Comments are by Councilmembers Llatetra Brown Esters and Susan Whitney and are not approved or sanctioned by the City of College Park.
City Manager’s Report – There were no announcements from the City Manager this week.
Amendments or approval of the agenda
Special session added to the agenda to discuss draft proposal by the 21st delegation to request $50 million from the state to make a one-time contribution to University of Maryland to subsidize the construction or acquisition of affordable graduate student housing and to discuss a request of $4 million from the state for the Community Preservation tTrust.
Proclamation in support of Ukraine added to the agenda.
Presentation from CPCUP on the neighborhood Preservation Development Committee
Councilmember Kennedy led the presentation on the Community Preservation Trust. First presented to Council on January 11, this initiative will help us to meet strategic goals related to affordable housing. Specifically, this initiative will focus on the preservation of affordable single-family homes and includes the establishment of a ground lease. The establishment of the program will be based a shared equity model. The cost for purchasing a home through this program will be based upon what the buyer can afford to pay, and the land grant will fill in the gap. The following work has been completed since the last meeting with Council:
- Meeting with expert at Enterprise Community Partners
- Review of Best Practices
- Retention of Legal Counsel
- Meetings with lending Companies
- Development of financial models and initial policies
- Continued search for third party financial support
Key policies for consideration are related to applicant eligibility and prioritization (Based upon Average Medium Income (AMI) and targeted neighborhoods. Targeted neighborhoods are based upon the percentage of rentals vs. owner-occupancy). The program will require a commitment to occupancy.
Trust seeks to be self-sufficient as soon as possible. It is estimated that operating expenses will cost $350,000 annually. Homeowners will be charged monthly fees, which, depending on income level, will range from $75-$200, less than the typical private mortgage insurance (PMI) payment. It is anticipated that once 80-100 homes are in the program, the Trust will be self-sufficient, and it’s estimated it will take 10 years to reach that goal.
Councilmember Riggs asked about safeguards against situations that the city would not approve of (e.g., a developer or investment group purchasing property). Edward Maginnis, Assistant Vice President for Real Estate, University of Maryland, indicated that transparency of the process and the strict rules should serve as safeguards.
Kenny Young shared that the use of ARPA funds will require quarterly reports, and that those funds need to be expended by 12/2026. The City will need to determine at what point it will request unexpended funds back from the program. There are specific dates by which the City must provide reports related to the use of ARPA funds. So, check-ins with the Trust should be built in.
There is a plan to establish a subcommittee of the trust that would then become the Board of the trust. The board will initially report to the CPCUP but will eventually spin off into a separate 501c3. Councilmember Kennedy explained that a commitment of $3 Million from the city may help to encourage others to give, and said there were plans to seek funding from both the University of Maryland and the state.
The goal is for the program to start in early fall. There are additional details about structure and operation that have be determined (application process, structure of prioritization…) and an Executive Director will be able to make such determinations. Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney, informed Council the MOU would apply to the current entity and its successors.
Mr. Maginnis indicated the Trust will allow for flexibility. He went on to describe it as a tool that should be used opportunistically and indicated that Council can determine how the funds provided are used. Councilmember Kennedy shared that through the program, appreciation of home values would be tied to the labor market rather than the real estate market.
Discussion on draft proposal by the 21st District Delegation on Graduate Housing
Discussion was introduced by Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager. Edward Maginnis was asked to share input on the topic. Although Mr. Maginnis was not in attendance to talk about this matter, he explained that the University has been trying to work on graduate housing for a while, but the challenge has been trying to find the right price point.
Councilmember Stuart Adams commented that $700 and below was a reasonable price point to look at and said he figured funds would largely go toward rental, but he asked if cooperative housing had been considered as part of the solution. Mr. Maginnis wasn’t sure if that had been discussed, but he thought it a creative approach to the problem.
Councilmember Esters said that $50 million sounds like an excellent seed to grow affordable housing for the city’s graduate students, and she wondered if additional funds might be available in the future. Mr. Maginnis said it was most likely a one-time offer., saying the state probably won’t be amenable to another ask. He said even if $50 million doesn’t solve the problem, the University will continue seeking solutions.
Councilmember John Rigg noted that the demand for housing for undergrads of modest means is almost as urgent as that for grad students. He said they often have to get more loans than they should be getting.
SGA Liaison Megha Sevalia mentioned that on-campus housing occurs on priority, but those living off campus, collaborative housing is the most affordable housing. Renting single family homes off campus is the cheapest option. She indicated that affordable undergraduate options should not be left to chance, and added that it seemed contradictory to focus on students housing needs yet develop programs to encourage owner occupancy.
Motion made and approved for Council to go into Special Session
Special Session
Motion made and accepted to send a letter to the state in support of the $4 million request for the Community Land Trust.
Motion made and accepted to send a letter to the state in support the 21st Delegation request for $50 million to address affordable graduate student housing.
Motion made and approved to exit Special Session
Develop rules and regulations for City Park, playground, and recreational areas to ensure the safety of facility users
Director of Public Services Bob Ryan approached Council to ask for approval to rewrite Chapter 148 to update some of parks and recreation facility guidelines. He said Public Works had been polled about the rules that are needed. He continued that Chapter 148 had not been rewritten for a few decades, saying that some language was clearly outdated. The inclusion of enforcement provisions in the form of $50 fines was requested, although he noted that code enforcement typically issues warnings first.
Mayor Wojahn asked if it benefitted us to include prohibitions on behavior that’s already illegal. Mr. Ryan explained that Contract police officers cannot write municipal infractions, but code officers can.
The Mayor was concerned about rules against camping or using parks at night, saying it broaches on criminalization of homelessness, saying in such situations we look to utilize 211 and homeless outreach programs to give people access to services, rather than using enforcement.
City Attorney Suellen Ferguson explained that code officers do not deal with criminal matters. It’s more of a “move that (activity) out of here” approach. She said the city would not be criminalizing any activity – no infraction would create a criminal record – code enforcement routinely tries to get compliance without fines. This is just regularizing the rules so signs can be posted.
Mayor Wojahn pointed out that even fines can build up for people.
Councilmember Esters asked if there’s any objective to ensure that the rules are reviewed on a consistent basis to ensure they don’t become outdated.
Ryan said his department would draft a rewrite and come back to Council in about a month.
Amendments to New Neighbor Homeownership Grant Program Guidelines
City Director of Planning and Community Development Terry Schum started the discussion by revisiting where the Council left off at its February 8th meeting, with a motion on the table to support staff’s recommendations, which were:
1.removing the restrictions on the status of the house that can be acquired (a non-owner occupied property rented for a period of two or more years, an owner-occupied property rented by two or more persons for a period of two or more years, newly constructed, in foreclosure, or a short sale); and
2. increasing the grant amount from $5,000 to $10,000 if the house was a non-owner occupied property rented for two or more years or an owner-occupied property rented by two or more persons for two or more years.
Schum continued that the competing motion kept language as currently existed but would add a lot of different employees – anyone employed or living in the city of College Park or anyone employed in the Discovery District.
Schum explained that the program was created to encourage home ownership, but the annual $50 thousand budget is never fully spent. Staff’s goal, she said, is to simplify the program and maximize use of the funding to get as many new homeowners in the city as possible. She sees the competing amendment as more of a live-where-you work program that’s more related to transportation goals than homeownership. Current grant requirements allow it to be used either by certain public safety personnel or for the purchase of a property that had been rented in the previous 2 years. She said she sees the lack of availability of former rental properties as what is limiting the utility of the program, hence staff’s suggestion to lift all restrictions other than the requirement that the buyers live in the property for 5 years.
Councilmember Stuart Adams, who’d put forward the alternate amendment, was in agreement on increasing the grant to $10 thousand for formal rentals, but thinks we could quickly go through the budget because staff recommendations open the door too wide by removing restrictions on the $5 thousand grant. He stated that he couldn’t find another grant program in the country that placed so few limitations on recipients.
Ms. Schum stated that grants would be given on a first come, first serve basis and reallocated annually, saying that that was not unusual.
Adams said he thinks we need to keep some eligibility requirement to make sure we have funds remaining throughout the year and do not run out of funds for buyers seeking prioritized homes like prior rentals, short sales, etc.
Counsel Ferguson suggested a way to avoid the issue about money running out would be to divide funds up for different parts of the year.
Councilmember Fazlul Kabir said he likes that staff’s suggestion is easy to communicate. But he also recognizes concerns about funds running out too soon, and some homebuyers getting money whether they need it or not. Still he thinks the alternative language is too lengthy and has too many conditions. Make it simple. He suggested restricting it to living or working in College Park, saying that language would cover the firefighters and EMTs.
Councilmember Esters stated her concerns that not maintaining some level of eligibility might open it up to those who don’t need the money.
Councilmember Whitney disagreed with the notion that opening eligibility somewhat by offering the grant to people who live or work in College Park changes the grant from a homeownership program to a live-where-you-work program. She argued that under the amended proposal, the grant was still being issued to people on the condition that they live in their homes for five years after purchasing them. She said it should always be the goal to solve as many problems as possible when we spend money, saying that decreasing traffic and its negative effects in addition to increasing homeownership was a better approach.
Councilmember Rigg wanted to second Kabir’s call for simplicity. He said the program is not a lot of money, and he doesn’t think we increase uptake by making it more complicated. He expressed concerns both about staff workload and about prioritizing certain emergency personnel, saying it opens up a can of worms. He thinks it’s better to make it simple and broad and narrow it down later if needed.
Councilmember Kennedy agreed that staff burden on something like this is deciding factor.
Ms. Schum stated that the goal when the program was started was to reach 50% owner occupancy, and now we only have two neighborhoods that don’t meet that goal. She thinks opening up the program will hasten that progress.
The conversation then turned to additional ways to qualify for the $10 thousand grant, with Councilmember Adams asking if homes purchased in neighborhoods that are registered historic districts could also quality.
Mayor Wojahn asked if we could instead focus on neighborhoods where a certain percentage of the properties are registered as rentals.
Ms. Schum said they could monitor the owner/renter status quarterly.
It was initially suggested that homes in neighborhoods exceeding 55% rental registration would qualify. As two neighborhoods in District 2, Lakeland and Berwyn, are currently at 49% rental, Councilmember Whitney countered with 50%.
Councilmember Adams brought forward for a vote the amended motion
- limiting the $5 thousand grant to certain emergency personnel, University of Maryland College Park students, and people who live or work in College Park, and
- increasing to $10 thousand the grant amount for homes that were non-owner occupied for two+ years, in foreclosure or short sale, or were located in neighborhoods in which 50% or more of the homes are registered as rentals.
The motion carried with a vote of 5-2. Councilmember Mitchell was not present. It will appear on the March 22nd consent agenda.
Legislative review
Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager, informed Council there were no major changes to legislation beyond was what outlined in the legislative review. No new legislation will be introduced after the crossover date of Monday, March 21st.
Councilmember Adams asked about HB1259, which would require municipalities to authorize the addition of ADUs on property.
Gardiner said it had had a hearing.
Mayor Wojahn said we do occasionally take positions counter to the MML.
Adams said he would like the Council to consider supporting the legislation, especially considering the recent Maryland Matters article on ADUs.
Adams moved that we enter Special Session to consider sending a letter in support of HB1259.
Adams said the law required municipalities to allow ADUs “with certain restrictions”, so they could limit by lot size, number of pp, home ownership in primary dwelling, etc.
Ferguson said the District Council didn’t take up the issue because there are different views on it, but they do intend to take it up again.
The mayor explained that MML opposes it because it forces municipalities to make a certain choice. MML would oppose any state law that would restrict local control. He said we should take a week to understand it a little better. He’d spoken with District 3 County Council Representative Dannielle Glaros about it, and she said a recommendation was for the Housing Opportunities for All Work Group to look at the issue.
Councilmember Rigg said he’s nervous about voting tonight or at all, especially with MML against it. He wants to maximize the ability of our city to make this right for College Park and thinks we need to consider it carefully with a lot of community involvement.
Adams moved Council exit Special Session
Requests for/Status of Future Agenda Items Mayor and Council
Adams put asked that we consider joining the National Association of City Transportation Officials at a future worksession.
Meeting Adjourned
Click here to see the meeting agenda for March 15, 2022
Click here to view the Mayor and Council Regular Meeting held on March 15 2022
Click here to see the Mayor and Council Work session scheduled for March 22, 2022
The College Park District 2 Digest 