Comments are by Councilmembers Llatetra Brown Esters and Susan Whitney and are not approved or sanctioned by the City of College Park.
Announcements
Councilmember Kabir reminded attendees the virtual community meeting hosted by Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MN-CPPC) featuring a presentation of the Feasibility Study for the North College Park Community Center host would be held on Thursday, May 12 at 6:30pm.
Councilmember Esters announced the Rabies and Micro Chip Clinic for City resident pet owners to be held on March 15th from 10am -2pm. She indicated the clinic, which is sponsored by Animal Control and the Animal Welfare committee, requires registration. She also mentioned the availability of the draft of the Greenbelt Road Corridor Plan for public comment from May 10 thru May 31. (This plan encompasses a portion of Greenbelt Road from Baltimore Ave to Kenilworth)
Councilmember Adams announced the upcoming Calvert Hills Civic Association meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 11. The meeting will include a representative from the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment.
City Manager’s Report
Kenny Young, City Manager, announced the Hollywood Farmers market kicked off its season on Saturday, May 7 and will last through November 9. He also encouraged residents to get involved in the City’s boards and committees. Applications are being accepted through June 1 for appointments that will begin on July 1. Mr. Young informed attendees the City will host is final Cleanup Day of the season on May 21. On this day, the Public Works facility located at 9217 51st Avenue will be open for drop-offs of bulky trash items. Among the items that will NOT be accepted are bricks, concrete, and batteries. Mr. Young concluded his report by inviting all residents and visitors to the first event of the City’s Friday Night Live series from 6:30pm – 8:30 in City Hall Plaza. The program will feature, food, drinks, activities for children, and the kickoff of the Livable Communities initiative.
Acknowledgements
Among those who attended the Council meeting were Former Councilmembers Stephanie Stullich, Mary Cook, and Peter King.
Amendments to and approval of the Agenda
Councilmember Rigg put forth a motion for a proclamation recognizing Patty Stange for her contributions to animal rescue efforts and her service to the City’s Animal Welfare Committee.
A motion was put forth to add the approval of the newly appointed SGA Liaison and Deputy Liaison
A motion was made and seconded to add Item 22-G-83 to the agenda, approval for a draft letter requesting an Economic Development Assistance grant of $2.5 million from Prince George’s County to allow the City to provide rental support to small businesses that wish to remain in College Park.
Proclamation and Awards
The following proclamations were read:
Kids to Parks
Asian American Pacific Islander Month
Jewish American Heritage Month
Building Safety Month
Proclamation in Recognition of Patti Stange
Public Comment on Consent and Non-Consent Agenda Items
Patrick invited Valerie Graham, SGA Liaison, and Adrian Andriessens, Deputy Liaison for the 2022-2023 academic year to introduce themselves.
Former Councilmember Mary Cook informed Council that May is Older Americans Month.
Mary King asked for a clarification that only amendments to the tree ordinance will be heard. Mayor Wojahn informed Ms. King public comments would be taken again after introduction since it has been so long since the ordinance was initially introduced.
Judge Coderre , a new addition to the Circuit Court in Prince George’s County with 24 years of experience, spoke briefly to Mayor and Council. She is not a College Park resident but wanted to introduce herself to the Council and residents of the City. Mayor Wojahn thanked her for her service.
Public hearing
Ordinance 22-0-05 – FY 2023 for the City Budget
Gary Fields, Director of Finance, provided a brief overview of the FY2023 budgets for municipal operations, debt service and capital projects totaling $57.07 million for the City.
According to Mr. Fields, the budgets are balanced as required by City Charter. The budget was built on the Constant Yield Tax Rate and includes seven new positions. The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) is almost $18 million. Plans for the upcoming fiscal year are to complete Duval Field and the Hollywood Street Scape and year-one funding for the North College Park Community Center.
Councilmember Mitchell thanked Mr. Fields for his work on the budget.
Councilmember Kabir inquired about the general fund that was $20 million last year and now $30 million. He asked if this fund would return to $20 million next year. Mr. Fields acknowledged the increased dollar amount was associated with ARPA funding and said the budget should be reduced to $22 million next year.
Consent Agenda Items:
22-G-81 Approval of amended minutes from the March 23, 2021, Regular Meeting; and approval of minutes from the April 5, 2022, Special Session and from the April 12, 2022, Regular meeting.
22-G-80 Approval of a four-year contract for audit services at a total 4-year cost of $85,627 with SB & Co.; and authorize the City Manager to execute an engagement agreement in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney.
22-G-79 Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Letter of Agreement with Verizon, dated April 28, 2022, to remove the wooden utility pole at the corner of Knox Road and Baltimore Avenue, and place new conduit, as indicated in the attachment, and authorize the related payment of $166,627 to Verizon. The University of Maryland will reimburse half of this cost.
22-G-82 Approval of free parking on summer weeknights after 5:00 p.m. and free all-day Saturday parking in the City’s downtown parking garage from May 28 to August 13, 2022.
22-G-75 Award of contract for the consultant to the Restorative Justice Commission to Radical Presence, LLC in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for the first year, subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
Action Items:
21-O-09 Adoption of Amended Ordinance 21-O-09, An Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of College Park, to Amend Chapter 179, “Tree and Landscape Maintenance”, By Reserving §179-9 and Designating §§179-1 Through 179-9 As Article I, “General Provisions”; Amending §179-1, “Definitions”, and §179-5, “Tree and Landscape Board”; and adding Article II, “ Tree Canopy Protection”, §179-10, “Permit Required”, §179-11, “Permit Issuance”, §179-12, “Tree Replacement”, §179-13, “Reconsideration”, §179-14, “Appeal”, and §179-15, “Enforcement”; and to Amend Chapter 110, “Fees and Penalties”. by Amending §110-2, “Penalties”; to Institute a Permit System For Removal or Pruning of Urban Forest Trees, To Provide For A Hardship, Reconsideration And Appeal Process, To Require Planting of Replacement Trees, or Payment of a Fee, and to set a Fine For Non-Compliance
Brenda Alexander, City Horticulturalist, introduced the ordinance. Councilmember Rigg made the motion and Councilmember Whitney seconded the motion. Councilmember Rigg acknowledged the work on the ordinance has been ongoing. He also recognized that the ordinance is not as strong as existing ordinances in other municipalities. He concluded his comments by saying we need a proper system of incentives and penalties.
Councilmembers Kabir and Mackie introduced two additional amendments. Councilmember Kabir’s amendment provided for reducing the fine for removal of trees without a proper permit from $1,000 to $500 from July 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. After February 1, 2023, the fine would be $1,000.
Councilmember Mackie’s amendment provided an alternative to property owners for tree replacement. When a removal has been properly permitted as required by the ordinance, the owner may request reimbursement of up to $300 from the City for the cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees that meet the requirements of species and size as outlined by the TCEP guidelines.
Public comments
Ms. King questioned whether residents versus developers are responsible for the loss of tree canopy. She indicated we need a program for understanding what we have, what we have lost and what we can expect moving forward.
Mr. O’Brien, who grew up in Chicago in the 60s and 70s, said when he was young, the city’s streets were lined with beautiful Elm trees. The trees developed dutch elm disease and had to be removed. He said the clearcutting changed the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and it took a few generations for the replacement trees to grow and restore the neighborhood’s appearance to what it had been. Trees, he said, are a community resource.
Mary Cook said she loved having an abundance of trees in her yard and around the city. However, she said despite the city’s efforts, there will be those who will not be aware of the ordinance and will be fined. Fines can impose anguish. She shared that she and her husband both drive electric cars and suggested that a similar fine be imposed upon those who continue to drive fuel emission vehicles.
Carol Macknis said she is not opposed to some of the concepts in the ordinance but has concern about how the ordinance is being pushed forward. She said she spoke to several residents about the ordinance. Some have indicated they did not move to College Park to be told what to do with trees in their yards, while many others have no idea this is being imposed. The City is not doing its job to inform people about what is really going on. They will only know about it when they are fined.
Constantia Rioux has followed the ordinance for years. She appreciates the changes but still sees it as a double-edge sword. She will no longer offer objection because she understands the need for it.
Councilmember Whitney responded to some of the criticisms that had been levied against the ordinance:
- You’re punishing the residents when you should be punishing developers. Unfortunately, control over developers’ actions is out of Council’s hands. That said, the Tree and Landscape Board (TLB) has met with the County to push for trees to be replanted in College Park.
- This is government overreach. The tree canopy in College Park has been steadily declining, which has a negative impact on ALL residents. Whitney said it’s the government’s role to step in when the actions of the few negatively impact the common good.
- This ordinance is pointless because homeowners in College Park don’t want to clearcut trees from their property. They only want the right to remove or prune trees that are dangerous to their homes. Great news! If those are your goals, your permit will be approved. Even if you have a healthy tree you need to remove to expand your house, your permit will be approved. Also, College Park in now majority rental. Many landlords are investors who don’t live in the City and have been removing trees from their properties to save money on maintenance.
- This is a money grab. Hardly. For those that abide by the ordinance, you will have to plant one or two trees to replace the one that was taken down, AND you can plant on another city property if need be, AND you have 12 months to replant them. Were the City to do another tree giveaway next year, residents removing a permitted tree could get free trees to replace them. The goal is maintaining and growing our tree canopy not our coffers. Finally, if today, you’re considering cutting down a tree because it worries you, you have to pay an arborist to give an opinion. Under the ordinance, that would be free.
Councilmember Kabir talked about his amendment to initially fine residents $500 for the first 6 months and then move to $1000. He acknowledged it would take some time for people to learn about the ordinance.
During audience comments on the proposed amendment, Mr. O’Brien said he opposed delaying the fine. We are talking about trees over 36” in diameter, he said. There is no way anyone can cut them down themselves; they would need to hire a company. He said the city can speak to tree companies and let them know about the ordinance.
Councilmember Mackie agreed that residents need time. She said many people are still in financial distress, and she thinks we should give them a grace period.
Councilmember Mitchell asked if warnings would be issued prior to fines. City Attorney Suellen Ferguson said that model wouldn’t apply in this case because the harm would have already been done.
Audience discussion then shifted the Councilmember Mackie’s suggestion to add the option for residents to request up to $300 from the City for tree replacement required by the ordinance.
Ms. King applauded the amendment, saying the City is gaining millions every year through development, and it’s only right for that money to go back to residents.
Dr. Lea-Cox thought we may be in conflict with the County’s Rain Check Rebate Program if we offer more than $150 in reimbursement. He indicated that we should create a rubric that outlines where funding can be obtained.
City Attorney Ferguson said we already have a formalized Tree Canopy Enhancement Program (TCEP). This reimbursement would be something new that may be viewed in conjunction with the ordinance. It’s a requirement to replant a tree or trees when you’ve been permitted to remove one. So, it’s a separate issue and if it’s phrased this way and is a part of the permit process, it should not be seen as disqualifying residents from the Raincheck Rebate Program.
Councilmember Rigg indicated that we need to put forth a structure this evening. He added we can always make necessary adjustments.
Councilmember Adams put forth an amendment to the strike the concept of “desirability” from the ordinance and replace it with “adversely impact.”
Ms. King thanked Councilmember Adams for putting forth that point.
Ms. Cook thanked Councilmember Adams for bringing up the point but felt that the language was still subjective. Indicted that there are cultures where people are concerned about having trees on their property.
Councilmember Mitchell stressed the importance of education and indicated that she would not vote for the ordinance because she still has concerns.
Councilmember Mackie thanked her colleagues for their work and City Attorney Ferguson for her assistance. She is still concerned about things in the ordinance but hopes we can move forward in building our canopy.
Councilmember Kabir said the objective of saving the tree canopy was added to the strategic plan over a year ago, and unless we do something we will continue to lose trees. He recognized Pepco and developers as culprits in the loss of trees. He went on to say that we do not want to solely rely on residents, and there are a variety of things the City has done to help mitigate the loss.
Councilmember Adams thanked colleagues for their work and acknowledged that there were residents who did not want the initial ordinance and wanted significant changes. He felt like significant changes have been made. He still feels the fees are too low for some property owners who will simply view them as a cost of doing business.
Councilmember Kennedy talked about the importance of educating the city and thanked the TLB for their work and looks forward to what they will do next.
Councilmember Esters acknowledged the work of the Tree and Landscape Board on the ordinance over the years and expressed her appreciation for the time taken to listen to input and concern from residents. She especially wanted to acknowledge the work of Public Works Assistant Director Administration Brenda Alexander.
Council unanimously accepted the two amendments. The tree ordinance was then approved as amended by a vote of 6-1-1. Councilmember Mitchell voted no, while Councilmember Mackie abstained, saying that if she were voting as an individual she would have voted yes, but given the opposition from many of her constituents, she could not vote for the ordinance.
No general comments from the audience.
Meeting Adjourned
Click here to see the meeting agenda for May 10, 2022
Click here to view the Mayor and Council Regular Meeting held on May 10, 2022
Click here to see the Mayor and Council Work session agenda scheduled for May 17, 2022
The College Park District 2 Digest 