Work Session

Mayor and Council November 1, 2016 Agenda "A diverse, business-friendly, and sustainable community with clean, safe and strong neighborhoods." "Providing the most efficient and highest-quality services as the municipal location of choice for all customers." "Voting is the expression of our commitment to ourselves, one another, this country and this world." Sharon Salzberg 4:00 PM WORK SESSION 1. Update on In-house Abatements - Eric Deike, Director of Public Works; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager 4:15 PM 2. Proposed Amendments to Rental Facilities Code and Administrative Policy - Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager 4:30 PM 3. Inspections of Non-profit Housing- Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager 4:45 PM 4. Proposed Policy Change to Sidewalk Regulations - Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Amanda Whitmore, Downtown Coordinator 5:15 PM 5. Update on Competitive Negotiated Sale Program - Randy Gray, Business Development Specialist 5:00 PM 6. Prospective Sale of Property: 43-53 W. Washington Street - Jonathan Kerns, Community Development Manager CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Update on In-house Abatements - Eric Deike, Director of Public Works; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager Mayor and City Council Action Required: Discussion: Financial Impact: Recommendation: Motion: Action Dates: ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Neighborhood Protection - MCC_memo_High_Weeds_and_Rubbish_Update_10_27_16.pdf Abatement of High Weeds and Rubbish Update  CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Planning and Code Administration Department MEMORANDUM TO: Valerie Means, City Administrator FROM: Paul W. Fulk, Inspection Manager DATE: October 27, 2016 SUBJECT: Neighborhood Protection – Abatement of High Weeds and Rubbish Update Staff will be present at the November 1st work session to provide the Mayor and City Council with an update on the Planning and Code Administration in-house abatement of high weeds and rubbish being conducted by the Public Works Department. Background Since 2002, the City’s Code Administration Office has contracted with a private contractor to abate high weeds and rubbish violations on properties. In recent years the response time, quality of work, and billing by the abatement contractor were causing complaints by neighborhood residents, property owners, and City staff. Inspection staff would direct the abatement contractor to abate violations and the contractor response times would vary between 10-45 days after the request. At times, work would be done unsatisfactorily and require a second trip by the contractor. Bills would be high for the work performed and bills would be submitted weeks or months after the work was completed. This delay would cause aggravation for surrounding property owners and hardship to the City when billing the property owner - sometimes the property would be sold leaving the City with the inability to collect fees for services performed. Staff had been unable to attract bids from other contractors who would provide improved service on these issues of high weeds and rubbish abatement work. Planning and Code Administration staff presented recommendations to the Mayor and City Council during the December 8, 2015 work session, recommending an in-house crew in Public Works perform the abatement of high weeds and rubbish. The recommendation of was approved and authorized to begin on April 1, 2016 after the expiration of the private contractor’s contract. The recommendation was cost neutral to the budget since funds had been allocated for high weeds and rubbish abatements. High Weeds and Rubbish Process The Planning and Code Administration inspection staff will respond to a concern by a citizen or identify a property with high weeds or rubbish during routine patrols. Depending on the conditions of the property, inspection staff post the property with a notice of violation to abate One East Franklin Street | Room 300 | Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4987 301.739.8577, Ext. 138 or 103 codecompliance@hagerstownmd.org | planning@hagerstownmd.org the violation and establish a deadline of 7 days, 5 days, or 1 day. Inspectors re-inspect the property after the deadline has passed. If the property owner failed to abate the high weeds and/or rubbish violation, inspectors submit a work order request to the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department then abates the violations at the property based on the work order request and submits a bill for their services to the Planning and Code Administration Department. PCAD Administrative staff bill the property owner for the services rendered plus an administrative and technology fee. Bills that are not paid within 30 days are placed as a tax lien on the property. Update on In-House Abatement’s First 6 Months Staff has prepared a PowerPoint presentation on our history abating high weeds and rubbish since 2013. This presentation provides data on the numbers of properties abated and costs of the services performed. In addition, the presentation will provide examples of abatement work performed by Public Works, review of the past 6 months, and recommendations. The assessment of the in-house abatement during the first 6 months has shown:  A decrease in abatement costs  A decrease in completion and invoice time from initial request  Response time from “contractor” has shortened  An increase in communication between “contractor” and PCAD staff  A decrease in call volume from citizens about City’s response time  City staff time become more efficient  Compliments from citizens on work performed by Public Works c: Kathleen Maher, Planning and Code Administration Director Eric Dieke, Director of Public Works Blaine Mowen, Chief Code Official Gary Lambert, Programs Manager Emily McFarland, Program Administration Specialist Andrea Rueckerl, Administrative Coordinator  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Proposed Amendments to Rental Facilities Code and Administrative Policy - Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager Mayor and City Council Action Required: Review of a proposed minor amendments to Chapter 197, Rental Facilities, of the City Code and a proposed revision to the Planning and Code Administration Department’s administrative policy for acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority interior inspections. Discussion: Revocation of Residential Operator Certification This proposed amendment is in response to a concern raised by a member of the real estate investment community on how the ordinance is written versus applied relative to revocation of residential operator certificates. The way Chapter 197 is written it could be interpreted that if a residential operator (owner or property manager) is in violation of the Crime-Free Provisions, the residential operator license would be revoked for all properties owned or managed by that operator. In practice, staff apply this revocation provision only to the property where the violation is in effect. The concern expressed to staff is that new investors and new property management companies are uncertain whether the current administrative practice will continue or whether a stricter interpretation of the code could occur in the future. According to the concern expressed, this uncertainty deters some investors or property management companies from real estate opportunities in Hagerstown. Staff are fine with minor amendments to Chapter 197 that clarifies that any such revocation would be limited to the property where the violations of Sections 197-9 and 197-10 occurred. The City Attorney recommends that a definition be created for ‘certified crime-free housing residential operator’ – an undefined term used in Section 197-12. Acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority’s Interior Inspections The proposed amendment is intended to address staff concerns about situations which may arise where an interior inspection by the City would be preferable to acceptance of an HHA Tenant-based Section 8 inspection. Existing Provisions: Chapter 197, Rental Facilities, states that the City ‘may’ accept an HHA interior inspection in place of a City inspection for the rental licensing process. PCAD has an existing administrative policy for ‘Acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority’s Interior Inspections’ which states the department ‘shall’ accept the HHA inspection. Issues of Concern: At times situations arise with a prospective Section 8 rental unit where City inspection would be preferable: · The property has never been licensed under Chapter 197, Rental Facilities; · The unit or structure has previously been condemned or deemed uninhabitable by the City; or · Building permits have not been finaled by PCAD or non-permitted work has occurred at the  · Building permits have not been finaled by PCAD or non-permitted work has occurred at the property. Financial Impact: Recommendation: Code Amendments: Approval of amendments to Chapter 197 intended: · to be responsive to a raised concern by the business community by providing clarity on how the City intends to administer the residential operator certification revocation process; and · to protect new residents in circumstances where the units have previously been condemned or otherwise deemed uninhabitable, work has been done without a permit or without a final inspection of a permit, or the property has never been in the program by outlining the circumstances under which a Hagerstown Housing Authority interior inspection would not be accepted in lieu of City inspections. If so desired, an ordinance will be placed on a Special Session agenda for November 15th to allow for approval at the regular meeting on November 22nd. Policy Revisions: PCAD’s administrative policies are authorized and approved by the Department head. If the Code is amended, staff will revise PCAD Policy 166 for consistency with Chapter 197’s provisions regarding acceptance of HHA interior inspections. Motion: Action Dates: Discussion - November 1, 2016 Introduction (if support) - Special Session on November 15, 2016 Approval - November 22, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Proposed Amendments to Rental MCC_memo_Rental_Facilities_HHA_Inspections_and_Crime_Free_Provision_10_27_16.pdf Facilities Ordinance and Administrative Policy  CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Planning and Code Administration Department MEMORANDUM TO: Valerie Means, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen A. Maher, Director of Planning & Code Administration Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager DATE: October 27, 2016 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Rental Facilities Code and Administrative Policy ACTION REQUESTED Review of a proposed minor amendments to Chapter 197, Rental Facilities, of the City Code and a proposed revision to the Planning and Code Administration Department’s administrative policy for acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority interior inspections. Revocation of Residential Operator Certification This proposed amendment is in response to a concern raised by a member of the real estate investment community on how the ordinance is written versus applied relative to revocation of residential operator certificates. The way Chapter 197 is written it could be interpreted that if a residential operator (owner or property manager) is in violation of the Crime-Free Provisions, the residential operator license would be revoked for all properties owned or managed by that operator. In practice, staff apply this revocation provision only to the property where the violation is in effect. The concern expressed to staff is that new investors and new property management companies are uncertain whether the current administrative practice will continue or whether a stricter interpretation of the code could occur in the future. According to the concern expressed, this uncertainty deters some investors or property management companies from real estate opportunities in Hagerstown. Staff are fine with minor amendments to Chapter 197 that clarifies that any such revocation would be limited to the property where the violations of Sections 197-9 and 197-10 occurred. The City Attorney recommends that a definition be created for ‘certified crime-free housing residential operator’ – an undefined term used in Section 197-12. One East Franklin Street | Room 300 | Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4987 301.739.8577, Ext. 138 or 103 codecompliance@hagerstownmd.org | planning@hagerstownmd.org Acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority’s Interior Inspections The proposed amendment is intended to address staff concerns about situations which may arise where an interior inspection by the City would be preferable to acceptance of an HHA Tenant- based Section 8 inspection. Existing Provisions: Chapter 197, Rental Facilities, states that the City ‘may’ accept an HHA interior inspection in place of a City inspection for the rental licensing process. PCAD has an existing administrative policy for ‘Acceptance of Hagerstown Housing Authority’s Interior Inspections’ which states the department ‘shall’ accept the HHA inspection. Issues of Concern: At times situations arise with a prospective Section 8 rental unit where City inspection would be preferable:  The property has never been licensed under Chapter 197, Rental Facilities;  The unit or structure has previously been condemned or deemed uninhabitable by the City; or  Building permits have not been finaled by PCAD or non-permitted work has occurred at the property. RECOMMENDATION Code Amendments: Approval of amendments to Chapter 197 intended:  to be responsive to a raised concern by the business community by providing clarity on how the City intends to administer the residential operator certification revocation process; and  to protect new residents in circumstances where the units have previously been condemned or otherwise deemed uninhabitable, work has been done without a permit or without a final inspection of a permit, or the property has never been in the program by outlining the circumstances under which a Hagerstown Housing Authority interior inspection would not be accepted in lieu of City inspections. If so desired, an ordinance will be placed on a Special Session agenda for November 15th to allow for approval at the regular meeting on November 22nd. Policy Revisions: PCAD’s administrative policies are authorized and approved by the Department head. If the Code is amended, staff will revise PCAD Policy 166 for consistency with Chapter 197’s provisions regarding acceptance of HHA interior inspections. c: Gerry Kendle, HPD Blaine Mowen, Chief Code Official Gary Lambert, Programs Manager Mark Boyer, City Attorney Jennifer Keefer, City Attorney Jason Morton, City Attorney  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Inspections of Non-profit Housing- Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Paul Fulk, Inspection Manager Mayor and City Council Action Required: Planning and Code Administration staff will be present at the November 1 st work session to provide the Mayor and City Council with a report on our assessment of the inspection checklists utilized for non-profit supported housing not in the City’s Rental Licensing program. This is in follow-up to a prior discussion on this topic with the Mayor and City Council on August 23rd. Concerns had been expressed in the past by Councilman Aleshire as to whether sheltered housing was subject to the same or similar inspection standards as rental housing to ensure the safety of the residents. Discussion: Hagerstown’s Rental Facilities Program Chapter 197 of the City Code outlines the licensing and inspection requirements for the City’s Rental Facilities Program. This code was adopted by the Mayor and City Council in 2003 for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Hagerstown, establishing rights and obligations of the landlords and tenants in the rental of dwelling units, and encouraging the landlords and tenants to maintain and improve the quality of rental housing within the community. An additional purpose is promoting and assuring the safety, health and habitability in the housing conditions in rental facilities in the City, preventing deterioration of rental facilities in the City, supporting property values, and encouraging responsible management and use of rental facilities through licensing and inspection. Licensing and Inspections Required by the Code: Chapter 197 requires any structure containing one or more dwelling units to be licensed with the City and subject to periodic inspections for compliance with the City’s Property Maintenance Code. Rooming houses are considered rental facilities under this code. Exceptions are provided to owner-occupied structures containing no more than one rental unit (“owner plus one”) and to rental facilities owned and operated by the Hagerstown Housing Authority (HHA). The exception for HHA is because it was determined their inspection standards were comparable to the City’s standards. Excluded from Licensing by the Code: Chapter 197 excludes traditional hotels, motels, bed- and-breakfasts, nursing homes and hospitals from the definition of “rental facility.” The first three are “rented” on a very transient basis by travelers passing through the community, and any hotel or motel operating under the flag of a national chain would be subject to the operational and maintenance standards to remain under that flag. The last two are subject to oversight by the State of Maryland. Excluded from Licensing by Interpretation: Planning and Code Administration staff have excluded homeless shelters due to their hotel-like transiency and assumption of oversight by the State of Maryland or other authority, residential treatment facilities due to on-site care and oversight by others, ARC of Washington County houses due to in-home nursing care and other oversight, and assisted living facilities due to nursing care and other oversight. Assessment of Inspection Checklist for Non-Profit Housing and Shelter Providers While a number of housing facilities owned or managed by non-profit entities are already licensed in the City’s Rental Facilities program, another 118 units and 247 beds (in addition to the 118 units) in non-profit supported housing are not licensed by the City and subject to our inspections. In mid-September we sent letters to the seven providers with facilities not in the Rental Facilities program, and to date we have received inspections checklists from five of those providers. Attached is a report on our assessment of the information we have gathered on these facilities which are unlicensed by the City. It is staff’s determination that none of the checklists we received provide for a comparable inspection to the City’s inspection for compliance with the Property Maintenance Code. A large percentage of the standards on the checklists we reviewed are more medical or social service in nature than building safety. Staff will be present at the meeting to answer any questions about this assessment. Financial Impact: Recommendation: If the Mayor and City Council would be interested in amending the Rental Facilities ordinance to incorporate the sheltered housing types not currently subject to the ordinance (e.g., dormitories, homeless shelters, residential treatment facilities), the City Attorney’s Office has indicated that further research is necessary to determine if the City is preempted from such regulatory oversight of facilities also regulated by the State and/or Federal government. As expressed by Councilman Aleshire in the past, the intent of any such local effort is to ensure that the housing provided to the most vulnerable residents of our community are inspected to the same or higher standard as other non-owner occupied housing in Hagerstown. Motion: Action Dates: Discussion - November 1, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description M_CC_Memo_Inspections_of_Nonprofit_Housing_10_27_16.pdf Inspections Housing of Non-profit Report_on_Inspections_of_Non- Report on Inspections of Profit_Housing_PUBLIC_8_22_16.pdf Non-profit Housing  CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Planning and Code Administration Department MEMORANDUM TO: Valerie Means, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen A. Maher, Director of Planning & Code Administration Paul Fulk, Inspections Manager DATE: October 27, 2016 SUBJECT: Inspections of Non-Profit Housing Planning and Code Administration staff will be present at the November 1st work session to provide the Mayor and City Council with a report on our assessment of the inspection checklists utilized for non-profit supported housing not in the City’s Rental Licensing program. This is in follow-up to a prior discussion on this topic with the Mayor and City Council on August 23 rd. Concerns had been expressed in the past by Councilman Aleshire as to whether sheltered housing was subject to the same or similar inspection standards as rental housing to ensure the safety of the residents. Hagerstown’s Rental Facilities Program Chapter 197 of the City Code outlines the licensing and inspection requirements for the City’s Rental Facilities Program. This code was adopted by the Mayor and City Council in 2003 for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Hagerstown, establishing rights and obligations of the landlords and tenants in the rental of dwelling units, and encouraging the landlords and tenants to maintain and improve the quality of rental housing within the community. An additional purpose is promoting and assuring the safety, health and habitability in the housing conditions in rental facilities in the City, preventing deterioration of rental facilities in the City, supporting property values, and encouraging responsible management and use of rental facilities through licensing and inspection. Licensing and Inspections Required by the Code: Chapter 197 requires any structure containing one or more dwelling units to be licensed with the City and subject to periodic inspections for compliance with the City’s Property Maintenance Code. Rooming houses are considered rental facilities under this code. Exceptions are provided to owner-occupied structures containing no more than one rental unit (“owner plus one”) and to rental facilities owned and operated by the Hagerstown Housing Authority (HHA). The exception for HHA is because it was determined their inspection standards were comparable to the City’s standards. One East Franklin Street | Room 300 | Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4987 301.739.8577, Ext. 138 or 103 codecompliance@hagerstownmd.org | planning@hagerstownmd.org Inspections of Non-profit Housing October 27, 2016 Excluded from Licensing by the Code: Chapter 197 excludes traditional hotels, motels, bed-and- breakfasts, nursing homes and hospitals from the definition of “rental facility.” The first three are “rented” on a very transient basis by travelers passing through the community, and any hotel or motel operating under the flag of a national chain would be subject to the operational and maintenance standards to remain under that flag. The last two are subject to oversight by the State of Maryland. Excluded from Licensing by Interpretation: Planning and Code Administration staff have excluded homeless shelters due to their hotel-like transiency and assumption of oversight by the State of Maryland or other authority, residential treatment facilities due to on-site care and oversight by others, ARC of Washington County houses due to in-home nursing care and other oversight, and assisted living facilities due to nursing care and other oversight. Assessment of Inspection Checklist for Non-Profit Housing and Shelter Providers While a number of housing facilities owned or managed by non-profit entities are already licensed in the City’s Rental Facilities program, another 118 units and 247 beds (in addition to the 118 units) in non-profit supported housing are not licensed by the City and subject to our inspections. In mid-September we sent letters to the seven providers with facilities not in the Rental Facilities program, and to date we have received inspections checklists from five of those providers. Attached is a report on our assessment of the information we have gathered on these facilities which are unlicensed by the City. It is staff’s determination that none of the checklists we received provide for a comparable inspection to the City’s inspection for compliance with the Property Maintenance Code. A large percentage of the standards on the checklists we reviewed are more medical or social service in nature than building safety. Staff will be present at the meeting to answer any questions about this assessment. Staff Recommendation If the Mayor and City Council would be interested in amending the Rental Facilities ordinance to incorporate the sheltered housing types not currently subject to the ordinance (e.g., dormitories, homeless shelters, residential treatment facilities), the City Attorney’s Office has indicated that further research is necessary to determine if the City is preempted from such regulatory oversight of facilities also regulated by the State and/or Federal government. As expressed by Councilman Aleshire in the past, the intent of any such local effort is to ensure that the housing provided to the most vulnerable residents of our community are inspected to the same or higher standard as other non-owner occupied housing in Hagerstown. Attachment c: Blaine Mowen, Chief Code Official Gary Lambert, Programs Manager Jon Kerns, Community Development Manager Victor Brito, Police Chief Steve Lohr, Fire Chief City Attorney’s Office 2 Report on Inspections of Non-Profit Supported or Provided Housing Housing NOT in the City's Rental Licensing Program Inspections Comparable No. of No. of No. of to City PMC Agency Program Prop. Units Beds State Inspections unannounced by Others? Inspections? inspectiosn of ARC- owned homes. ARC inspections monthly of Troy Van Scoyoc, supportive all units. HHA inspections Ex.Dir., The ARC of housing for of Section 8 units. No Washington County, mentally and external oversight of 820 Florida Avenue, physically client rented homes 21740 disabled Multiple 58 (unless Section 8). No William G. Boyer, Jr. Ex.Dir., Ravenwood Lutheran Village, independent Twice per year 1183 Luther Drive, living units for inspections by 21740 seniors 1 60 maintenance staff. No Bruce L. Sonny Shank, Ex.Dir., The Hope Center at Hagerstown Rescue Mission, 125 N. 13-month Prospect Street, P.O. residential Health Department Box 685, 21741-0685 program 1 31 inspects kitchen. No Bruce L. Sonny Shank, Ex.Dir., The Hope Center at Hagerstown Rescue shelter for Mission, 125 N. transient men (30 Prospect Street, P.O. consecutive nights Health Department Box 685, 21741-0685 maximum stay) 1 31 inspects kitchen. No Jodie Ostoich, Ex.Dir., REACH of Washington Self-inspection per County, 140 W. Federal guidelines with Franklin Street, Suite shelter for annual report to Federal 300, 21740 homeless adults 1 56 government. No  Annual inspection by SA Major Dan Heard, HQ. Annual inspections Commanding of fire extinguishers and Officer, The Salvation fire alarm system by Army, Hagerstown, outside contractor. MD Command, 534 Unannounced W. Franklin Street, shelter for women inspection by City Fire 21740 and children 1 28 Dept. ? Annual inspection by MD Dept of Health & Mental Hygiene, inspected at least every 3 years by HUD, and Scott Rose, President, inspected at least every Way Station, 3 years by Commission Inc./Turning Point of on Accreditation of Washington County, treatment of non- Rehab Facilities 230 W. Patrick Street, vets for mental (national accrediting Frederick, MD 21705 illness 5 29 body). No Scott Rose, President, Way Station, Inc./Turning Point of Federally licensed and Washington County, treatment of inspected annually by 230 W. Patrick Street, veterans for the Veterans Frederick, MD 21705 mental illness 2 40 Administration. No Charles Mooneyhan, Ex.Dir., Wells House, treatment facility Annual inspection by Inc., 124 E. Baltimore for recovering the State and State Fire Street, 21740 addicts 2 32 Marshall. No PCAD, Sept 2, 2016 and Oct 21, 2016  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Proposed Policy Change to Sidewalk Regulations - Kathleen Maher, Director of Planning and Code Administration; Amanda Whitmore, Downtown Coordinator Mayor and City Council Action Required: Provide staff direction on any amendments desired to the Standards and Conditions for display of merchandise on the sidewalks downtown - based on input received during Citizen Comments on October 25th. Discussion: Proposed Policy Change which sparked Citizen Comments · Displays shall be limited to a single row of merchandise against the wall of the business and not be hung from the building or awning. Existing Policy Provision which sparked Citizen Comments · Display shall not be anchored or affixed to a tree, post, sign, parking meter, or other structure. Input Received during Citizen Comments on October 25th · Examples provided of obstacles in the sidewalk (e.g., utility pit covers, sidewalk defects, etc.) which merchants felt would make alternative display locations more appropriate to protect pedestrian movement – such as in bump outs near the street or hanging from the awning. · If cannot anchor displays to the building or sidewalk, the wind could shift the merchandise racks away from the frontage of the store. Financial Impact: Recommendation: Once Mayor and City Council review is completed, the item will be placed on an agenda for approval. Motion: Action Dates: Discussion - October 18, 2016 Citizen Comments - October 25, 2016 Citizen Comments - October 25, 2016 Discussion - November 1, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Proposed Policy MCC_Memo_Proposed_Sidewalk_Standard_and_Condition_Changes_10_26_16.pdf Change Sidewalk to Display Standards Amendments to Standards 2016_Amendment_Proposal_- and _Sidewalk_business_license_standards_and_conditions_Red_Line.pdf Conditions for Sidewalk Business License  CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Department of Community & Economic Development TO: Valerie Means, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen A. Maher, Director of Planning & Code Administration Amanda Whitmore, Downtown Coordinator DATE: October 26, 2016 SUBJECT: Proposed Policy Change to Sidewalk Display Standards __________________________________________________________________________________ Mayor and City Council Action Requested Provide staff direction on any amendments desired to the Standards and Conditions for display of merchandise on the sidewalk - based on input received during Citizen Comments on October 25th. Proposed Policy Change which sparked Citizen Comments  Displays shall be limited to a single row of merchandise against the wall of the business and not be hung from the building or awning. Existing Policy Provision which sparked Citizen Comments  Display shall not be anchored or affixed to a tree, post, sign, parking meter, or other structure. Input Received during Citizen Comments on October 25th  Examples provided of obstacles in the sidewalk (e.g., utility pit covers, sidewalk defects, etc.) which merchants felt would make alternative display locations more appropriate to protect pedestrian movement – such as in bump outs near the street or hanging from the awning.  If cannot anchor displays to the building or sidewalk, the wind could shift the merchandise racks away from the frontage of the store. Next Steps Once Mayor and City Council review is completed, the item will be placed on an agenda for approval. Attachments c: Jill Frick, Director of Community & Economic Development Rodney Tissue, City Engineer Paul Fulk, Inspections Manager Blaine Mowen, Chief Code Official Victor Brito, Police Chief ______________________________________________________________________________ 14 N. Potomac Street, Suite 200A Hagerstown, MD 21740  Standards and Conditions for Sidewalk Business License Temporary Use of the Public Right-of-Way for Display of Merchandise PROPOSED REVISIONS, OCTOBER 25, 2016 Per Section 216-62 of the Code of the City of Hagerstown, merchandise shall only be displayed in public street rights of way in the City Center if a license is granted by the City for a specified time. The City Center is defined as the City Center Mixed-Use (CC-MU) zoning district. Any ongoing and unlicensed merchandise display in public street rights-of-way shall be ordered removed by the City or removed at the Operator’s cost. Display of merchandise on public sidewalks shall ONLY be related to the principal use of the abutting storefront property. Placement for display and sale of merchandise upon any portion of the public right-of-way is regulated by these “Standards and Conditions”: 1. Application Process: Applicant must submit a sidewalk business license application, a certificate of liability insurance (naming City as additional insured), and a tentative schedule of events to the Engineering Division in City Hall, 1 East Franklin Street and a drawing of the planned display area. 2. License Agreement: The license agreement allows for temporary use of the public right- of-way for the display of merchandise on public sidewalks. This agreement will be administratively approved and can be revoked by the City with a five (5) business day notice. Appeals can be made to the Mayor and City Council. License agreements shall automatically renew for a one-year term (unless terminated by either party) and are not transferable. These agreements shall ONLY be related to the principal use of the abutting property. The holder of the license agreement is responsible for removing trash and litter from permitted sidewalk business area. Enforcement of the standards associated with this license agreement shall be by Code Administration and the Police Department. 3. Sidewalk clearance: Sidewalk retail display shall be located in such a manner that promotes efficient and direct pedestrian movement. Operators must maintain sidewalk in clean safe condition for pedestrian travel and must immediately clear the sidewalk when ordered to do so by the City. Operator must maintain a minimum five foot width of unobstructed sidewalk space for pedestrians at all times between the merchandise display and any tree, treewell, parking meter, fire hydrant, street light, trash can or other obstacle. A waiver of this width  may be granted by the City if existing permanent obstructions in the sidewalk area do not permit a five foot width. Under no circumstances may this width be less than 3 feet of sidewalk. No display shall obstruct access to building entrances, fire hydrants, street lights, telephones, mailboxes, or transit stops and shall be located so it does not impede ingress or egress from buildings. is allowed in front of or two feet on either side of a building entrance, fire hydrant, or property line. Display must be at least 15 10 feet from any adjoining street, alley or driveway to provide adequate sight distance 4. Frequency Hours: This license is limited to four (4) events in a calendar year and each event can be no longer than three (3) consecutive business days. Display is only permitted while business is open, and never between 10:00PM and 7:00AM. Operator shall notify the Engineering Division prior to the events. 5. Display: Merchandise and display fixtures are not to exceed 100 square feet for all outdoor displays. Display may be up to five feet high. Display on the sidewalk shall be limited to a single row of merchandise against the wall of the business and shall not be hung from the building or awning. No permanent anchoring into sidewalk. Display shall not be anchored or affixed to a tree, post, sign, parking meter, or other structure. 6. Insurance: By applying for a sidewalk business license, any person owning or operating such use agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the City of Hagerstown, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, liability, lawsuits, damages, and causes of action which may arise out of the operation of the sidewalk business. The Owner/Operator shall keep in full force and effect at its own expense, insurance as required by the City of Hagerstown. Failure to do so will automatically terminate this license. 7. Other Conditions:  The City may require the temporary removal of sidewalk retail items by the Owner/Operator when street, sidewalk, or utility repairs necessitate such action or in case of an emergency. The licensee agrees that they will not be entitled to any reimbursement for lost sales revenue nor is the City responsible for any costs associated with the removal of the merchandise from the sidewalk.  The sidewalk retail display shall be maintained in a neat and orderly appearance at all times.  Per the Land Management Code, one portable non-illuminated sign may be displayed on the sidewalk within the vicinity of the entry door of the first floor business. Such signs are permitted only during operating hours of the abutting business. The sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet and shall be placed to maintain a five (5) foot clear pedestrian space.  Owner/Operator is responsible that all items stay in the approved areas.  No garbage may be stored on the sidewalk. Owner/Operator shall keep the sidewalk clean at all times. 8. Enforcement: Enforcement of these standards shall be by Code Administration and the Police Department. Approved by the Mayor and City Council on January 27, 2015. Proposed Amendments, October 25, 2016.  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Update on Competitive Negotiated Sale Program - Randy Gray, Business Development Specialist Mayor and City Council Action Required: Discussion: Staff members will attend the November 1, 2016 Work Session of the Mayor and City Council to provide an update on the City’s Competitive Negotiated Sale (CNS) program. The following is a summary of the program which originated in 2013. Program Overview The Competitive Negotiated Sale is a process that facilitates the sale of City-owned properties. The City of Hagerstown makes real estate available for purchase and redevelopment. The Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) coordinates the process and accepts purchase applications. The Mayor and City Council identify properties to be offered for sale and ultimately approve any development concept and purchase. Any entity or individual may qualify to purchase City property through this process except that some restrictions may apply to City of Hagerstown employees. The purchaser must provide a project plan and budget and be able to demonstrate the financial ability and experience necessary to complete the purchase, the proposed development plan and /or the operation and proper maintenance of the property. Properties currently available through CNS: Ø Alms House, 239 N. Locust St. Ø Massey building, 28 E. Baltimore St. Ø Nicodemus House, 170 W. Washington St. Ø Roslyn building, 17-25 E. Franklin St. Ø Updegraff building, 43-53 W. Washington St. Program Process Applicants must submit a completed CNS application form, along with all required supporting documents to DCED. A cross-department staff committee reviews all application submittals and recommends complete and viable applications to the Mayor and City Council. Competitive proposals are accepted on an ongoing basis. During committee review of CNS proposals, the development plan is weighed equally if not more importantly than the proposed sale price. The goal is to find the highest and best use of each CNS  property. CNS properties are marketed through the City of Hagerstown’s (DCED) website, through free real-estate websites such as Co-Star, by local realtors and developers and through signage on the buildings. CNS properties acquired or rehabilitated with State Community Legacy funds may restrict the types of uses for the property. For example, Community Legacy funded buildings cannot be used for the following: pawn shops, gun shops, tanning salons, massage parlors, adult video/book shops, adult entertainment facilities, check cashing facilities, gambling facilities, tattoo parlors or liquor stores. CNS properties acquired or rehabilitated with CDBG funds typically require sale proceeds to return to the CDBG program. DCED staff maintains documentation concerning other aspects of CNS properties where applicable, such as code overviews and environmental assessment reports. Properties Sold to Date Since its inception, three properties have been sold in the CNS program. 11-16 Public Square was sold August 28, 2013 for $240,000. This commercial property continues to be used as restaurant and office space. 278 South Prospect Street was sold for $75,000 on October 6, 2016 through the City’s Home Ownership Program to be used as an owner occupied residence. 19-21-23 West Antietam Street was sold on October 21, 2014 for $1.00 (one dollar) to initiate the demolition of a fire-damaged building and redevelopment of the property. Background For additional information, attached are “Fact Sheets” containing general information about each CNS property as well as the program guidelines and application form for the CNS program. Financial Impact: Recommendation: Motion: Action Dates: ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description 110116_MCC_Memo_CNS_Update.pdf Update on Competitive Negotiated Sale program  CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Department of Community and Economic Development TO: Valerie Means, City Administrator FROM: Randy Gray, Business Development Specialist DATE: October 27, 2016 RE: Update on Competitive Negotiated Sale program Staff members will attend the November 1, 2016 Work Session of the Mayor and City Council to provide an update on the City’s Competitive Negotiated Sale (CNS) program. The following is a summary of the program which originated in 2013. Program Overview • The Competitive Negotiated Sale is a process that facilitates the sale of City-owned properties. The City of Hagerstown makes real estate available for purchase and redevelopment. The Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) coordinates the process and accepts purchase applications. The Mayor and City Council identify properties to be offered for sale and ultimately approve any development concept and purchase. • Any entity or individual may qualify to purchase City property through this process except that some restrictions may apply to City of Hagerstown employees. The purchaser must provide a project plan and budget and be able to demonstrate the financial ability and experience necessary to complete the purchase, the proposed development plan and /or the operation and proper maintenance of the property. • Properties currently available through CNS:  Alms House, 239 N. Locust St.  Massey building, 28 E. Baltimore St.  Nicodemus House, 170 W. Washington St.  Roslyn building, 17-25 E. Franklin St.  Updegraff building, 43-53 W. Washington St. Program Process • Applicants must submit a completed CNS application form, along with all required supporting documents to DCED. A cross-department staff committee reviews all application submittals and recommends complete and viable applications to the Mayor and City Council. Competitive proposals are accepted on an ongoing basis. During committee review of CNS proposals, the development plan is ______________________________________________________________________________ 14 N. Potomac Street, Suite 200A Hagerstown, MD 21740  weighed equally if not more importantly than the proposed sale price. The goal is to find the highest and best use of each CNS property. • CNS properties are marketed through the City of Hagerstown’s (DCED) website, through free real- estate websites such as Co-Star, by local realtors and developers and through signage on the buildings. • CNS properties acquired or rehabilitated with State Community Legacy funds may restrict the types of uses for the property. For example, Community Legacy funded buildings cannot be used for the following: pawn shops, gun shops, tanning salons, massage parlors, adult video/book shops, adult entertainment facilities, check cashing facilities, gambling facilities, tattoo parlors or liquor stores. • CNS properties acquired or rehabilitated with CDBG funds typically require sale proceeds to return to the CDBG program. • DCED staff maintains documentation concerning other aspects of CNS properties where applicable, such as code overviews and environmental assessment reports. Properties Sold to Date • Since its inception, three properties have been sold in the CNS program. 11-16 Public Square was sold August 28, 2013 for $240,000. This commercial property continues to be used as restaurant and office space. 278 South Prospect Street was sold for $75,000 on October 6, 2016 through the City’s Home Ownership Program to be used as an owner occupied residence. 19-21-23 West Antietam Street was sold on October 21, 2014 for $1.00 (one dollar) to initiate the demolition of a fire-damaged building and redevelopment of the property. Background • For additional information, attached are “Fact Sheets” containing general information about each CNS property as well as the program guidelines and application form for the CNS program. C: Jill Frick, Director of Community & Economic Development Jon Kerns, Community Development Manager City of Hagerstown CNS Review Committee Property Name: Alms House Address: 239 North Locust St Square Footage: 8,450 Date Acquired: November, 2004 FY17 Budget Rent Revenue: $0.00 FY17 Budget Expense: $1,083 Acquisition Price: $90,000 Rehab Expense to Date: $85,000 Total $ - Acquisition and Rehab: $175,000 Description of Rehab Work Done to Date: exterior repairs Grant Funding Amounts Used and Sources: State Community Legacy funds ($85,000). Property Name: Massey Property Address: 28 East Baltimore St. Square Footage: 20,000 Date Acquired: October, 2015 FY17 Budget Rent Revenue: FY17 Budget Expense: $8,559 (covers Nicodemus and Massey) Acquisition Price: $1.00 (one dollar) Rehab Expense to Date: $4,600 general repairs and $39,724 for demolition of adjacent Meadowhawk Building and Bester House. Total $44,324 Total $ - Acquisition and Rehab: $44,325 Description of Rehab Work Done to Date: several roof repairs, electrical work (interior lights), brick work to the exterior walls for stabilization, demolition of 2 adjacent structures Grant Funding Amounts Used and Sources: none Property Name: Nicodemus Building Address: 170 W. Washington St. Square Footage: 7,500 Date Acquired: March, 2013 FY17 Budget Rent Revenue: $0.00 FY17 Budget Expense: $8,559 (covers Nicodemus and Massey) Acquisition Price: $27,500 Rehab Expense to Date: $238,000 + $87,000 (demolition) Total $ - Acquisition and Rehab: $352,500 Description of Rehab Work Done to Date: new roof, new windows, exterior painting and general cleanup maintenance. Grant Funding Amounts Used and Sources: State Community Legacy funds ($150,000), Economic Redevelopment funds ($177,500), Property Management/sale of 11-16 Public Square ($25,000) = $352,500 Property Name: Roslyn Building Address: 17-25 E. Franklin St. Square Footage: 24,000 Date Acquired: June, 1996 FY17 Budget Rent Revenue: $9,188 (Spicklers) FY17 Budget Expense: $18,128 Acquisition Price: $75,000 Rehab Expense to Date: $850,000 Total $ - Acquisition and Rehab: $925,000 Description of Rehab Work Done to Date: asbestos abatement, new roof & windows and elevator system, first floor rehab. Grant Funding Amounts Used and Sources: CDBG funds ($850,000) Property Name: Updegraff Buildings Address: 43-53 West Washington St. Square Footage: 40,000 Date Acquired: April, 2013 FY17 Budget Rent Revenue: $1,800/mo = $21,600/yr (Potomac Bead) FY17 Budget Expense: $13,028 (includes $1,728 for parking space rental) Acquisition Price: $320,000 (funded by $100,000 State CL; $220,000 CDBG) Rehab Expense to Date: $306,517 (funded by $195,000 CDBG; $111,517 sale of Public Square/Property Management). Total $ - Acquisition and Rehab: $626,517 Description of Rehab Work Done to Date: interior cleaned out and building secured. Demolition of rear addition, rear roof replacement and rear wall reconstruction. Grant Funding Amounts Used and Sources: Federal CDBG funds ($415,000), State Community Legacy funds ($100,000), Property Management/sale of 11-16 Public Square ($111,517) = $626,517  REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Topic: Prospective Sale of Property: 43-53 W. Washington Street - Jonathan Kerns, Community Development Manager Mayor and City Council Action Required: Discussion: Financial Impact: Recommendation: Motion: Action Dates: ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Proposed_Sale_of_43-53_West_Washington_Street.pdf Memo - 43-53 W Washington Street