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
Kenny Young, City Manager, informed Council that the delivery of art supplies to Hollywood Elementary School has been completed. He announced the start of the Friday Night Live musical series on May 13 will also include the kick-off of the Livable Community initiatives.
Amendments to Approval of the Agenda
Councilmember Kennedy asked to amend the agenda by changing the order of the discussion items since there were so many people attending both online and in-person to hear the discussion regarding the tree canopy ordinance.
Councilmember Mitchell asked to add a proclamation to the upcoming council meeting for Asian American Pacific Islander Month. Mayor Wojahn mentioned adding a proclamation for Jewish American Heritage Month. Councilmember Adams requested a proclamation be added for Building Safety Month.
Discussion of Possible amendments of 21-0-09, the Tree Canopy Protection Ordinance
Mr. Marsili introduced the topic by turning the discussion over to Ms. Brenda Alexander, city horticulturist, who has been involved since the very beginning. Ms. Alexander provided an overview of responses to Council suggestions to amend the ordinance introduced by the Tree and Landscape Board (TLB). According to Ms. Alexander, the TLB believes the suggested “Simple Permit” would allow for the removal of healthy trees and that the option to opt- out of a visit from an arborist would not allow for resident education or the collection of data. The over-pruning of trees would allow for damage to healthy trees that would eventually be removed. Finally, the TLB argued that implementing an ordinance but delaying the implementation of fees would not be a deterrent to tree removal and might lead to rapid removal of trees measuring 100+ inches in circumference. Ms. Alexander informed the Council that members of the Tree and Landscape Board were in the audience to provide additional comments.
Councilmember Adams followed up with Ms. Alexander about the suggestion for the opt-out clause. He indicated his belief that such a clause could include requirements of the owner to obtain information (i.e., pictures) and asked Ms. Alexander for her thoughts. She responded by saying it is possible to get data from pictures, but a visual site visit would be more comprehensive.
Dr. John D. Lea-Cox shared input indicating many of the trees in the City are deciduous, which would make their health more difficult to assess from a photo taken in the winter. He added that a on-site visit would allow the arborist to better assess how the site of a tree might negatively impact its health. . HIn addition to evaluation, he said such visits would allow for engagement and respectful dialogue with residents and the opportunity to offer advice. The suggested amendments would move the heritage trees from 120” to 100” in circumference. Dr. Lea-Cox indicated that he could not say how many heritage trees exist in the City, but understands each of those trees makes a significant contribution to our tree canopy. That having been said, he wasn’t sure that lowering the circumference from 120’ to 100” would have a significant impact.
Dr. Lea-Cox indicated trees between 36”- 80” are the healthiest, make up the majority of our tree canopy and are our future heritage trees. Many of the heritage trees are Oaks and we are losing them to disease and heat stress. He added that understanding the species of trees is important and using programs to target particular species allows some focus. A new arborist position would be pivotal in moving the program forward.
Councilmember Kabir asked if the City is ready to implement and enforce the ordinance and asked how compliance will be enforced. Will someone be driving around, or will they wait to hear complaints? Ms. Alexander indicated the particulars of enforcement would need to be worked out, stating that Public Works is not responsible for enforcement. She added that based upon the discussion and subsequent voting, wthe City would work out the details. Mr. Marsili indicated that Ms. Alexander summed up the situation well. City Manager Kenny Young said that once the Council makes the policy decision, staff would determine the best way to implement it.
Councilmember Kabir asked how will pruning will be enforced and how is it done in other jurisdictions. Ms. Alexander said an application would be created for residents to complete for pruning. They would count the number of branches and arrive at 20 percent. She specified this would be live pruning and does not include the removal of dead branches. The City would err on the side of the resident. Dr. Lea-Cox acknowledged some of the destruction of trees by Pepco. He indicated that structural damage occurs when we see over-pruning to allow power lines to go through trees. It is preferred that such trees be removed and replaced elsewhere.
Councilmember Kabir felt that the simple permit could be beneficial to save workload and allow for a Master Plan to be completed allowing the City to collect additional data.
Councilmember Mackie asked if the Tree Master Plan would need to be in place before engaging with the county. Ms. Alexander said she and the TLB had been informed by County Parks and Planning that in order to ask for funds from the county it would be helpful if the city has a master plan in place. In other words, the TLB has already been engaging with the County.
Councilmember Mackie asked about conservation easements. She also asked Ms. Alexander to specifically indicate whether or not staff had concerns about the amendments presented by Councilmember Adams. Ms. Alexander said the Tree and Landscape Board and staff would like to either move forward with the ordinance as written or work with a subcommittee from the Council to determine amendments.
Councilmember Mitchell asked if it would be a suitable time for Councilmember Whitney to put forth her suggestions for staff consideration. Councilmember Whitney indicated she was pretty happy with the ordinance as written but wanted to acknowledge the anxiety of residents about trees. She suggested the use of technology, TreeRadar, to help in the assessment of the health of a tree. It is a non-invasive process and is used by the arborist at UMD. Save-A-Tree owns the system, and it can be used to conduct an assessment allowing for the collection of more data. In addition, she suggested the striking of a relic from a previous version of the ordinance that stated “All applications for trees less than 36” in circumference will be approved.” Since trees under 36” in circumference are not covered by the ordinance, she believed the presence of this clause was not clear and caused residents to believe there would be a process to cut down any tree on their property, regardless of size, causing needless paperwork. She also suggested a re-wording of section G.5 because as written it may have given residents discomfort. Finally, she suggested that including in the ordinance the possibility of fining companies that remove or prune trees that haven’t been properly permitted could make it more difficult for homeowners to flout the ordinance.
Councilmember Whitney pointed out how mild this proposed ordinance is in comparison to other existing ordinances in surrounding municipalities. She also asked to extend the amount of time to replace the tree, since the proper replacement of trees will depend upon the time of year. Dr. Lea-Cox mentioned the TreeRadar has been used in the City. He explained the only problem is that hiring a technician to perform an assessment costs $1,250 per tree, but he thought it might be possible to work out an arrangement with the University. Councilmember Whitney had researched the cost to purchase the system and found it would cost $30,000 to purchase and own.
Councilmember Esters thanked Ms. Alexander, Mr. Marsili and the Tree and Landscape Board for their work on this project over time. She said she’d heard from residents that the City should be more proactive in planting trees. She also referenced the concern from some residents that the City hold itself to the same standard for replacing trees that it removes and asked Ms. Alexander to speak to both points. Ms. Alexander explained that Maryland has a roadside tree law that requires the city to replace any trees they remove from city right of ways. The replacement trees don’t have to be planted in the same location. Sometimes the tree that was removed either wasn’t thriving because of where it was situated or is in a location where it might interfere with utilities. In such cases, the replacement tree would be planted elsewhere in the city. She said it’s getting harder to find right of ways in which to plant and pointed out the City now has an online form for residents to request street trees, which will make it easier for the City to identify locations. She said they’ve added a question to allow residents to express interest in having a tree planted on their private property
Councilmember Rigg inquired about the financial incentive for those taking down trees. He believes that the fines proposed in the Ordinance aren’t high enough. According to Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney, under state law municipal fines can only go as high as $1,000.00. He asked what the staff recommendation would be for increasing the fine. Could it be that the fine is levied for owner and removal company as suggested by Councilmember Whitney? Ms. Ferguson said that is possible, but that the total cost for a single violation could not exceed $1,000 and that the courts would determine what percentage was paid by the homeowner versus the company. She said state legislation would be required to increase fines beyond $1,000. She added that in Takoma Park some violations would be considered a misdemeanor and said she wasn’t sure we’d want to take that route. No one expressed interest in doing so.
Councilmember Rigg asked what the dream Tree Canopy Enhancement Program would look like. Ms. Alexander mentioned her discussion with Casey Trees. Their organization plants trees on private property, and they operate in Prince George’s County. They’d need the City to provide a list of people who would like to work with them, and they would take it from there. The company may provide additional follow-up with watering and maintenance – the cost would be $300 per tree. Casey Trees suggested starting with a small list of residents. If we get 50 people at $300 per tree it would cost ~ $15,000.00.
Councilmember Rigg acknowledged the time that has gone into crafting this ordinance over the years and noted the frustration among the TLB. He suggested we both work with a company to help incentivize tree planting and create a double-sided fine. He referenced the complex nature of the proposed ordinance and expressed the need to explain it in fairly simple terms.
Councilmember Adams asked what would constitute an “undesirable” location as stated in Section 5, clause E of the ordinance. Would the owner or the arborist make that call? According to Ms. Alexander, it would be determined by the arborist in conjunction with the property owner. She acknowledged there would be a lot of grey areas and it would be difficult to speak to all of them. She reiterated that the TLB views the site visit as key. Dr. Lea-Cox talked about the reasons why and referenced the existence of an appeals process. Councilmember Adams said he was most concerned about this part of the ordinance. He referenced the purpose of the “simple permit,” saying that desirability should be at the discretion of the owner. and that removal of trees between 36 and 80 inches in circumference should be solely at the owner’s discretion. Dr. Lea Cox indicated that the majority of healthy trees are between 36”-80.” Ms. Ferguson agreed that tree desirability is not clear in the ordinance. Also, she indicated the tree removal section does not exclude heritage trees and if we want to ensure that, it would need to be explicitly stated.
Mayor Wojahn made an argument for the inclusion of desirability and giving staff discretion. Ms. Ferguson indicated it should be characterized as “objective” desirability.
City Clerk Janeen Miller said if we adopted the ordinance, putting it into effect on July 1 would allow time for residents to be made aware.
TLB member Todd Rietzel mentioned that heritage trees are toward the end of their life cycle. We need the large heritage trees now, but we need the younger healthy trees later to add to our canopy.
Mayor Wojahn took straw poll of Council. Four Councilmember voted for the original ordinance (Esters, Kennedy, Riggs, and Whitney), and three voted on the amended version (Adams, Kabir, and Mackie). Councilmember Mitchell abstained. Councilmember Kennedy asked that we try to come to consensus as much as possible. Councilmember Whitney respectfully disagreed with the need to find consensus. Councilmember Mitchell indicated her willingness to talk further with colleagues.
Ms. Ferguson proposed that she make the changes that everyone agreed upon, including the increase of the fine, and forward to Mayor and Council. Mayor Wojahn acknowledged that progress has been made on this topic and said, “Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Discussion of the Student Liaison Stipend and of adding a Graduate Student Liaison position
Councilmember Adams requested a discussion of increasing the Student Liaison Stipend and the consideration of a Graduate Student Liaison.
Megha Sevalia, current SGA Liaison, said the current stipend may exclude students from applying for the position given the number of hours required. Increasing the stipend could make the position more accessible to students coming from less privileged backgrounds and expand the pool of applicants.
Councilmember Esters acknowledged Ms. Sevalia’s comments regarding the diversity of those applying for the position and felt that an increase in the stipend could help. She indicated that we should consider adding a Graduate Student Liaison as they would provide a different perspective. She also suggested that similar to Deputy SGA Liaison, we should consider a Deputy Graduate Liaison.
Councilmember Mitchell mentioned that it’s been a while since we have increased the stipend.
Councilmember Kabir asked if the working group could consider the stipend amount. Councilmember Adams estimated ~3600 for the student liaison stipend. He asked the SGA student liaisons whether they thought offering $3600 for the primary liaison and $3000 for the deputy liaison sounded fair, and they said it did.
Councilmember Esters referenced the gender binary language in the write-up and asked staff to consider using more inclusive language.
Mayor Wojahn indicated that a workgroup should be convened to discuss this topic further and engage the Graduate Student Association.
Meeting Adjourned
Click here to see the meeting agenda for the Work Session held on May 4, 2022
Click here to see the Mayor and Council Work session scheduled for May 10, 2022
The College Park District 2 Digest 