Mayor & Common Council Meetings

CITY OF WESTMINSTER, MARYLAND MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 28, 2013 QUORUM: A meeting of the Mayor and Common Council was held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1838 Emerald Hill Lane, Westminster, Maryland on the evening of January 28, 2013, at 7:00 P.M. Mayor Utz; Council President Halstad; Council Members Whitson, Chiavacci, Wack and Frazier; City Administrator and Acting City Clerk Wolf, Major Stevens, Director of Public Works Glass, Director of Community, Planning, and Development Horn, and City Attorney Levan were present. City Treasurer Palmer, Chief of Police Spaulding, and Director of Housing and Preservation Services Beyard were excused from attending the meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Utz conducted the public hearing on Ordinance No. 839 Rental Licensing. Ms. Wolf informed the Mayor and Common Council that Ordinance No. 839 is the result of the work of the Rental Licensing Task Force that they have been working on since last November. Ordinance No. 839 will be replacing Ordinance No. 834 which was the subject of the public hearing on November 5, 2013. After the introduction of Ordinance No. 839 at the meeting on January 14, 2013 the City Attorney suggested some amendments to the Ordinance. While none of the amendments make any subsidence changes to the Ordinance they do clarify that rental houses are covered by the Rental Licensing Program and make several other stylistic changes. Ms. Wolf shared that the highlights of Ordinance No. 839 are an annual licensing fee of twenty dollars ($20) per unit per year; it is a complaint driven inspection process; there is a sunset provision in the ordinance; a three member board of housing appeals; and a habitual offender classification for problem landlords. James Reter of 315 Kingsbury Way questioned why the International Code was included in the Ordinance along with City of Westminster’s Code. Mr. Reter then suggested that twenty percent of the twenty dollars ($20) fee for administration and enforcement be applied to administration and the remaining the fee dedicated to enforcement. Pamela Stone, President of Carroll County Association of Realtors, of 908 Washington Road on shared the Associations views on the revised Rental Licensing proposal. On behalf of the Association, Ms. Stone thanked Council and the Rental Licensing task force for responding to the concerns expressed at the November hearing. She explained that the Association is pleased that the revised proposal incorporates a lot of the feedback from the hearing. Ms. Stone wanted to specifically thank Council for proposing a complaint driven program and for instituting a sunset provision. Ms. Stone explained that the Association urges that the current draft be amended to raise the distance a property owner may live from their rental before their resident agent requirement is triggered. She suggested that a resident agent be required for property owners who live 50 miles or more away, further explaining that giving the geography of the Carroll County and the City a 25 mile requirement would require property owners who even live in Frederick to hire a resident agent. The Realtors Association believes that the property owners who live 25 to 50 miles from their rental properties are close enough to properly and efficiently respond to problems. Ms. Stone also shared the concern that the timeline for implementation is too short and could underline the success of the program. She urged the City to push the schedule for licensing by six months. Ms. Stone explained that would like the program to succeed and believe that education will assist with that. She also urged the City to lay the ground work for a successful program through public education. Ms. Stone explained that in the long run it would save time and resources to make the public broadly aware that the City has new requirements and focus. The Association feels that if the City takes the time to do a comprehensive educational campaign, not only for the licensing requirements, but to make clear to landlords and tenants their rights and responsibilities, the program will be much more likely to be success and even result less problems to be remedy. Ms. Stone shared that the Association would like to partner with the City if given the opportunity to do an extensive outreach to do the community, groups, local institutions and others to alert them of the licensing program and expectations for maintenance of properties. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Ms. Stone about the Associations timeline of the start of the program and having the start of the program being pushed back. Ms. Stone replied that the Association feels that the public is not fully aware and educated on how the City wants the program to run. She feels that in order for it to be successful a little more time is needed to educate the community, the landlords and the tenants. She commented that trying to push the program through in five weeks is going to be too quick. The Association suggests six months to try to educate people and possibly have less of an issue if try to rush it through. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if the requirement will have to comply by the very beginning of the implementation or will there be a time period. Ms. Wolf replied that they will have 60 days to comply. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Ms. Stone if the issue is more about potentially getting to people to comply or the actual start date, explaining that regardless of the start date, if they have a long enough window to get the properties registered, do the things they need to do, it doesn’t matter necessarily matter when the program starts as to when the requirements hit. Ms. Stone replied that landlords need at least 60 days. Mr. Chiavacci inquired that if Council moves back to 90 days that would give people more time to come up to speed. Ms. Stone questioned Mr. Chiavacci if he feels that the City can educate people in that time period. Mr. Chiavacci explained that he was inquiring moving the compliance window versus moving the start date. Ms. Stone explained that the Association would like to six months, but for the Council to do what the City can. Glen Speicher, Jr., President of the Carroll County Landlords Association, of 3787 Sells Mill Road Taneytown feels that page five is vague; pointing out that all rental units will be subject to investigation upon a complaint. Mr. Speicher questioned if one complaint opens up for all of the units to be inspected. He explained that on page six says nothing about complaints, but covers administrative warrants. Then on page ten he summarizes that it is stated that the notice constitutes the only notice the person will receive regarding a violation of a applicable section for twelve months, no further notice will be issued for any repeat violations during a twelve month period following issuance of the notice. Mr. Speicher reminded Mayor and Council that as he said in November, the laws required were already on the books. Mr. Speicher inquired about 136 East Main Street, Ms. Levan shared that she was unfamiliar with the nuisance ordinance and Mr. Speicher was wondering if she was able to find the answers to this matter yet. He noted that task force reported on page two, number five, and encourages landlords to obtain a license. Mr. Speicher noted that the ordinance does not encourage landlords; it requires the landlords to do so. Mr. Speicher questioned if police calls qualify as a complaint because it refers to any City agency. He inquired that if the police are responding to an address as a result of an ex-wife or girlfriend who has a restraining order against their boyfriend and they have to respond three or four times will this drive a complaint. Mr. Speicher then referred to page six, the recommendations for when a code inspector comes in, questioning the investigation of a complaint, will the inspector make a courtesy re-inspection of life safety issues, any other issues the tenant may bring to his attention, or any violations that are in plain view. In the completion of pass/ fail with permission of the tenant, in his opinion the landlord should be there, or at least have an opportunity to be present. He explained that he would like to hear what his tenants have to say and feel that other landlords feel the same. He explained that the Carroll County Landlords Association has concern about the ordinance, but are more concerned about the regulations that will be promulgated to enforce. He questioned who will write the regulations and will landlords have an opportunity to comment on them, giving them an opportunity to participate promulgations. Mr. Speicher point out that the ordinance does not apply to commercial rentals, boarding houses, or private property, but he noted that all the ordinances in City code that already exists apply to all of these properties that he listed. He commented that landlords feel that they are being singled out. He inquired that if there is a complaint versus private property, would the City get an administrative warrant to go into the unit. He then questioned if doing a life safety check, would the inspector do it on private property and would the inspector do a checklist on private property. He commented about government incrementalism, beginning with the $20 fee and questioning where will it be in three years. Mr. Speicher questioned the time and expense of the City to seek administrative warrants, rather than just invite the landlord to come the first inspection. He questioned what if every landlord in the City of Westminster said to get into my property you must get an administrative warrant. He questioned why do they need to sign a waiver of rights to the City when no one else does, noting that this is waiving 4th amendment rights of the constitution. He inquired why do landlords give the City the right to violate our tenants privacy and agree with the Carroll County Realtors Association about why the rush. Bob Kurland of 595 Old New Windsor Pike shared a reading from the constitution. He explained that he shared the ordinance with American civil liberties unit who found the ordinance to be interesting. He suggested that if getting a warrant then need to have this complainant swear out an affidavit under penalty and perjury, give it to the judge and leave this to the judge’s discretion. After looking at the Maryland declaration of rights, he question if anyone could show the authority that they have, under that document, to cause a license to be issued so that someone can rent a house. Misty Henline of 515 Baldwin Park Drive Apartment A3 is a tenant of her unit. As she shared at the public hearing in November, she has a right to privacy in her home and whether or not that feels it is appropriate to do it on rental property or private property, it is her home. She explained that if council chooses to pass the ordinance the City will be violating the constitution. Ms. Henline shared case Camara vs. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco from 1967 that was held in the Supreme Court that says municipal statue authorizing routine warrantless searches of leased residences for building code inspections violated the fourth amendment. She then shared another case in Maryland from PG county 1987 that said that administrative search generally required warrants and affidavits. Ms. Henlie noted that the way the ordinance is written, the City is forcing a tenant to accept a warrantless search of their home, adding that the ordinance is discriminating against renters and leasers because private property owners will then not be required to follow the same rules. She commented that there is an equal protection problem with this statue, noting that there is no mechanism to confront an accuser, there is no contact information that is provided, there is no part of this statue that requires the enforcer to give notice to the tenant. She explained that as a tenant she can force the City to obtain an judicial warrant and would encourage every renter to do so because it is not constitutional. At the first hearing she heard her property manager comment that this fee is going to be passed onto the tenants. She explained that she already has two inspections at her unit each year, inquiring why should she be forced to pay an additional fee of twenty dollars ($20) to be licensed. Ms. Henline questioned what the City would do if there is a false report. Donna Moffett of Sandy Road Finksburg thanked the Mayor, Council and the Task Force for listening, noting that it was obvious in preparing the new proposal. She explained that the new proposal does not punish the landlords who are following the rules. Ms. Moffett shared that she found that the fees are responsible and that the inspections are complaint driven, also being a responsible thing to do. She added that a sunset clause was also a great thing to do because laws need to be reviewed. She pointed out that the creation of an education program as Ms. Stone talked about is paramount. She explained that for the City to not have something on the books already that landlords could find out what their responsibilities are, specifically what the rules are they are suppose be following, is letting landlords down publically in that regard. Ms. Moffett shared that the Carroll County Association of realtors would be happy to assist in creating that because they have the educators and the knowledge that would help with providing the education. She explained that she feels that 25 miles is an undue expense for landlords that would need to hire an agent for their property. She also shared that the timeline is a little short, explaining that the stress putting on the landlords to find out about the program and the stress that the staff in the City to receive everything back and expect them to get it back within 30 days is too short. Ms. Moffett suggested 3 months to get the notices out, to get their applications in and then give a 6 month grace period to comply with the program. She questioned if anything has been done to improve the enforcement of the existing Code requirements. Daniel Strickler of 546 Roops Mill Road thanked Council in deciding that the City did not need all of the inspections. He explained that the time period is very short; adding that the Council need public comments after citizens know what exactly the ordinance is so that everybody can then be on board to know it, see it and discuss it further. Mr. Strickler commented that he does not feel that just having the public hearing is sufficient. Stanley Dill of 606 Deer Park Road questioned page five, section D, explaining that this section covers inspections, but does speak to what published the objective status is of those inspections and does not speak to the scope or nature of those inspections. He explained that it seems too wide of an opening for any minor or subjective interpretation of the portion of the ordinance. He commented that complaints can be received by both statements and notices, including telephone calls. Mr. Dill explained that with telephone complaints, this gives no record to refer for accountability purposes. He added that there is no way of telling if there was a malicious intent, misstatement or a misunderstanding on those statements. He explained that telephone complaints or verbal statements will only cause more work for the City staff and be subject to continuous review or litigation. He suggested making complaints be in writing. Mr. Dill then referred to page six, section E in regards to re-inspection. He explained that in the re-inspection there is no timeline or period that is specified, if landlords have to wait for re-inspection there is a potential of either the renter not being able to rent that property or the renter being forced to vacate. Mr. Dill asked for consideration for a timeline to hold not just the landlord or owner to be accountable for the correcting the problem, but to advertise and hold the code enforcement officer to re-inspect in a timely matter. He then referred to section F regarding the administrative warrant, explaining that this section speaks to advance waiver of the constitutional right as an owner. He explained that he does not know who can in advance waive or do away with a constitutional right when speak about waiving the right to a judicial warrant. In Mr. Dill’s opinion that basically saying by signing the paper, registering this property that in advance gives the City permission to enter the property. Mr. Dill commented that this raises constitutional questions, but logistical questions. He then questioned the City having the responsibility of issuing an administrative warrant, referring to page seven failing to give entry results in a penalty to the owner, but it doesn’t address the issue what if the tenant refuses entry. He explained that this is vague and the owner would suffer the consequences for tenant failing to give entry, that this would be unfair to the owner, especially if the owner was not made aware of the inspection. He then explained on page 10, subsection seven speaks to servicing the notice, that the notice can be given in several multiple fashions to the owner, landlord, to the tenant or posted on the premises, but submit to the Council that the owner ultimately has responsibility for that rental unit and as that owner would want the responsibility and receive the notice. He added that if the notice is just given to the tenant, there are some tenants who will not communicate that notice back to the owner and feels that serving the notice to the tenant is sufficient, do not understand the realty of landlord-tenant relationship. On page 11, section 3A habitual offender, explained that in definition of an owner who has three or more repeated violations, it does not make any provision for that same owner who may actually take corrective actions, but through no fault of his own other than being cited for a complaint, having taken correction actions has been penalized by this characterization. Mr. Dell feels that it is unfair to label an owner who has several units, increasing the possibility of having more violations. He then pointed out on page 12, fee for an habitual offender will be tripled until habitual designation will be removed. He expressed that this seems to be arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious, especially without a due process provision in this habitual offender action. Karen Donaldson of 1012 Baltimore Blvd shared that she researched 28 additional cities in the state of Maryland. She commented that none of them have any laws passed as radical as the one on the table right now. She explained that out of the 28 cities 11 have no regulations at all, including large cities such as Hagerstown and Frederick. She shared that six cities make the landlords register, Baltimore is included; five cities that make the landlords register, only require that someone else be assigned to manage the property if they live out of the state of Maryland, including College Park. She added that three cities make the landlord register if they reside 22- 25 miles from their rental properties, two asked for 50 miles or greater. Ms. Donaldson feels that Westminster is a nice place, explaining that in her opinion the ordinance is overdone, the regulations as it stands now is way too restrictive and Westminster is way better than that and doesn’t need it. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if Ms. Donaldson checked the counties as well as the cities, explaining that the counties requires them, not the municipalities. Ms. Donaldson replied that she did not feel like it would be fair to compare the cities and the counties. Dan Hoff of 23 Park Avenue feels that there is some legality to pushing back the implementation, feels that it would be wise to do some more education outreach. He explained that if the City tries to implement the program by the beginning of March a lot of people are not going to understand the implementation of the program and what is involved. Mr. Hoff feels that the City should have some outreach with the Carroll County Realtors Association and Carroll County Landlords association. He suggested having a question and answer session. He explained that in listening to some of the comments that were made, there are people who do not understand the ordinance and what it actually says. He shared an example that the habitual offender is someone who has a complaint and takes no corrective action. Mr. Hoff feels that there is some missed information. Joe Hollingsworth of 54 ½ Carroll Street shared that there was an assault with a deadly weapon that occurred outside of his home. He explained that he lives in a duplex, owning one half and the other side is rented. He shared that he has had several problems with his neighbors, describing them as being nuisance neighbors. Mr. Hollingsworth questioned how the landlord can be held accountable for the tenants. He questioned if this would tie into the habitual offenders. Mayor Utz explained that cannot address those issues during the hearing, explaining that this is for Rental Licensing Program. Mayor Utz suggested that Mr. Hollingsworth speak to the City Administrator. Tamar Osterman of Carroll County Realtors Association, Government Affairs Director at 902 Washington Street commented on the opportunity for education. The opportunity is not to just educate the landlords, but this is a hook to educate landlords and tenants about their rights and their responsibilities. She noted that this can support landlords in tenant selection, giving them the benefit of the expertise that exists in the institutions in the City in how do to do a better job overall of managing their property and hopefully preclude a lot of the complaints that might otherwise be triggered. Mr. Dill added a comment about the habitual offending stating that in the ordinance it defines a habitual offender as any person owning rental property that has paid a fine accessed by the City or is found guilty of violating. Mr. Hoff explained that the intention is that the landlord does not fix the issue he will be fined. With no additional comments or questions from the Common Council and the public, Mayor Utz closed the public hearing. Mayor Utz conducted the public hearing on Zoning Text Amendment for Mixed Use Infill. Mr. Horn informed the Mayor and Common Council that the Planning Commission has proposed an amendment to the mixed use infill district which would allow for the mixed use infill zone to function as a floating zone in four other zoning districts including the neighborhood commercial, the downtown business and the business zone. Mayor Utz questioned if this means that a project that the City like or dislikes may have a zone put over top of them. Mr. Horn replied that it is kind of like a planned development in the City’s code as it currently exists. Mr. Horn explained that have to prepare a site plan, go to the Planning Commission to get an agreement and then will have to come before the Mayor and Council to allow the development to proceed under the way the City Code has been drafted. He explained that the mixed use infill zone it does a lot of things that the City’s master plan calls for and that is sufficient land use, reduces the need to extend infrastructure, keeping the infrastructure costs down. Mr. Horn explained that with the Council’s approval would be able to propose a mix of commercial offices, residential multifamily uses on properties that is currently safe zone business. He noted that an example is Westminster Crossing, where there is a large business zone area. He explained that the owner of that shopping center does need to do this, this is an alternative that they can consider, but gives an opportunity to pursue that and fulfills a lot of the City’s master plan goals and objectives. Mr. Frazier questioned if the mixed use infill would also take a residential neighborhood and put commercial in it. Mr. Horn explained that it would allow a new development, but not something that does already exist, looking at new development to incorporate new land uses or different land uses. In look at the City’s master plans, the City is challenged over the years by needing to meet different growth demands, based on previous comprehensive plans. The Commission was persuaded that this is something that could be beneficial as long as there is a process where it needs to be approved by the Council. Mr. Frazier questioned if it is in use for any zoning areas now. Mr. Horn replied that there is currently a mixed use infill zone on the ground on route 27 and Main Street for a few blocks. He added that part of the commission’s idea is this is a part of a good zoning district that it should be available to other places in the City. Mr. Chiavacci commented that this goes back to the comprehensive plan. He added that it makes sense to him to still come to council before it is approved. With no additional comments or questions from the Common Council and the public, Mayor Utz closed the public hearing. Todd Albaugh from McGladrey, LLP thanked the Mayor and Council for allowing McGladrey, LLP to continue their service to the City of Westminster. Mr. Albaugh reported the findings from the City’s FY2012 audit to the Mayor and Common Council. The overall report showed that the City of Westminster has made significant progress in its financial accountability. Mr. Albaugh explained that under accounting practices in the adoption changes of the accounting policies, there was one new governmental accounting standards board statement that was required to be adopted by the City, but it had no impact by the City’s financials. Currently bond issuance costs are capitalized as an asset on the City’s statements. He explained that basically bond issuance costs will now be written off at the time they are occur. Mr. Albaugh reported that FY2015 there will be an impact on a number of cities in the State of Maryland who participate in the Maryland State retirement plan. In regards to financial statement disclosures, he reported that there were no disagreements with management. He explained that the City still has some consultations with Rager, Lehman and Houck, locale firm in town to help with some of the yearend financial statements disclosure and reporting aspects. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if Mr. Albaugh found that problematic. Mr. Albaugh replied no explaining that with McGladrey there is a fine a line between independence so when it comes with that perspective he believes that the utilization of the firm was greatly diminished this past year due to resources that do have in house now. He commented that he cannot answer if that consultation will be there next year or not, but has greatly diminished last year. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if it is because it was greatly approved the City’s capabilities. Mr. Albaugh replied that is correct, explaining that there was no significant issues discussed with management and there were no difficulties in accounting performing the audit. Mr. Albaugh reported that under communicating significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, there were two in FY12, explaining that it was greatly down from previous years. The City has three significant estimates in the statements, and they found that all three of those estimates were reasonable. Mr. Albaugh then reported that were two adjustments in FY2012, down from nine in FY2011. He explained that there were no uncorrected listings in the current year, that what is listed was listed from what was carried over in the previous years. Mr. Albaugh shared that the City complied with all material respects with compliance requirements that could have direct material effect on each of the major federal funding programs. He reported that financial statements were filed on time with the state for the third year in a row. Mr. Albaugh also shared that there was a material weakness finding and a significant deficiency identified. There was no non-compliance material financial statement noted. He shared that under the federal awards there was no material deficiencies reported. Mr. Albaugh explained that in the summary of prior audit findings, it is required to report on the ones that relate specifically to federal awards. There were two in FY2011 and there was action taken adequately on both. Mr. Albaugh shared that he has met with Ms. Palmer. He explained that she has been making changes and bouncing ideas off of Mr. Albaugh wanting to make sure that what she is going to do will suffice and pass requirements. President Halstad inquired that this suggests that the deficiencies were expected to be completed and corrected last month. Ms. Wolf replied that she thinks probably are, explaining that staff has worked very hard on getting a low risk rating. President Halstad shared that the binding contract with Washington Gas and Electric, expires in June of 2013 and the City needs to renew the contract. He introduced Richard Anderson from Associates Energy and Environmental management. Mr. Anderson shared that he got together with Ms. Wolf and Ms. Palmer to beginning reviewing where the current contract was and what should be doing to look at signing up for a new contract. He explained that the City had an existing two year contract in June 2011 and that it will end in June 2013 with Washington Gas Energy Services for .08288 per kilowatt hour. The City of Westminster entered the first contract in 2004, when the regulation first occurred. For the two years that the City had been in contract the City has been spending $699,800 for electricity services. Mr. Anderson noted that if compared that against the standard service rate/ default rate if the City had not done this and defaulted to stay with the utility for these two years, the City would have paid an addition $246, 000. He explained that the City had two options as moved forward, one could piggy back the chamber commerce energy co-op or what have chosen to do was to competitively bid for the City against all the suppliers that were available and were interested. The City received competitive bids from three suppliers for 12, 24 and 36 month contracts. The Co-op price was higher at seven and half cents. Mr. Anderson recommended going to with NRG with a contract of 36 months at the low price of .6950. This will mean that the costs for the City are going to from around $700,000 a year to $586,000. He pointed out that this is a significant savings, almost back to where the City was in 2004. He recommended proceeding with a 36 month contract. Mr. Anderson explained that the reason he suggests the 36 months is because the rates are moving in upper direction. He added the background capacity charges are known through 2016 so the City is not taking a risk and know what all the cost components are in this process. Mr. Anderson commented that NRG is the second largest company. President Halstad questioned if a three year contract was the highest that NRG will go. Mr. Anderson explained that they will go as much as five years. President Halstad inquired if the Council was ready to give approval for the agreement. Ms. Levan explained that she has a few questions that she would like to get more information on regarding the credit worthiness. President Halstad suggested authorizing the Mayor to enter into the contract subject to legal council’s approval. President Halstad questioned how accurate the rates are. Mr. Anderson replied that it is pretty accurate, noticing that the market prices for 12, 24 and 36 months are increasing. MINUTES: Upon motion of Mr. Chiavacci, seconded by Mr. Whitson and unanimously passed, the minutes of the Council meeting of January 14, 2013, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mr. Chiavacci moved to approve the Consent Calendar, which consisted of December 2013 Departmental Operating Reports. Mr. Frazier seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. REPORT FROM THE MAYOR: Mayor Utz reported that he and Ms. Wolf attended the business round table on Friday, January 25, 2013. Mayor Utz also reported that there will be a Ravens Rally on February 1, 2013 at the City Park. REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES: Mr. Chiavacci reported that for Director of Recreation and Parks the City received 93 applications and quit a few were very qualified. He shared that the second round of interviews will be this week, commenting that he is looking forward to getting everything settled. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS: President Halstad explained that he is sympathetic to the implantation timeline and also sympathetic to the resident agent radius in regards to the Ordinance No. 839. He commented that the constitutional issues need to defer to the council. He explained that it is a constitutional statue or one that he City is prepared to defend if it is challenged. Mr. Chiavacci inquired about pushing back the vote. He feels that a 25 mile radius requirement for a resident agent is too short and suggests increasing the radius to 50 miles. He commented that the Council needed to reconsider the implementation date to allow a little more education to the landlords and the tenants. Mr. Chaivacci expressed his concern regarding the habitual offender until speaking to Mr. Hoff. He questioned Ms. Levan about the way the ordinance is written is it very clear that it has to be someone that violated and then has not taken corrective action. Ms. Levan replied that the landlords do not get fined and they do not get found guilty unless they have an opportunity to correct the problem and have not done so. She explained that the reason that the ordinance says or instead of and, is unfortunately because the City has landlords who habitually pay the fines and do not correct the problems. She explained that if the landlord pays the fine, then they do not go to court, therefore they do not get a guilty finding, avoiding the process. Ms. Levan commented that the code inspector indicates it is not an infrequent occurrence. Mr. Chiavacci questioned that the notification that goes out regarding an issue with a unit will be sending notification to the landlord every time. He agreed that giving notice to a tenant does not mean the landlord is going to know about the notification. Ms. Levan replied that the City Code, referring to one of the first questions that were asked during the public hearing, was about why it refers to the international property maintenance code and that is because that is the document. She explained that the International property maintenance code book it set forth exactly what the property maintenance is. The City code is incorporated and the ordinance refers to it because those are the standards to which a landlord is held. Among other things the International property maintenance Code sets forth the process for notifying the landlord, when it has to go to the landlord and when it has to go to the tenant. She explained that ordinarily would have to go to both, particularly if it is exterior maintenance code. Ms. Levan explained that certainly if someone is issued a citation they are prescribed by Maryland Court requirements for service process so that both a citation for violation of code and administrative warrant. Ms. Levan noted the court cannot give an administrative warrant without giving notice to persons affected by the warrant. An administrative warrant is not a warrant issued by the city, it is issued by a court of jurisdiction by a judge. It is called an administrative warrant as opposed to a criminal warrant because it is not a warrant upon a criminal offense. Ms. Levan explained that in the case Camara vs. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco says that someone can get an administrative warrant for a process like this to ensure the public safety. One of the grounds to get an administrative warrant is grounds for a regular inspection program and an individual who denies access to do those inspections on regular bases. Ms. Levan added that inspections far more onerous than these are imposed in multiple jurisdictions in the state. Mr. Chiavacci questioned that by registering for the program does not waive their right. Ms. Levan replied no and the section that is talking about that is being referenced specifically says that the landlord is entitled to require the City to get an administrative warrant and the penalty is, if you refuse entry after an administrative warrant is entered by the court, it is contempt of court. Mr. Chiavacci questioned that if someone does not want the City coming into their property, they can force the administrative warrant and then it is up to the judge at that point if the inspector goes in. Ms. Levan explained that there is a mechanism to check the power of government of the intrusion under the fourth amendment. It does acknowledge that the search of a property is a fourth amendment issue and wants to make sure citizens have an opportunity to protect their right to not have an inspection that is arbitrary or capricious. Dr. Wack question Mr. Chiavacci if the Council could vote to amend the ordinance changing the radius to 50 miles and the implementation period to 120 days, if this would that satisfy Mr. Chiavacci. Mr. Chiavacci replied yes. Mr. Whitson shared that he understands that the task force had the best intention and has worked hard to come up with this proposal. He shared that he is opposed to this legislation at its present form. He felt that the Council needs to go back and get some things corrected in Ordinance No. 839. He explained that as has been commented by other councilman, he would like to make sure that it is truly solving the problem. Mr. Whitson did not see anywhere in the constitution that have the authority to license someone’s property and he commented that he will not vote a unconstitutional act. Mr. Whitson agrees that someone needs to have a sworn affidavit, explaining that the main reason for someone who may call and complain, but has an issue with the landlord. He noted that they need to be very specific in what is asked and needs to be accountable when filing a complaint. He explained that things that are anonymous should not be a part of an investigation and feels that this section of the ordinance is vague as someone else mentioned. Mr. Whitson shared that the warrant is very specific in covering specific problems so that the inspector cannot just go into a unit and look around. He explained that the licensing would drive up the rental costs which would be embarked by someone else. He feels that the Rental Programs gives unneeded bureaucracy; hire another person, additional forms to file, etc. Mr. Whitson commented that need to downsize government, not to increase it. Mr. Whitson had no problem with having escalading fine system for landlords that are not in compliance with code and things that threaten the health and safety of the renters, giving the inspector the right to do this on legitimate claims that are not addressed in a timely manner. He added that if need to modify his powers and ways to get more compliance, he asked to please find a legal way to do so, but does not feel that rental licensing is the way to do so. Mr. Whitson does not understand why the City would need anything international, suggested to maybe take and rewrite the code. Mr. Frazier explained that he agrees with Mr. Whitson in that if a complaint is given, the person giving the complaint needs to leave their information and should not be an anonymous complaint. He added that anonymous complaint should not be investigated. From Mr. Frazier perspective, the complaint driven would be the tenant living in the unit, regarding an issue in the inside of the unit. He questioned that if the tenant is making the complaint why would they not allow it to be inspected. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Mr. Frazier if he would like to see the ordinance be amended making the complainant be identified. Mr. Frazier replied yes. Mr. Chiavacci questioned if someone identified themselves, does this then become a part of public record that if someone did a public information request the City would have to disclose who they are publicly to the landlord. He inquired that the reason the task force wanted to be an anonymous is fear for the tenant from retaliation from the landlord. Mr. Hoff replied that there is some truth to that. He explained that the way that the proposal is written right now, could have a police officer who came and noticed poor conditions, so it is not just tenant driven. Ms. Levan explained that there are public information act issues; however there is a provision in the public information act that allows you to withhold information provided that upon representation of confidentiality. If you structure complaint process properly may be possible to protect some or most of those complaints from access at least to the extent that there is an ongoing investigation which also holds a separate exception from the public information act request, law enforcement and investigatory files are less subject to disclosure until they are resolved or the file is closed. Mr. Chiavacci agreed with Mr. Frazier that should make that a requirement. Mr. Chiavacci commented to Mr. Whitson at this point in the juncture that you want to downsize government and do not want to fund with a $20 fee. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Mr. Whitson how the City is going to fund the program, if do not charge a fee. He added that downsizing government has been what Council has been doing for six months. He commented that now Mr. Whitson is saying that he does not support the program and would like to do something completely different. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Mr. Whitson where that was earlier in this process and what he is proposing the Council do. Mr. Whitson replied that the City uses what presently have on the books. He shared that he does not have a problem with having a fine system for landlords who are not in compliance with the code and are threatening the health and safety of the renters and giving the inspectors the right to do so with legitimate claims that aren’t addressed in a timely manner. Mr. Whitson feels that the City needs to modify the powers and disregard, putting more teeth into matters to get compliance. Mr. Chiavacci questioned Mr. Whitson if that is what the program is doing. Mr. Whitson replied that he does not feel that licensing is constitutional for what they are doing. President Halstad questioned Ms. Levan if whether the amenity of the complainant actually belongs in the text of the ordinance or if that can be a policy that the City takes when the complaint comes in. Ms. Levan replied yes, this can be part of the a policy. Mr. Whitson explained that if he was a landlord he would want to know who was making the complaint, has a right to face your accuser. President Halstad agreed with Mr. Whitson. Dr. Wack motioned to amend Ordinance No. 839. Mr. Chiavacci seconded and the motion unanimously passed. Dr. Wack motioned to approve Ordinance No. 839. Mr. Chiavacci seconded and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Whitson opposing. Mr. Horn shared that the City of Westminster Comprehensive Plan was approved by the City Planning & Zoning Commission on September 22, 2009, and adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on September 27, 2009. The 2009 Plan specifically recommends the facilitation of new opportunities for mixed use development and additional residential development options in support of the City’s long-term buildable lot inventory. The Mixed Use Infill Zone, while advancing the Plan’s goals on mixed use development, is geographically limited to specific downtown locations. Staff submits that amending the text of the Mixed Use Infill Zone to allow this type of development in other parts of the City will create new opportunities for creative, efficient and flexible development while increasing the City’s inventory of marketable land for future growth. Mr. Horn explained that the City staff is proposing a text amendment that would allow the Mixed Use Infill Zone to function as a ‘floating zone’ within the ‘B’ Business, ‘D-B’ Downtown Business, ‘C-B’ Central Business, and ‘N-C’ Neighborhood Commercial zones. As proposed, development of mixed commercial, office and residential uses within the added zones would require an in-house administrative process including Planning Commission review and Common Council approval. Mr. Horn recommends Council to introduce Ordinance No. 840 for the proposed Mixed Use Infill Zoning Text Amendment pursuant to the goals of the City’s 2009 Comprehensive Plan and in support of more creative and efficient future development projects. Mr. Chiavacci motioned to introduce Ordinance No. 840. Mr. Frazier seconded and the motion unanimously passed. Mr. Glass shared that in response to natural and or man-made disasters and consequent planning for events associated with such occurrences, the Maryland Municipal Public Works Officials Association has developed a mutual aid agreement. This agreement provides for Maryland localities in need of assistance and those willing to offer the same, to work together without delay to restore critical infrastructure. Mr. Glass explained that the joint efforts had occurred much earlier than the development of the agreement and its standardization, but concerns with repayment of materials and labor surfaced after the conclusion of the event, specifically in terms of State or Federal reimbursement. The agreement at hand cares for and covers the foresight necessary for direct inclusion of all reimbursement opportunities for the participating Public Works Departments. Further, MEMA and FEMA both require the completed agreement and a local Resolution prior to engagement of any activities where reimbursement of funds will be anticipated. It should also be fully understood that the agreement does not obligate signatories to participate. Local participation is completely voluntary and will be subject to approval of our decision makers at the time of need. Mr. Glass recommended to Council to approve the Resolution and Agreement which will better prepare the City in the event of, and planning for, natural and or man-made disasters. Mayor Utz questioned if the agreement protects the worker in workman’s compensation cases. Mr. Glass replied that all of that is included in the agreement, explaining that the agreement provides the terms that everyone would work under in the event that something like that would happen. Dr. Whitson motioned to approve Resolution 13-01. Mr. Frazier seconded and the motion unanimously passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mr. Horn shared that staff will conduct a community meeting on Thursday, January 31, 2013, in the First Presbyterian Church social hall, located in the neighborhood of Colonial Avenue. At this time he expects to have about a dozen people attend the meeting. The traffic engineer, and author of the traffic report, will present the findings and some possible solutions for public discussion. Mr. Horn explained that the consulting engineer found that a pass-thru traffic problem, including related traffic issues, exists in the neighborhood. Traffic counts by the County, and an origination/destination survey by City staff, confirmed this finding. He shared that the traffic engineer suggests prohibitions on turns into the neighborhood as a consideration. The primary intent of these limitations would be to reduce cut-thru traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Horn noted that one consequence of access limits is the resulting need for improvements at the Main Street and Washington Road intersection. Two items may need to be addressed: (1) westbound left turns from Main Street onto Washington Road would have to be 'phased' (signalized left turn arrow); and, (2) the west bound left turn storage lane would have to be extended. Mr. Horn shared that the estimated cost to phase the signal is in the $25k range. The extension of the left turn storage lane may be done with pavement markings for as little as $2k. Mr. Horn shared that he expects to have more information for council after the community meeting. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Major Stevens reported that Chief Spaulding said hello from South Korea, sharing that he will return on Monday, February 4, 2013. Ms. Wolf reported she and the Mayor had a meeting with business vendors on Main Street on January 25, 2013. She shared that they went over last year’s activities and events. During the meeting they reviewed what went right and went wrong during the events and what can do to approve them. Ms. Wolf shared that the calendar for next year was approved and defined marketing activities on these events. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Misty Henline of 414 Baldwin Park Drive, Apt. A3 expressed her disappointment of the Council’s approval of Ordinance No. 839. She explained that she was aware that Council approved Christmas bonuses to City employees, noting that if the Council is going to approve an Ordinance and charge people twenty dollars ($20), then perhaps Christmas bonuses should not be given next year. Donna Shybunko of 334 East Main Street will not be able to attend the meeting on January 31 and wanted to request that her part of East Main not be made into one way because that is how she is able to get to her home. Mr. Chiavacci explained to Ms. Shybunko that just because she is unable to attend that meeting, a decision is not being made, that she will have other opportunities to have some input outside of just that meeting alone. Mr. Chiavacci also suggested that Ms. Shybunko put something in writing and send it in to Council, commenting that it can be very impactful. President Halstad commented that it is a good point because on public safety issues sometimes prevail. Mr. Chiavacci commented that Council is speaking about Colonial Avenue because folks had a cry for help on the issue. Bob Kurland of 595 Old New Windsor Pike commented that it brings him great sadness when looking around at his country, local government, county government, state government and federal government. He explained that he takes the constitution seriously and feels that when someone gets elected, in his opinion things are given to whoever wants them. He noted that at the expense of the wisdom of the founders we were charged of keeping the republic by Mr. Franklin and that this does not mean we look to others for the responsibility that should be taking on ourselves. ADJOURN: President Halstad adjourned the meeting at 9:02 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Shannon Visocsky