many messages the town sends out weekly. You do not need to live in St. Michaels to receive the Constant Contact messages. This has been the most efficient and cost effective method of keeping us updated. I hope you find this information helpful.
DANNA MURPHY MURDEN says
If you notice I said I received an email from the town but no longer do and I have not asked to be removed from their list. They have my mailing address but I not received any information there. So maybe you can tell mr why I have been removed from the email list? Oh and the name is Murden.
Paulette Florio says
What’s stopping you from just callng the town office and asking why you stopped receiving any emails? Haven’t you been keeping up with the change in our administration?
DANNA MURPHY MURDEN says
I did call and they said they are not sending the newsletter like they were and haven’t for months. I am well aware of the changes of the administration. I get a small email with very little information, they told me to go on their website the day after a meeting and then I can read what is going on.
Michael Estrella says
Reading the caption for the video interviews that are presented here caused me to laugh rather heartily. What it says is that the comments from business owner Bob Hockaday are 5 minute long and the comments for current town commissioner Breimhurst are 10 minutes long. The caption points out one of the things that David Henry Breimhurst is known for around town, the use of words….and more words…and even more words. His speeches and written materials always seem to be 5 minutes longer than anyone else’s or much longer than needed.
But, that isn’t all David has become known for in town. He is part of a group here in town called SMAC. These folks accused a number of residents of ethics issues and even sued the town over their claims. Their claims were found not to be correct but, to this day, they never apologized to anyone.
Dave seems to have had his veracity called into question. In his video he claims to have talked to business people several time and that is probably true but the accuracy of what was discussed in or concluded from these conversations has, in the past, been more alternative fact than actual truth. Many folks will remember when he and his sidekick, Tad duPont, claimed they had talked to two business owners about the marketing budget cut. Their claim was that the business folks had no issues with the cut but one of their fellow commissioners caught them in a flat footed lie with a text from the two business owners denying the conversation ever took place.
Dave also seems to want to put the blame on others. He creates an ordinance that could put folks in jail for a month. He then gets concerned with being referred to as an idiot by some of those folks attending town meetings. He then wraps it up by referring to those of us taking part in these meetings as a ” LYNCH MOB “. This isn’t his problem…the MOB did it!
So far his roadway to a ” Different Direction ” has met with pot hole after pothole and it isn’t a “lynch mob” digging tge holes!
Dodie Theune says
Perhaps Mr. Estrella would be more useful if he participated in the conversation rather than taking personal shots at the Commissioners. I recall there was an election and people voted for reform and accountability. His remarks are not helpful nor do they contribute to making the town work efficiently.
Michael Estrella says
Dear Dodie,
If you were listening to the past town meeting you would know that I absolutely did take part in the conversations on the various topic. As a matter of fact, I had to ask the same question 4 time to get an answer. Unfortunately, taking part in the conversation has taken on a whole new meaning with this “Different Direction cosm”…but, many of us have found alternative methods to get a message across.
David Breimhurst says
To borrow a phrase from your favorite former president, “I have all the best words.”
John Garland says
David,
For the “word” record, YOU inserted the word “imprisonment” into the proposed business ordinance? Regardless, ALL commissioners approved of that word when they allowed the draft to be added to the agenda. You had written the ordinance to go into immediate effect upon a voice vote. To think a set of Commissioners can assign an “agent” (word from your “ordinance”) to cause a business owner’s “imprisonment” is the only example one needs to demand your immediate resignation for misuse of the public trust wrapped in incompetence. Your word salad is causing damage to our Town.
Sidney Davenport-Trond says
I would like to commend Bob Hockaday for clearly articulating the concerns of the St Michaels business community. As stated, no one has a problem with registering a business or paying an annual fee, assuming that it’s reasonable. We do it for every other license we currently have to operate legally. We all have issues with the other details outlined within this proposed ordinance, just as Mr Hockaday stated. I would also like to commend Commissioner Breimhurst for meeting with the St Michaels Restaurant Association a few months ago to discuss some of these very issues. He did take the time to speak with us and that was very helpful. He is correct that the issue of this Business Registration has been discussed for months. During those discussions, many of the same issues that Mr Hockaday referenced were discussed, yet none of the input was considered for the draft that was presented prior to Wednesday’s meeting. I also feel Commissioner Breimhurst has slightly misrepresented some of the issues at hand during this interview. Again, no one is asking the Town not to enforce the Town Code. A Town Code exists, we are all required to follow it. If the Code Enforcement Officer hears of or sees a violation, then that Officer contacts the business/property owner and the issue is addressed. So what is the purpose of this additional legislation exactly? If it is to merely create a central business registry, then that’s fine. No business owner takes issue with that. As he stated, we have a Town Code and we have an Enforcement Officer, so we as business owners are not sure what this current legislation aims to enforce further. Additionally, there was no “social media lynch mob” on Wednesday. It’s common for people within the community, residents and business owners alike, to inform others of meetings where issues may be discussed that could impact their quality of life and/or work. Did this meeting exceed normal attendance? Yes. Were people upset? Yes. The question should be asked of the Commissioners, then, WHY were so many people upset before they walked in? Not WHY were so many people in attendance. Throughout the meeting and during this interview, Commissioners have often stated that they have a “right” to do this and that. That’s concerning to me because as a 22 year resident and business owner I also feel as though I, too, have rights. And this legislation, as presented on Wednesday night, came very close to infringing on many of my rights. I am just thankful that Commissioner Harrod had the foresight to recommend tabling this legislation as presented and going “back to the drawing board” so to speak. It is my sincere hope that the next version is less ambiguous. Of course, I’m not sure there needs to even be more legislation if the goal is to create a local Business Registry. That could be done with a letter and a form.
Paulette Florio says
I feel the new Business Registration being proposed by the current St. Michaels Commissioners should be retitled “Business Harrassment Registration”. If none of the Commissioners can provide a realistic and compelling reason or significant benefit of this new fee that has a safety inspection and pretty severe non-compliance penalties attached, then perhaps, as all the businesses and residents are saying, it’s not very necessary. The administration has a staff that can create the list easily. If you want to know who owns a property you can find that information on Maryland Real Estate Assessments(there’s your landlords). The County and State have records of the many licenses needed to run any business(there’s your business owners). I have to wonder if this “inspection” for public safety that the Commissioners feel is so very important just might be insulting to those who already do this job: they would be the inspectors from the Health Department, the Fire Marshall, the electrical, plumbing and building inspectors. This legislation being pushed forward seems unnecesary to everyone but these Commissioners.
Christopher Thomas says
Speaking for the St. Michaels Fire Department, we have never asked the town of St. Michaels for any extra details about businesses above and beyond what is currently reported. The town has made no attempt to contact us regarding what information we would want or how we would want to access it on our “cell phones or tablets,” which would be a complex integration with several agencies who are already stakeholders in emergency services communications.
And to correct Commissioner Brimehurt’s comment, the Fire Department does not make yearly inspections on businesses.
The SMFD appreciates the Commissioner’s acceptance of safety measures that they previously adopted, however, we would appreciate being contacted for our input before being referenced as a reason for a new ordinance. Mr. Breimhurst alludes to the fire department several times in these comments, and we are completely out of the loop regarding the reason for this ordinance.
Chris Thomas – President, SMFD
David Breimhurst says
Agreed. I should have referenced the fire marshal, not the fire department. Sorry for the confusion.
I also did not indicate that the fire department was seeking details from businesses beyond what is already reported. I mentioned that the voluntary registration form the police currently hand out asks for more particular information about assets than we would require.
Happy to discuss with you anytime. The ordinance remains a work in progress.
DODIE THEUNE says
One of the criticisms i have heard is that St Michaels does not enforce its regulations and that there is no definitive procedure to enforce infractions by property and business owners.
The commissioners plan gives the town administrators some leverage to enforce penalties for infractions. Of course, business owners object to being accountable.
I am a full time resident tax payer… not a tourist… and I prefer a town that is as committed to the best interests of its residents as its business owners. Do we really need so many ‘sales’ & ‘open’ signs and sidewalk displays of merchandise?’
Are we an historic town or a boardwalk?
Paulette Florio says
Regarding the Business Registration legislation our COSM are trying to push through, if it is so important for assuring safety then why would they absolve the accommodations enterprises? Are they considered safer than all the other businesss in our town? Several of our Commissioners own and operate such businesses. This legislation would place those Commissioners in violation of our Ethics Code. I do hope they rethink this matter, drop the whole plan and bring some peace and sanity back to St. Michaels.
I would like to see them leave the businesses alone and focus on promoting all that is good and great about St. Michaels.
David Breimhurst says
Point of clarification: The lodging sector is not exempt from registering. The fact is, they have been the only sector of our business community that has been required to register with the town and pay for a revocable permit since 1987. It would be redundant and unnecessary to ask them to register twice. The registration we are proposing for the other businesses does not include a revocable permit.
Editor says
A gentle reminder to our readers, and those wishing to leave comments, that the Spy, as per our educational mission, will attempt to limit discussion to the topic of the business registration proposal in the town of St. Michaels.
Steve Huntoon says
Hi Spy!
Thank you for your work keeping us informed.
I’ve looked at the proposed ordinance and have concerns.
First, there is no definition of “business” in section A. While section C refers to a business that permits entry to the public, section A is not so limited. So is the registration requirement in section A going to include everyone with a home office, for example? Is it going to include non-profits like our museums?
Second, section B excludes rentals from section A, but rentals aren’t excluded from section C. And Commissioner Breimhurst specifically refers to landlords on the video (at 0.59) which leaves the scope of section C very unclear.
Third, section C allows the Town to force entry to determine whether there might be something with an adverse impact on “public health, safety and welfare.” There is no probable cause requirement for the forced entry, and this term is vague and undefined. Town “agents” who might exercise this power of forced entry are not identified, and no qualifications/training for such agents are required.
Fourth, section E refers to an “administrative warrant.” Again there is no probable cause for issuance of such a warrant. Town representatives empowered to issue such a warrant are not identified, and no qualifications/training for such representatives are required.
Fifth, Commissioner Breimhurst says this ordinance is justified because if someone smells a “toxic odor” the Town needs to immediately know what is stored there (video at 1.05). The evident intent is to require all “businesses” (however they might be defined) to maintain a running inventory of everything stored on their premises (video at 0.30). It is not clear why it wouldn’t be better for a Town employee to simply knock on the door if a “toxic odor” is smelled. Also, if maintaining a running inventory of everything stored with the Town makes sense, why limit the ordinance to businesses? Why not residences as well?
Christopher Thomas says
Steve,
I can address question 5 from a Fire Department standpoint, and that is that MDE already requires a Tier 2 report for hazardous materials, which is distributed to Talbot Center 911 dispatch and fire departments. The town could easily obtain these records as well, and may want to consider increasing their communication with Talbot County Emergency Services to be more aware of the communication processes already in place, as well as creating a channel for the town to obtain these records should they believe them important to their ability to govern.
You can check out more details here:
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/BUSINESSINFOCENTER/CommunityRightToKnow/Pages/tier2reporting.aspx
Steve Huntoon says
Chris,
Thank you so much for this information and for SMFD’s incredible contributions to our community!
Your information provides more support for my belief that the proposed ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. And that’s assuming it’s actually some sort of solution.
Again, thank you,
Steve