Comments are by Councilmembers Llatetra Brown Esters and Susan Whitney and are not approved or sanctioned by the City of College Park.

Call to order

Mayor Wojahn called the meeting to order with a moment of silence for the shooting events throughout the country that occurred over the weekend of May 13th.

City Manager’s Report 

City Manager Kenny Young notified the Mayor and Council that in order to keep the Hollywood Farmers Market operational, it needs to be run and insured by the City. He said an item for Council’s consideration of creating two seasonal positions to run the market, along with covering insurance, would be on next week’s agenda.

Amendments to the agenda

Councilmember Mitchell made a motion to send letters of support to the municipalities that experienced gun violence during the weekend of May 13th in Buffalo, New York; Laguna Woods, California; and Houston, Texas. 

Recognition of the SGA Liaison and Deputy Liaison

Mayor Wojahn expressed his appreciation for the work of SGA Liaison Megha Sevalia and Deputy SGA Liaison Hayden Renaghan. He indicated they both took the ground running in the midst of the pandemic, provided information about neighborhood cleanups, and ensured student voices were heard.

Megha Sevalia thanked the staff and members of Council for their assistance throughout the year. Hayden Renaghan echoed Sevalia’s statements, acknowledged the recent article about her in the College Park Here and Now and indicated she looked forward to her work with SGA next year in a different capacity. 

Discussion of FY23 Strategic Plan One-Year Objective (Guests, Jeff Parks, and Jessica Brown from PBI)

Assistant City Manager Bill Gardiner introduced the discussion about the strategic plan. He acknowledged the City is one-year into the current strategic plan and the purpose of the discussion would be to review the strategic plan and determine what areas we would like to focus on in the upcoming year. He introduced Jessica Brown, who attended the meeting in person and facilitated the rest of the discussion. 

City Manager Kenny Young highlighted City accomplishments of the past year as outlined within the following OKRs (Objective/Key Results) the City decided to focus on:

• OKR 1 – Innovate and improve City services to enhance quality, value, and accessibility of all our residents. 
  • Accela program on target for July 1, 2022
  • Move into new City Hall

• OKR 2 – Celebrate our history and diversity to highlight our unique character and build on the strengths of our community. 
  • First meeting of Restorative Justice Commission
  •  Hired Race and Equity Officer
  • Held events including Winter Wonderland, Egg-ceptional Egg Hunt Egg-stravaganza, and first Friday Night Live

• OKR 3 – Preserve and enrich our environment and natural beauty to attract people and sustain our City’s future. 
  • Reducing the amount of waste delivered to landfill
  • Moved tree ordinance forward

• OKR 4 –Enhance safety and quality of enforcement to advance our reputation as a safe city.
  •  Filled Code supervisor position
  • Worked with Chief Keleti of PGPD to get more diverse contract officers in the City (increased minority representation by 25%)

• OKR 8 –Foster and sustain an affordable and stable City for individuals and families to live, work, play and retire here. 
  •  $3 million allocated for community preservation initiative   
  • An additional $50,000 allocated for homeownership grant program

• OKR10 – Cultivate an empowered and collaborative organizational culture that is high-performing, values employees, and is known for excellence. 
  • Ongoing implementation of leadership training sessions, employee wellness program, and equity and social justice training

Although there was not a specific focus on the following OKRs during the past year, progress in these areas has been made:

• OKR 5 – Plan and facilitate strategic economic development and smart growth to support a variety of businesses that can thrive and serve the diverse needs of our community. 
  • Significant ARPA $ provided to small businesses

• OKR 6 – Inspire and nurture a welcoming and inclusive community that encourages and embodies engagement, collaboration, and equity throughout our City. 
  • Held live events – some of which are specifically designed to target diverse members of our community 

• OKR 7- Expand and promote alternative transportation approaches to build a more interconnected and accessible City for all. 
  • Significant investment in new sidewalks
  • Renewal/Negotiation of VeoRide Contract

• OKR 9 – Advocate for improving the quality of education and learning opportunities for our residents’ and community’s future. 
  •  Literacy Lab Pilot Program 

Dr. Brown facilitated an exercise with Mayor and Council to identify Year 2 priorities. As a result of the exercise the following OKRs were identified as priorities for the upcoming year by Council:

OKR 5 – Plan and facilitate strategic economic development and smart growth to support a variety of businesses that can thrive and serve the diverse needs of our community. 

OKR 7 – Expand and promote alternative transportation approaches to build a more interconnected and accessible City for all. 

OKR 8 – Foster and sustain an affordable and stable City for individuals and families to live, work, play and retire here.

OKR 9 – OKR 9 – Advocate for improving the quality of education and learning opportunities for our residents’ and community’s future. 

SGA Liaison and Deputy SGA Liaison provided input to this exercise separately. They identified the following priorities, in this order:  OKR 8 (affordability), OKR 4 (safety), then OKR 3 (sustainability)

Mr. Young indicated he will meet with his leadership team to discuss objectives and follow up with Council later in June. He said the team has already been looking at resources to help determine strategy moving forward. 

Mr. Gardiner indicated the leadership team will determine one-year objectives and go back to their respective departments to identify specific objectives. 

Preliminary Plan of Subdivision Development for Terrapin House

Director of Planning Terry Schum and Senior Planner Miriam Bader introduced the discussion. Ms. Bader shared information about the previous review and acceptance of the Conceptual Site Plan (CSP) for the project by Council. She explained the proposed project will develop the parcel of land based upon the former zoning provisions. The proposal is to combine properties and create one parcel. There are no wetlands or flood plains in the designated area. Based upon the review of adequate facilities, schools will be over capacity, but this is no longer a criterion for subdivisions.

The applicant must provide improvements. There are two historic structures on the parcel including a house located at 4400 Hartwick Road built in 1915 and Yale House build in 1950. The Historic Preservation Commission was also meeting on May 17 to discuss the preservation of these properties. City staff is recommending relocation of the home located at 4400 Hartwick Road.

Mr. Tedesco, lawyer representing the developer, referenced the presentation of the Conceptual Site Plan in March 2021. He added that the Detailed Site Plan (DSP) has been approved by the County with conditions. 

The Mayor asked if there were any concerns about the conditions. Mr. Tedesco indicated that there were no concerns and that they have worked closely with staff. The Conceptual Site Plan did not include a lot of detail, so City staff provided input. 

Ms. Schum shared those factors contributing to traffic, use of police, use of fire fighters, and that use of schools is no longer a condition of approval for DSP. Developers are now required to pay a surcharge and the Board of Education will determine if additional schools are needed. 

Councilmember Rigg asked what the developer is trying to achieve with the projects, and what are they planning for the small, minority-owned businesses that currently exist there. Mr. Tedesco indicated the developer is working to accommodate the tenants. He acknowledged there are leases that will need to play out, but they do not have anything earmarked. 

Councilmember Rigg asked about the rebuff of the pocket park recommended by staff. Mr. Tedesco indicated the proposed development will provide private amenities. Park and Planning asked that space be dedicated to public usage. Mr. Tedesco said the developer has every intention to abide by the recommendation of park space, although it will not be dedicated. Mr. Tedesco referenced a plan to dedicate a portion of frontage on Hartwick to help save the existing trees. 

Councilmember Adams thanked the developers for what is proposed and asked about the four feet of right- of-way and frontage and exactly where that would be. Mr. Tedesco said it would be four feet from the existing property line. Councilmember Adams asked about bicycle parking on site. Mr. Tedesco expressed a commitment to provide what is required by the Bicycle Pedestrian Impact Statement (BPIS). Councilmember Adams asked about the process taken to relocate the single-family home. Mr. Tedesco indicated that consideration is being given to whether or not the home would survive movement. He indicated if the City identifies a location at no cost to the owner, it would be moved. Councilmember Adams asked when the feasibility analysis on moving the house would be available, and Mr. Tedesco said either with or prior to the approval of the Detailed Site Plan (DSP). 

Councilmember Adams asked about stormwater management. A member of the development team explained that completion of a stormwater management concept plan is part of the approval process. They are required to have a certain level of treatment plus underground flood management. The plan, he said, would improve upon existing stormwater management, aiming to provide the same level of management that would be achieved were a healthy meadow to exist on the site. Councilmember Adams asked whether the complete project would be the five-story building proposed or if it would be increased to six stories. Mr. Tedesco indicated there is every intention to maintain a five-story building. 

Councilmember Mackie asked the developer to consider all they can to save as many trees as possible and to consider the city has a shortage of affordable housing and grad student housing. 

Councilmember Kabir mentioned the concern about rezoning of the development during the preliminary site plan and expressed concerns about saving the historic home. Councilmember Kabir went on to ask about the existing businesses and if they are aware of the proposed development. He also asked that consideration be given to maintaining these businesses. Mr. Tedesco indicated that retaining the businesses would be in the developers’ best interest. 

Mayor Wojahn expressed concern about the transition period of construction and interest in aiding the businesses impacted.

Councilmember Whitney asked for an overview of what would occur to the small business owners given that they would break ground prior to 2025. Mr. Greenberg indicated that they would not be able to share details since they do not have a timeline. She then asked about maintaining the existing trees and possibly moving the trees to another area identified in the City. Mr. Tedesco says this is the first time that has been offered and if they are working to move a house, why wouldn’t they work with the City to move trees. 

Application for 5G Antenna on Rhode Island Ave at Edgewood Road

City Attorney Suellen Ferguson introduced this discussion of an application for 5G antenna. She provided background indicating that the FCC adopted its Declaratory Ruling on Third Report Order on the Wireless and Wireline in September 2018. The ruling limits the City’s ability to control placement of small wireless facilities in rights-of-way. The ruling also imposes the requirement to respond in sixty days to requests for co-location of a pole and ninety days to respond to a request for a new pole. According to Ms. Ferguson, Mayor and Council approved a revised license agreement and application process for small cell installations in December 2020. Based upon FCC ruling, applications for small cell antennas cannot be prohibited from going in the right-of-way, providing such installations abide by City ordinances. Mayor and Council can bring this to public hearing based upon city code. This is the first application for a 5G antenna in the city, and. James Crane, a representative from Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC), said at least two more applications are expected in the vicinity of this one, saying they would probably be at least 150 feet apart. 

Ms. Ferguson explained this would be in a commercial area, which is where the City has encouraged such facilities to be, and will be co-located, meaning attached to a support structure owned or controlled by a third party, which the City also prefers. She went on to share that the City is requiring of Verizon a pre-construction site survey and certification of compliance with the City’s noise ordinance. 

Councilmember Kabir asked where the pole will be located, if there would be one pole, and the antenna would make noise. Mr. Crane said some can make noise because of how they’re powered but that such noise would have to fall below city ordinances.

Councilmember Kennedy asked what control we have. Ms. Ferguson explained the City cannot prevent a company from coming into the right-of-way if they follow the rules adopted. Councilmember Kennedy stressed the importance of letting residents know that this is happening, since it’s the first one in the city, advocating for a public hearing. Ms. Ferguson reiterated the City does not have a lot of freedom in what is adopted. She indicated a public hearing would only be to hear public comment. 

Mayor Wojahn said he would want to clarify the purpose of a public hearing. We do not want to create false hope among those participating when we have no control. Mr. Crane said the public hearing may provide information that could be useful. 

Councilmember Mitchell indicated she has heard from residents who have expressed health concerns and said that she has directed them to National Institute of Health (NIH) for more information. 

 Councilmember Mackie asked if a consideration has given to hurricanes and stressed the importance of informing residents about the pending installation.

Councilmember Mitchell suggested that we hold a public hearing for the first application and then determine what we do moving forward. 

Councilmember Esters suggested that rather than a hearing, that a presentation be done. She went on to say if we do not intend to conduct a hearing for each application it would not make sense to do it for one. 

Mayor Wojahn asked whether the presentation should be at a separate meeting or part of a work session. The Council agreed to hold the presentation as a freestanding meeting outside of the Council’s normal meeting schedule.

 Future Agenda Items

Councilmember Mitchell indicated that there are students from other institutions who are living in student housing and causing concern. Mr. Young acknowledged incidents in Mazza Galleria.

Councilmember Adams indicated he would like to bring forth the discussion on differential tax rates for vacant and blighted properties. 

Meeting Adjourned

Click here to see the meeting agenda for May 17, 2022

Click here to view the Mayor and Council Work Session held on May 17, 2022

Click here to see the Mayor and Council Regular Meeting agenda scheduled for May 24, 2022

Bike to Work Day is an annual event held throughout the DC Metropolitan area to promote alternative commutes, environmental health, and bike safety in the community. Each year, the City’s pit stop attracts over 150 riders. 

Bikers can join us at our new City Hall Plaza for a free t-shirt and refreshments before biking to work.  To register for the event, please visit https://www.biketoworkmetrodc.org/register. 

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 15^th 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 51^st 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:

1. 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. 
2. 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. 
3. 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.
4. 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 intersection of Greenbelt Road and Rhode Island Avenue (by the 7-11) was shut down from all directions this morning due to a downed Pepco line. Verizon Fios lines were affected, as well. The intersection has reopened.

Pepco was on site working to correct the impact on its lines, and now Verizon has taken over. It seems a Verizon telecommunications line was struck earlier at the intersection. Verizon is on the scene working to fix the issue, which they expect to be resolved by this evening. About 1,500 customers are affected.

The intersection of Greenbelt Road and Rhode Island Avenue (by the 7-11) is shut down from all directions due to a downed Pepco line. Verizon Fios lines have been affected, as well. Avoid the area. We’ll share more information as it becomes available.

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