Mayor & City Council

WORKSESSION MINUTES College Park City Council Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. – 10:22 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Wojahn; Councilmembers Kabir (arrived at 7:31 p.m.), Nagle, Dennis, Stullich (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Day, Kujawa, and Cook. ABSENT: Councilmember Brennan ALSO PRESENT: Scott Somers, City Manager; Janeen Miller, City Clerk; Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney; Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager; Terry Schum, Director of Planning; Chris Keosian, Student Liaison; Julianne Heberlein, Deputy Student Liaison. Mayor Wojahn opened the Worksession at 7:30 p.m. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: Mr. Somers reported that Davis Hall has reopened for public meetings; Pepco is planning tree work in College Park Woods for September; the weekly bulletin has detail about the current work that WSSC is doing in the City; despite the rain last night, National Night Out was a success. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Without amendment (Day/Dennis) 6 – 0 – 0. AGENDA ITEMS: 1 Review of comments to the State Clearinghouse regarding transfer of property to Terrapin Development Corporation – Terry Schum, Director of Planning; State Senator Jim Rosapepe; State Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk; Carlo Colella, UMD Vice President, Administration and Finance; Ed Maginnis, UMD. Ms. Schum provided an overview: The University of Maryland and University Foundation jointly formed a development corporation, Terrapin Development Company, to take the lead in real estate development matters pertaining to land held and/or acquired by the University and Foundation. The TDC can buy, sell, lease and develop land. Tonight’s item is for a Clearinghouse review of 10 properties the UMD is proposing to transfer to the TDC. Three properties will be transferred immediately, 7 properties will be transferred in the future, and additional properties may be added in the future. There is a state process for disposal of real property, and this Clearinghouse review is a step in that process. The state Board of Public Works (BPW) will first have to declare the property “surplus,” then there is a referral to Senate and House Committees, and then the BPW gives final approval of the disposition of the land. The University is asking the BPW to give up-front approval to transfer the property to the TDC, and then there would be no further review. She reviewed the staff report and the properties. These are important properties and the City’s key concern should be about the future development at those locations; nothing is proposed at this time. The TDC needs to be transparent with the City about their intentions, and the City needs to be part of the planning process. The Metzerott Road properties aren’t in the City and would need to be annexed. She reviewed the comments in the staff report. We want to be involved long before we get a referral from Park and Planning so there are no surprises. College Park City Council Worksession Minutes August 2, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Colella said future transfers of property would have to go through the same Clearinghouse process. The TDC will turn a successful ad hoc process into one that is more formalized. Once the properties are transferred, they will undergo the routine zoning and entitlement process which will result in a more extensive interaction with the community, City and County. Transferring the properties in advance brings certainty to developers about ownership of the land. They are supportive of staff comments, but will have to go back to the TDC Board about the question of annexation. The Metzerott road properties were part of a package deal that enabled them to obtain the Quality Inn property. They would like to keep the Metzerott Road properties residential in nature. Process/Timeline: They identify the properties they want to surplus, it goes to the Maryland Department of Planning for State Clearinghouse review, they circulate information to interested parties for comment. The matter goes to the BPW for the first time seeking approval of the surplus disposition. If surplus is approved, notification is given to State senate/house committees who will review. They have 45 days to review, during which time the General Assembly can call the matter up. If not called, up, after 45 days the matter goes to back to the BPW for a second time to approve the transaction. The Clearinghouse review was adjusted to August 9 at City’s request. Senator Rosapepe said this is not a minor administrative matter – it is considered a big deal to the legislature because this is state property. The BPW has plenary authority about whether the property should be surplussed. If they decide to surplus it, then the legislature gets involved. The BPW doesn’t have to sell the property to the TDC – they can sell it to anyone they want. He continued that this is a good concept and, if done right, will be beneficial. He has confidence in the current players. The concern that the 21st Delegation has is that they don’t know what will happen in the future; therefore, the properties should not be transferred until there is a written, enforceable agreement between the City and the TDC. None of the TDC Board members live in the County or the City. The 21st Delegation has told the BPW and the Board of Regents that they will not support the transfer until there is a written agreement between the parties. This will protect the City in the future. Delegate Peña-Melnyk said it is imperative to put what we understand clearly today in a document for posterity. Otherwise, how will we explain to our constituents that we approve this transfer without having a written agreement? Mr. Colella feels the TDC Board will support the conditions represented in the staff report, with the exception of the annexation question, which he can’t speak to. Sen. Rosapepe said it will take time to get all of the players at the table to develop, review and approve any agreement. Sen. Rosapepe said someone from the Delegation should be at that meeting because this is state land. The timing was discussed – can the negotiation of an agreement happen in parallel with the BPW process? The final decision won’t be made by the BPW until November at the earliest. Council agreed to support the transfer as long as there is a written agreement in place by the time of the transfer. Council felt that the initial round of the negotiation should be between the City and TDC because those are the two parties to the agreement. Senator Rosapepe and Delegate Peña-Melnyk repeated that there is nothing to lose by including the delegation as part of the College Park City Council Worksession Minutes August 2, 2017 Page 3 of 5 discussions. Sen. Rosapepe said the delegation also represents the people who live in College Park and they have an independent obligation to do what is right. The BPW and the legislature are going to look to the delegation for their position on this matter. It is best for us all to be together from the start. To agenda next week: letter supporting the transfer of the property as long as there is a written agreement between the City and the TDC by the time of the transfer (Day). 2 Follow-up discussion of election-related matters (staggered terms, longer terms, at- large Councilmembers) Mayor Wojahn reviewed the two options proposed at the last meeting for reconstituting the Council. There was additional survey information and information provided by the Board of Election Supervisors (BOES) in the red folder. The November candidacy packets are already posted so anything Council does now will be effective for the 2019 election. Councilmember Cook said residents want to be part of this decision process so she wants to see Council talk about this some more. There was a request to explore having a polling location at Stamp Student Union, and a question about why the polls are parsed as they are now between Davis Hall and City Hall. There was also a request to implement Early Voting in the future. These issues will be referred to the BOES, with the request for a follow-up Worksession about the technology and logistics needed. This would require a Charter Amendment. No-excuse absentee voting was not recommended by the BOES. Some Councilmembers have heard from residents who want these questions to go to referendum, but we would need to have a specific proposal. We also need to articulate what we are trying to accomplish and why. Council agreed to the formation of a council subcommittee to discuss and bring forward a proposal for Council consideration: Councilmembers Kujawa (Chair), Cook, Nagle, Mayor Wojahn and Chris Keosian. Then Council will hold two Town Halls/Public Forums (Davis Hall and City Hall) to discuss the ideas, with an interactive format for resident input. Check with Councilmember Brennan (absent tonight) to see if he is interested. 3 Letter to SHA regarding the timing of the traffic light at US 1 and Knox Road – Mr. Somers gave an overview, reviewed the staff report, and discussed the two alternatives considered by the stakeholder group: lead pedestrian and exclusive pedestrian options. The group’s recommendation is the exclusive pedestrian option. All signals between Guilford and Hotel Drive would be programmed in the same manner (with the exception of Hartwick Road). Eric Olson (CPCUP Executive Director) joined the discussion. Council asked about diagonal crossing – SHA won’t stripe the intersections for diagonal crossing. Letter to Consent agenda. College Park City Council Worksession Minutes August 2, 2017 Page 4 of 5 4 Signing on to a Climate Change resolution in response to the U.S. pulling out of Paris Climate Accord - Mayor Wojahn: Mayor Wojahn said after President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, several residents contacted him with their concerns, and many Mayors across the country signed a statement committing to the goals of the Accord. He requested this Worksession item to discuss the goals of the Accord, and where the City is positioned with respect to those goals. He added that the City Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory is supposed to be updated next year. Mr. Gardiner said one of the City’s goals is to conduct a community sustainability plan which we haven’t done yet. We do have a City operations sustainability plan, and the University has a sustainability plan. Mayor Wojahn invited former Mayor Andrew Fellows to join the conversation because of his role at the University of Maryland. Mayor Fellows said he hoped that the efforts happening on the University of Maryland campus would count toward the City’s goal. The Campus Community Connection program brings together faculty, staff, and students to support City and County efforts. In addition, PGCMA may explore with the UMD about a municipality-wide engagement on greenhouse gas reduction, which would have a larger impact. A number of faculty, Capstone students, graduate students, and centers on campus are already working on climate change matters so there are possibilities of working together toward a community plan. The importance of involving the CBE, regional (COG) efforts, and the CPCUP Sustainability Committee was acknowledged. Staff should report on what we need to move forward on a community sustainability plan, in collaboration with the other stakeholders where possible. What goals are we capable of achieving, and what resources do we need to get there. Staff will bring this back when we discuss the sustainability plan in the fall. The Mayor ultimately would like us to put our commitment in writing and to establish climate goals. 5 Discussion on whether/how to respond to public comments at meetings - Councilmember Kujawa: Councilmember Kujawa gave an overview: we are not always consistent in how we respond to people who speak during Public Hearings and/or comments from the audience on non-agenda items. Sometimes people are responded to, and sometimes they are not. What are the expectations? We should think about how it appears to the public if Council responds differently to speakers. Councilmember Nagle raised the importance of making all audience members feel comfortable. Mayor Wojahn indicated that Public Hearings are not meant to be a dialog or question and answer session; it is the time for the public to speak. Councilmember Stullich agrees that is generally true, but she wouldn’t want to prohibit a response at times when it is appropriate. Mayor Wojahn said as the presidor, he can indicate when some things can be taken off-line. College Park City Council Worksession Minutes August 2, 2017 Page 5 of 5 During comments from the audience, sometimes the speaker is expecting an answer or an update, but staff is not always prepared to provide one, so an off-line response may be needed. The City Manager assigns those items that need a follow-up at the staff meeting the next day. 6 Requests For/Status of Future Agenda items – N/A 7 Appointments to Boards and Committees – • Kabir: Carol Macknis to AWC • Nagle: Tim Miller to CBE pending receipt of application 8 Mayor and Councilmember Comments - • Review of National Night Out events. • When will the yard waste bins be available? 9 City Manager's Comments – College Park is hosting the Big Ten City Manager’s conference later this week. ADJOURN: A motion was made by Councilmember Kujawa and seconded by Councilmember Day to adjourn the Worksession, and with a vote of 7 – 0 – 0, Mayor Wojahn adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m. ____________________________________________ Janeen S. Miller, CMC Date City Clerk Approved