All Statements below are from District 2 Councilmembers Llatetra Brown Esters and Susan Whitney and are not approved or sanctioned by the City of College Park.
FY2023 Budget and Homestead Tax Credit
Gary Fields, Director of Finance presented this topic to Council. According to Mr. Fields, we are well into the budget process. Directors are engaged and, to date, we have received a few suggestions from community members. The Council will review and give input into the budget during an all-day meeting on March 26. Things are going well so far in FY22, and he does not foresee any issues that would negatively impact the budget year. ARPA funds should help to offset any cost related to the pandemic.
Fiscal Year 2023 will be impacted by property tax revenue. The City will not know the impact until receipt of the Constant Yield Rate; the budget will be based upon the Constant Yield Rate. City employees in the Union should see a 2.0% cost of living increase, plus merit increases, as applicable. Negotiation and contract finalization with the union is underway for FY2023.
The City’s Homestead Tax Credit cap has been maintained at 0% for some time in order to give residents the maximum benefit, and it is recommended that the cap be maintained at 0% for FY2023.
The Council will see a request to adopt the budget calendar and keep the cap for the Homestead Tax Credit at 0% on February 4th. Council agreed to add this to the Consent Agenda.
Decennial Redistricting
Assistant City Manager Bill Gardiner led the discussion. The process is to begin in February 2022. The council will need to consider options for the redistricting process which include appointing a Redistricting Commission or having the Council carry out the work; and conducting the analysis and district map creation internally or working with a consulting firm.
Council discussion focused on the following:
The need to establish a commission and conduct a transparent process, especially in light of what recently occurred at the county level.
Mixed thoughts about the use of consultant. Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney, shared that the city counts differently than other places; it considers the number of residents and “actual voters” (Federal court case determined this charge). The consultant would need to understand this difference in the process.
The limited numbers of individuals from district two who voted in the recent city election was mentioned during the discussion, and City Clerk Janeen Miller explained that actual voters consist of residents registered to vote on February 1 of the year reapportionment occurs who have voted in either the immediately preceding statewide or citywide election. She pointed out that we can also include residents who were omitted from the last count and those who occupy new structures. A question was posed asking how we account for new structures. According to the City Clerk, this means residents who have rented from or moved into structures since the most recent census count occurred.
Former Councilmember Robert Day was in attendance. He chaired the 2010 process and was asked to share his insight as we move forward. He expressed that the use of a commission is important. He indicated that Census numbers had to be matched for each address and that we need to work on drawing lines for neighborhood boundaries and said that a resident wrote the program that was used in the 2010 census, which was performed without a consultant. Day valued the expertise of the residents and students on that commission, saying their knowledge of neighborhood boundaries and dorms were key to striking the required balance across districts.
Councilmembers asked about the proper use of technology during the redistricting process. City Manager Kenneth “Kenny” Young said that the City would need to purchase new software to help with the process, and Ms. Ferguson cautioned that off-the-shelf software would not likely be able to account for College Park’s unusual counting system.
There was an argument made for the use of a consultant who has the expertise to help guide the process.
During discussion, there was a mention of a change to the structure of the Council. The City Clerk informed Council that a change to the current structures would require a charter amendment prior to redistricting.
A potential structure change that included at-large members was mentioned as an opportunity to provide for more student representation and for individuals who maintain a broader connection to the city in addition to those in individual districts.
A question was posed about the boundaries of the student population given that many students do not know who their council members are.
There was a mix of thoughts about whether to explore a reconfiguration of districts. There was a reluctance to consider such a change on a short timeline considering what we witnessed with the redistricting process at the county level. A consensus formed around continuing with the current configuration for the 2020 Decennial Redistricting but revisiting the idea in 5 years, when there’s ample time to consider possible impacts and lay the groundwork for Charter Amendments, were the Council to move in that direction.
Discussion of Workplans from the Advisory Boards and Commissions.
Council conducted the annual review of workplans from City Boards and Commissions.
The city Boards and Commissions required to submit an annual workplan include the following:
Animal Welfare Committee: Committee’s asks for extra coverage at the shelter when the Animal Control Officer is unavailable and installing electronic locks at dog parks to prevent afterhours loitering were deemed doable.
Committee for a Better Environment: Discussed plans include painting two storm drains per year with “Only Rain Down the Drain” messaging and artwork to encourage residents to put nothing but water down the drains; continuing with tree id program, launching a badge campaign of Bee City’s No Mow Month; reducing plastic waste; and possibly reissuing the sustainability survey biannually.
Education Advisory Committee: Plans for the coming year are continuing with longstanding commitments, carrying out charges of the City Council, such as education grants; making sure plans & grants align withs strategic goals Council has identified; investigating PTO/PTA membership grants to increase membership & participation in neighborhood schools.
Recreation Board Committee: Name to change to City Events Advisory Board to reflect updated mission that focuses on hosting citywide events instead of renting fields, responsibility for which has shifted to Public Services.
Seniors Committee: AARP Livable Communities has blossomed into a robust subcommittee on its own; working with Neighbors Helping Neighbors, which has new leadership. The Seniors Committee is working on getting more communication out about these activities.
Tree and Landscape Board: Council expressed appreciation for the TLB’s commitment to enhancing the City’s tree canopy and willingness to go back to the drawing board following public comment on The TLB’s Urban Forest Protection recommendations. The Council wants to invite them back to revisit the issue. A Citywide Urban Forest Master Plan is in the works that might help the City acquire County funds for reforestation, and a free tree giveaway is being planned.
Review of Community Input and Survey Results for ARPA Funding
Mayor and Council identified some general uses and projects for a portion of the ARPA funds ($8.8 million) but sought to engage the community for ideas on how the funding could be spent. Community suggestions mirrored Council suggestions.
Mr. Fields was asked to share how many people actually responded to the survey. He did not know but indicated he would share the details later. There was a review of the ARPA Allocation Fund, FY 2022 Amended Budget, and the FY 2023 Projected Budget. According to Mr. Fields, the City can assume up to $10 million in lost revenue due to impacts from the pandemic. Allocating ARPA funds as lost revenue provides the City more flexibility in spending those funds, as budgets or goals curtailed by pandemic shortfalls could potentially be funded.
There was mention of the North College Park Community Center project and a recent letter from County Council Member Thomas Dernoga. Council was asked to consider $1 million from ARPA funding to support this project.
Staff shared that the funds would need to be spent by 2025 but said the Council would get into the details of precisely how ARPA funds were to be spent during the budget planning process.
Discussion/Scope of Work for City-Wide Storm Water System Assessment Project
Steve Halpern, City Engineer, led this discussion. He informed the Council that the city is seeking proposals from stormwater engineering firms to undertake a comprehensive storm water drainage study using EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) application on the twelve sub watersheds within the Anacostia River Watershed (Note: of the twelve sub watersheds, Guilford Run and Narragansett Run are the largest). The purpose of the project is to assess stormwater conveyance in each of the watersheds in order to reveal any flood prone areas that may impact housing and explore opportunities for stormwater quality and quantity features that would benefit neighborhoods. The study would conclude with a report and presentation to Mayor and Council on the existing conditions and recommendations for improvements. The estimated cost for the project is $600,000. Councilmember Adams wondered if some of that money could come from a FEMA grant received by the State of Maryland.
City Manager Young said that Halpern and staff have been looking into grant opportunities, and Halpern indicated that the proposed study may quality for FEMA and/or state funding.
Mr. Halpern said stormwater issues have had significant impact throughout the City. These issues need to be modeled so we can determine where the problems are located. He clarified that the study specific to Calvert Hills has been completed and that work is currently being done on a design for improvements. The city-wide study will assess how water is flowing and help to determine chokepoints.
Council stated that it wants the consultant who conducts the study to both explain our authority over the floodplain and to include policy fixes for the issues identified.
Click here to view the video stream of the actual meeting.
Click here to see the Council meeting agenda for Tuesday, January 25.
The College Park District 2 Digest 