Mayor & City Council

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2022 CITY OF COLLEGE PARK WORKSESSION AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, this will be a hybrid meeting: In Person -- 2nd Floor Council Chambers, City Hall, 7401 Baltimore Avenue Or Via Zoom -- Link to join Webinar https://zoom.us/j/92398574069 COLLEGE PARK MISSION We provide excellent services, transparent and inclusive governance, and advocate for our residents to enhance the quality of life for our diverse community. Time Item Staff/Council 7:30 Call To Order City Manager’s Report Amendments To And Approval Of The Agenda Kenneth Young, City 7:45 1 Clarification on permitted use of the City Seal Manager and Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney Discussion of expanding the City’s provision of health and human services for residents, including virtual mental health Kiaisha Barber, Director of Youth, 8:00 2 services, medical services (health officer) staff, and Family and Senior partnerships needed to support such programs. Services 8:45 3 Requests for/Status of Future Agenda Items Mayor and Council 8:50 4 Mayor and Councilmember Comments Mayor and Council 8:55 5 City Manager's Comments Kenneth Young Adjourn 1 ➢ This agenda is subject to change. For the most current information, please contact the City Clerk at 240-487-3501. ➢ Public Comment is taken during Regular Business meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month in one of the following ways. All speakers are requested to complete a card with their name and address for the record. o To comment about a topic not on the meeting agenda: Speakers are given three minutes to address the Council during “Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items” at the beginning of each Regular Meeting. o To comment on an agenda item during a Regular Business meeting: When an agenda item comes up for consideration by the Council, the Mayor will invite public comment prior to Council deliberation. Speakers are given three minutes to address the Council on that agenda item. ➢ You may park for free in the Downtown Parking Garage located at 7306 Yale Avenue to attend this meeting. ➢ In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 240-487-3501 and describe the assistance that is necessary. 2 1. Clarification on permitted use of the City Seal 003  CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Suellen M. Ferguson Meeting Date: 07/05/2022 City Attorney Presented By: Kenny Young Proposed Consent: No City Manager Suellen M. Ferguson City Attorney Originating Department: Administration Issue Before Council: The Ethics Commission has requested clarification and direction to candidates and City staff on the proper use of the City seal during elections. Strategic Plan Objective: Objective #6: Inspire and nurture a welcoming and inclusive community that encourages and embodies engagement, collaboration, and equity throughout our City. Background/Justification: The Ethics Commission has requested clarification and direction on the proper use of the City seal during elections. This issue also gives rise to other questions, such as the use of the City seal, flag or logo (“insignia) in commercial ventures by others, and on the letter head or promotional materials of non- governmental organizations and individuals. Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 2013-01, attached, determined that an incumbent elected official could not distribute a City supplied business card when campaigning for re-election. Otherwise, the City has no general policies or procedures with respect to the use of City insignia. Under 15 United States Code §1052 (Lanham Act), a municipality may not copyright its flag or coat of arms or other insignia. As a result, there are no automatic protections against use by others that the City can claim. In addition, attempt to use a governments flags or other insignia are subject to constitutional challenges under the First Amendment. An example of this issue is found in Renna v. County of Union, New Jersey, 88 F. Supp. 3rd 310 (2014). In that case, a public access television show “displayed on-air a graphic illustration depicting the Seal of the County of Union with a spotlight shining on it.” The illustration “symbolized the mission of the show to shine a critical light” on the Union County Board. The County Attorney issued a cease and desist order. The Court found that, due to the Lanham Act, the seal was not protected by copyright or trademark. Further, in response to the claim that Union County was attempting to prevent Ms. Renna from exercising her First Amendment rights by threatening to enforce trademark laws against her, the Court found that Ms. Renna was using the County Seal not as a source-identifier (linking their content to the County), but in a politically expressive manner and as such, the use was “entitled to the highest degree of constitutional protection.” It is clear then that the use of City insignia as part of a political campaign, such as a candidate standing in front of a City flag or seal or other insignia when speaking, or using them on flyers, is protected First Amendment speech and should not be prohibited. This is consistent with the Advisory Opinion 2-13-01, which determined that “distribution of incumbent candidates' official City-provided business cards in connection with campaign activity constitutes the use of City-owned materials in violation of section 38-13 of the Ethics Chapter” as an improper use of prestige of office. Use of the same business card to provide constituent service is not. This analysis is in line with the decision in the Renna case, because in this instance, the card could be interpreted as a source-identifier (the City) to confer legitimacy on the candidate for purposes that are not intended. Another question that can arise is use of City insignia in a commercial circumstance. This issue was decided recently in Recht v. Morrisey. This 4th Circuit case from April 2022, involved a law adopted by West Virginia to limit the advertising that attorneys use to solicit clients in cases arising from the use of medications or medical devices. Specifically, the law prohibits an advertisement presented in a way to suggest "to a 004 reasonable recipient that the advertisement is offering professional, medical, or government agency advice about pharmaceuticals or medical devices rather than legal services." Further an advertisement may not display "the logo of a federal or state government agency in a manner that suggests affiliation with the sponsorship of that agency." In this case, the court allowed the prohibition to stand. The state law the State was “not regulating speech to convey a different message. Instead, it seeks to ensure that the information others communicate is truthful and not misleading.” On the basis that commercial speech is less protected than political speech, and that the government had a sufficient basis, protection of health and safety, to adopt the law, the court upheld this limit of speech for insignia not covered by a trademark or copyright. In any event, it is within the City’s police powers to prevent the use of its insignia when that use improperly gives the impression that the City is a sponsor or supporter of an activity or entity. This is the “source identifier” test mentioned above. If the use of the insignia is an attempt to identify the City as a source of the communication, especially in the commercial context, then it can be regulated. The degree of scrutiny applied by the Courts depends on who is using the insignia for what purpose. Use by an individual as part of political or other First Amendment speech is the most stringent level of review. An issue to be determined by the Mayor and Council is whether the City should consider a policy to address use of City insignia. An example of this type of regulation is found in the City of Laurel Code. This policy requires the written permission of the Mayor for the use of “the seal of the City of Laurel, or the seal or logo of any city department or official branding logo of the City of Laurel that has been approved by the Mayor and City Council of Laurel.” The City of Laurel’s policy is broad, especially with regard to First Amendment uses of City insignia. The response to the request from the Ethics Commission for more clarity with respect to election materials can and should be provided. Based on the law digested above, it should be possible to draft an insignia use policy that stays within constitutional requirements, if Mayor and Council so decide. Fiscal Impact: N/A Council Options: 1. Authorize staff and the City Attorney to prepare a response to the Ethics Commission with respect to its request for clarification on use of City insignia during elections 2. Authorize staff and the City Attorney to prepare a general policy for use of City insignia, to reflect what is currently allowed by the law 3. Not take any action at this time Staff Recommendation: Option #1 and Option #2 Recommended Motion: The motion will be based on the Council discussion. Attachments: 1. Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion 2013-01 2 005  CITY OF COLLEGE PARK ETHICS COMMISSION ADVISORY OPINION 2013-01 February 28, 2013 Jack Robson, the Chief of the City of College Park Board of Election Supervisors, has asked the Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion regarding whether incumbent candidates for office may distribute their City-supplied business cards with their campaign literature. Mr. Robson states that he has previously advised candidates that he believes that the mass distribution of official business cards with an incumbent candidate's campaign literature that is left at a resident's household would constitute an unauthorized use of City property for private purposes and the use of the prestige of public office for private gain in violation of the Ethics Chapter. Mr. Robson further states that he has advised candidates that he believes that an incumbent candidate would not violate the Ethics Chapter by leaving a business card with a constituent if, during a campaign visit or appearance, the candidate discussed City business with the constituent or received a request for constituent services and provided the constituent with a business card to facilitate further communication relating to the matter of City business or request for service. Applicable Law The following provisions of the Ethics Chapter are pertinent to Mr. Robson's inquiry: § 38-11. Conflicts of interest. *** G. Use of prestige of office. 1. An official or employee may not intentionally use the prestige of office or public position for the private gain of that official or employee or the private gain of another. *** § 38-13. Unauthorized use of City property. No City official or employee shall permit or facilitate the unauthorized use of city-owned facilities, vehicles, equipment, materials or personnel for private purposes or profit. 006  Discussion Unauthorized Use of City Property The Commission agrees with Mr. Robson's opinion that the mass distribution of incumbent candidates' official City-provided business cards in connection with campaign activity constitutes the use of City-owned materials in violation of section 38-13 ofthe Ethics Chapter. Although the Ethics Commission is not aware of any judicial or State Ethics Commission opinions that address this issue under Maryland law, the General Assembly of Maryland's Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, in its 2013 Ethics Guide, advises Maryland legislators that political campaign efforts do not constitute government business or constituent services and that legislators must not use government resources, including government-provided stationery, for campaign-related correspondence. The Joint Committee further cautions legislators not to utilize government resources for "overtly partisan" communications, even if the communications do not relate to an election campaign. In addition, the Joint Committee prohibits state legislators from including their personal web site addresses on their official business card if the personal web site includes campaign-related or overtly political material. The Commission finds the reasoning of the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics to be persuasive, and applying that reasoning to the City-issued business cards of Councilmembers, we conclude that campaigning for election constitutes a private purpose and, therefore, that distributing City-issued business cards for campaign purposes constitutes a violation of section 38-13 of the Ethics Chapter. Specifically, it is the opinion of the Commission that the mass distribution, by mail or hand-delivery, of an incumbent candidate's official business cards with campaign materials constitutes an unauthorized use of City materials for a private purpose. The Commission disagrees with Mr. Robson's opinion that the distribution of a business card by an incumbent candidate to a specific constituent following the discussion of City business or a request for constituent services during a campaign appearance or visit is permissible under the Ethics Chapter. Again, the Commission is not aware of any judicial or State Ethics Commission opinions that address this issue under Maryland law. The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics advised state legislators that the use of state-provided stationery for customary constituent services and to correspond regarding legislative business is permissible. However, we do not find the Committee's analysis to be applicable to the issue of the distribution of official business cards while a candidate is engaged in campaign activity. The primary purpose of official stationery is to facilitate written communication from a candidate's office to the recipient. In contrast, the primary purpose of official business cards is to facilitate further communications between an official and a constituent following a face-to-face interaction. When the face-to-face interaction between a candidate and a constituent occurs while the candidate is canvassing for votes or making a campaign appearance, the distribution of an official business card during that interaction is an inseparable part of the candidate's campaign activity. Accordingly, it is the 2 007 opinion of the Commission that section 38-13 prohibits candidates from giving their City-issued business card to constituents during campaign activities such as canvassing and public appearances. The Commission understands that discussing City business and constituent services with constituents is part of the official duties of City Councilmembers, regardless of whether the Councilmember is actively engaged in electoral campaigning. However, the Commission notes that incumbent candidates have alternative methods of facilitating further communications with constituents about City business that do not involve the use of City-provided materials, such as distributing personal business cards or taking the constituent's card or noting the constituent's contact information and following up with a call, letter, or email. Use of Prestige of Office Because we conclude that the mass distribution of City-provided business cards with campaign materials and the distribution of City-provided business cards during campaign appearances and electoral canvassing is prohibited by section 38-13, we do not reach the issue of whether such conduct constitutes the use of the prestige of office for private gain. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of the Ethics Commission that incumbent candidates for City office must not distribute their official, City-provided business cards in connection with mass distributions of campaign materials or during campaign activities such as door-to-door canvassing or public campaign appearances. ~~~~1~~ Robert Thurston ~~11<f 1 Gail Kushner 008  2. Discussion of expanding the City’s provision of health and human services for residents… 009  CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Kiaisha Barber Meeting Date: 7/5/2022 Youth, Family and Senior Services Director Presented By: Kiaisha Barber Consent Agenda: No Youth, Family and Senior Services Director Originating Department: Youth, Family and Senior Services Issue Before Council: Discussion of expanding the City’s provision of health and human services for residents, including virtual mental health services, medical services (health officer) staff, and partnerships needed to support such programs. Strategic Plan Objective: OKR #1 Innovate and improve city services to enhance quality, value and accessibility for all our residents. Background/Justification: The City of College Park has historically prioritized the overall health and being of its residents. Current environmental and societal factors give reason to evaluate the overall availability of health and human services to the residents of College Park. Currently, the City’s Youth Family and Senior Services Department provides mental health treatment, outreach and groups to individual and families with youth ages 2-18 and case management, transportation and social activities for residents ages 62 and older. Mental health needs have increased for all people in recent years; thus the provision of mental health services has also evolved to include more virtual or online treatment options. In many cases, online mental health treatment can be just as effective as a physical visit in an office setting. Potential ways to connect College Park Residents to virtual mental health options: ❖ Subsidizing costs for residents to receive services from national online therapy platforms ▪ Cost is $60-$120 per week (billed monthly) for three of the leading online therapy platforms • Benefits include:  Connection to a national network of licensed professional sooner, avoiding waitlist  Live sessions at times convenient for clients  Eliminates commute/travel time  Treatment available for residents of all ages  Services available in multiple languages • Considerations:  Budget for number of months per resident for use of the platforms  Administrative oversight by City staff; potential need for Resource navigator staff person/Coordinator  Confidentiality for residents seeking services  Excludes populations in need without access to technology ❖ Partnerships with local mental health providers who offer virtual therapeutic services ▪ Cost is typically $100-$200 per session • Benefits include:  Potential for connection with providers who offer in person and virtual services  Support of local/county service providers  Eliminates commute/travel time for virtual appointments  Treatment available for residents of all ages • Considerations:  Process of recruiting/soliciting agencies to participate 010   Type of contract/agreement with agencies  Potential lack of local providers available to meet demand for services  Administrative oversight by City staff; potential need for Resource navigator staff person/Coordinator  Confidentiality for residents seeking services In addition to mental health needs expanding in recent years, medical needs have also increased as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Currently the City of College Park does not offer medical services to residents. A direct service community health officer (also called a community health worker or nurse) typically addresses the healthcare needs of targeted populations using medical process/assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation to provide healthcare services to at-risk communities. If the person in the position is not licensed an independent practitioner, they are typically supervised by a medical professional with the appropriate credentials. Typical duties of a community health officer include: • Assessing health care needs of identified population • Implementing health care plans that include teaching, counseling, and referrals; • Conducting home visits to obtain and assess appropriate health care needs for clients; • Consulting with health care providers and other personnel/agencies to discuss/share information and coordinate services; • Documenting and maintain clients' health care records; • Participating at meetings, workshops, training sessions, and conferences Should the City desire to add such a position some considerations would be: ▪ Recruitment of professional who can practice singularly or hiring/contracting with an independent medical professional to supervise position ▪ Scope of work/population of focus for position (ie, seniors, women/infants or vaccinations, preventative care) ▪ Weighing benefit of contracting with existing health agencies/organizations vs. hiring a permanent staff person ▪ Typical Salary Range of $40-80,000 annually, dependent of experience and qualifications Existing resources available to College Park Residents that include mental health and medical support outside of City services: ❖ Maryland 211 is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and oversees a statewide network of call centers providing essential connections to everyone in Marylander. Callers are automatically routed to their regional call center for assistance and are connected to a larger group of crisis centers. Services include resources for local mental health providers, medical providers, immediate crisis/chat availability, wellness check ins via text ❖ Prince George's County Health and Human Services (HHS) is comprised of the Prince George’s County Department of Family Services, the Health Department, and the Department of Social Services. Services under these departments include both mental and medical services for youth, families, adults and seniors. Prince George’s County has a 24/7 resource line advice and support as well, 311, which will connect callers with the appropriate county resource dependent on the situation. • Limitations of these resources may include a lack of availability of local services provides, eligibility restrictions or wait lists for services. Fiscal Impact: N/A at this time Council Options: Provide City staff direction on which expansion options to explore further and prepare proposal for Council Consideration. 2 011 Staff Recommendation: N/A Recommended Motion: N/A Attachments: Websites to review some resources available to College Park Residents: About Us | Prince George's County, MD (princegeorgescountymd.gov) 211 Maryland | MD Health And Human Services | Get Help (211md.org) 3 012 3. Future Agenda Items 013 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Manager and Department Directors FROM: Janeen S. Miller, City Clerk / Yvette Allen, Assistant City Clerk DATE: June 29, 2022 RE: Future Agendas The following items are tentatively placed on future agendas. This list has been prepared by the City Manager and me and represents the current schedule for items that will appear on future agendas. Tuesday, July 12, 2022 Regular Meeting (22-G-91) Approval of a contract with Hitachi to install utility poles and cameras along the Trolley Trail – Bob Ryan, Director of Public Services (10) (22-G-105) Consideration of a contract for the City’s Audio-Visual Specialist – Bill Gardiner, Assistant City Manager Introduction of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 148, Peace and Good Order, to provide rules and regulations for City parks and playgrounds – Bob Ryan, Director of Public Services Discussion of application for a Beer, Wine and Liquor BLX License by Rajneesh Nagpal and Rishi Malhotra for M&T Restaurant, LLC, t/a Dog Haus Biergarten College Park, and Property Use Agreement with the City. Possible special session for support of the application subject to entering into a Property Use Agreement in substantially the form attached, to be signed by the City Manager, or not to support the application. City staff to be authorized to present the City’s position at the Board of License Commissioner’s hearing. – Sullen Ferguson (15) W/S Discussion of a Special Taxing District to fund live monitoring of security cameras – Bob Ryan, Kenny Young, Sullen Ferguson, , Gary Fields, and Michael Williams (45) RISE Zone Application – Michael Williams (20) Wednesday, August 3, 2022 W/S and R/M (this is the only August meeting) Quarterly Financial Presentation – Gary Fields, Director of Finance Follow-up discussion on a City Youth Advisory Committee – Kiaisha Barber, Director of Youth, Family and Senior Services (30) 014 6/29/2022 S:\CityClerk\2022\2022 FUTURE AGENDAS\062922FA.doc  Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Worksession Expansion of Community Outreach in Spanish – Bill Gardiner and Ryna Quinones Presentation on the County Emergency Operations Plan and discussion of City emergency planning – Bob Ryan and Kenneth Young Presentation on design plans for Duvall Field – Terry Schum Discussion with the College Park Housing Authority on use of the ARPA funds the City set aside – Michelle Johnson, Housing Authority Director Tuesday, October 5, 2022 Worksession Discussion of a new City bicycle-pedestrian committee – Terry Schum and Steve Halpern Follow up discussion on election matters – Janeen S. Miller, City Clerk Tuesday, November 1, 2022 Worksession November 1 W/S: Discuss possible expansion of the Homeowner’s Property Tax Credit to allow for an ITOC (Income Tax Offset Credit) – Gary Fields and Kenneth Young November 1 W/S: Discussion of City Events – Ryna Quinones, Communication and Events Manager ANNUAL ITEMS January, early: Discussion of Homestead Tax Credit Rate (currently at 0%) (must certify by March 25 to change rate) January, after an election: Review and adoption of Council Rules and Procedures January: Review annual reports and workplans from advisory boards IFC/PHA Annual meeting with Council (when is best?) March: Annual Review/Renewal of Insurance Contracts March: Annual farmers market debrief (is this still needed?) March: Annual Economic Development Report April and September: Comments on the M-NCPPC budget June Worksession: Review of applications for advisory board vacancies June Regular Meeting: Annual appointments to advisory boards 015 6/29/2022 S:\CityClerk\2022\2022 FUTURE AGENDAS\062922FA.doc Early Fall: Annual presentation from SHA on projects in the City (schedule prior to CTP discussion) Fall: Annual police agency presentation MASTER LIST 2022 Quarterly Financial Presentations: February 8, April 26, August 3; January 24, 2023 2022 Quarterly Appointments to fill advisory board vacancies: January 25, April 26, and October 25. Appointments to all advisory boards occur annually in June (June 21 meeting) for the July 1 term. 2022 Four Cities Meetings: April 28 – Greenbelt; June 28 – Berwyn Heights; October 27 – New Carrollton 10-01-19: Discussion of signing on to the principles of the Maryland Advocates for Sustainable Transportation – request of Mayor Wojahn Discussion of additional roadway connectivity between City neighborhoods - AND – Find options to reduce traffic on our major roadways (include Complete Streets) (40) Terry Schum, Director of Planning; Steve Halpern, City Engineer; Robert Marsili, Director of Public Works Review of proposal for a pilot program for a rebate to homeowners for installation of residential security camera systems - Bob Ryan, Director of Public Services (20) 12-01-20: Discussion on establishment of a Human Relations Commission – Councilmember Mitchell Combined Items: Report on Right-Of-Way at Edgewood Road at intersection with US 1 AND Follow up on the proposed road improvements to Cherry Hill Road at intersection with US 1 to address traffic back-ups – Terry Schum and Steve Halpern 01-18-22: Amendments to Chapter 15 of the City Code to change Recreation Board to City Events Advisory Board and make amendments to the field use permitting process – Ryna Quinones, Communications and Events Manager 02-01-22: Discussion of a City program to provide a match for the County’s Rain Check Rebate Program – request of Councilmember Adams 02-22-22: Redistricting timetable: Anticipated date to receive the report from the City Redistricting Commission is September 13, with Council action expected by November 15. Discussion of an education specialist (consultant?) to assist with education support strategies Discussion of the Council Subcommittee proposal 016 6/29/2022 S:\CityClerk\2022\2022 FUTURE AGENDAS\062922FA.doc Approval of Contract Amendment to NZI for Cherokee Road sidewalk construction. Different property tax rate for vacant and blighted properties 06-07-22: Presentation and Discussion on options for gun violence prevention measures 06-14-22: (22-O-06) Introduction of an Ordinance regarding the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement – Suellen Ferguson, City Attorney 017 6/29/2022 S:\CityClerk\2022\2022 FUTURE AGENDAS\062922FA.doc  City of College Park Annual Proclamation List for 2022 (Proclamations Approved 08/10/2021 21-R-15) 2022 Dates January 11 Martin Luther King, Jr. February 8 Black History Month February 8 Women’s Heart Health Month March 8 Women’s History Month April 12 Arbor Day April 26 Children’s Mental Health Week (May 1-7) May 10 Kids To Parks Day (May 21) May 17 Bike To Work Day (May 20) May 24 Chesapeake Bay Awareness Week (June 4-12) May Volunteer Appreciation Month (the date may shift to coincide with the City’s annual appreciation event) June 7 Immigrant Heritage Month June 7 Juneteenth June 7 LGBTQ Pride Month June 21 Pollinator Week (for 3rd full week in June) September 13 Suicide Prevention Month September 13 Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept. 15 through Oct. 15) September 27 Mayor’s Monarch Pledge proclamation (end of September for the 1st Saturday in October) October 5 Indigenous Peoples’ Day October Business of the Year recipient November 8 Municipal Government Works Month (MML Banner City requirement) November 8 Small Business Saturday 018 6/29/2022 S:\CityClerk\2022\2022 FUTURE AGENDAS\062922FA.doc