Residents, business owners clash over proposed long-term Market House lease in Annapolis

Dozens of residents, business owners and stakeholders spoke Tuesday about ordinance O33‑25, the proposed extension of the Market House lease at City Dock, voicing sharply divided views over the city’s economic value, transparency and how far ahead the council should commit a prominent public asset.

Supporters—including the current operators and organizations tied to Annapolis’ maritime economy—urged the council to grant a longer lease so the tenant can invest in improvements. “We’re investing a lot of time and money into what this will look like for the boat shows and other festivals,” said Mary Ewinson, president of the Annapolis Boat Shows (speaking about the nearby boat‑show leases). Jody Danek, a Market House partner, said the tenant has paid materially to the city: “Last year alone, we paid $171,000 to the city of Annapolis,” and argued the operators need multi‑year certainty to justify additional capital work.

Critics called the proposed extension premature and one‑sided. Laurie Sullivan, a longtime resident, said the existing lease terms are unusually favorable to the tenant and that extending it eight years early would be “not prudent stewardship.” Sullivan and other critics cited low base rent compared with nearby market rents, a reduction in performance rent in the proposed extension (from 2% to 1% as characterized by speakers), and requests for renewal options that could lock the property to 2053. “Locking the city into nearly 3 more decades of this arrangement 8 years early is not prudent stewardship,” Sullivan said.

Other concerns raised in testimony included whether the Market House tenant pays applicable taxes or amusement taxes and the lack of public documentation about missing or late performance rent payments; speakers called for disclosure of records. “Without transparency, the public is simply asked to take the word of the very parties who benefit the most from this arrangement,” Sullivan said.

Market House operators and supporters pushed back on several factual points raised by critics. Jody Danek and Keith Bouchard said the tenant’s payments to the city are substantial and that the business has grown rapidly since the COVID period; Danek noted the tenant’s legal ability to operate with a liquor license was obtained by council action and that city and state tax rules limit the city’s ability to impose property tax on city‑owned assets.

Council action at the meeting: the council closed the public hearing on O33‑25; no final vote on lease terms was taken. Members and many speakers asked for more transparency and documentation from staff and from the parties while opponents urged postponement until closer to the lease expiration so the property could be re‑bid if appropriate.

What’s next: O33‑25 remains under council consideration; staff and council members will consider follow up documentation and may act in committee or on a later meeting agenda.

Votes at the meeting: Public hearing closed; no ordinance adoption or referral specifically recorded at the meeting minutes.