WORK SESSION OF THE GREENBELT CITY COUNCIL held Monday, May 5, 2003, for the purpose of meeting with the Fraternal Order of Police to discuss the proposed FY 2004 budget and to receive a briefing from staff on the revised concept plan for Greenbelt Station.

Mayor Davis started the meeting at 8:10 p.m. It was held in the Council Room of the Municipal Building.

PRESENT WERE: Council members Edward V.J. Putens, Rodney M. Roberts, Alan Turnbull, Thomas X. White, and Mayor Judith F. Davis.

STAFF PRESENT WERE: Michael P. McLaughlin, City Manager; David E. Moran, Assistant to the City Manager; Craig Rich and John Rogers, F.O.P.; Marty Parker, Lt. Dan O’Neil, Police Department; and Kathleen Gallagher, City Clerk. Celia W. Craze, Director, Planning & Community Development, came for the second part of the meeting.

ALSO PRESENT WERE: Sheldon Goldberg, Advisory Planning Board; Derrick Thompson; and Virginia Beauchamp, Greenbelt News Review.

Budget Work Session with F.O.P.

Following introductions, Mr. Rich said the F.O.P. was not requesting anything with a dollar value from the City this year and wanted to express its gratitude for the decision to change retirement systems last year. He said what they wished to present was a list of concerns the F.O.P. is studying this year for presentation next year. These are: medical benefits for retired members; salary increases per the pay scale revision (to see if there are any residual inequities); and collective bargaining.

Mayor Davis asked the status of the additional payment for the LEOPS program. Mr. McLaughlin said he has a meeting scheduled with the state for the end of May, and, in the meantime, a letter of protest has been sent.

Mr. Putens said he appreciates the desire for collective bargaining authority, but he asked what they wanted to gain that they do not already think they have. Mr. Rogers responded that he appreciates that their personnel have generally been treated well by the City and have never lost benefits or suffered lay-offs. Without collective bargaining, however, that is dependent upon the good will of the individuals involved, and there is no guaranty that it will not change. Mr. Putens responded that there is a concern about treating any one group of employees different from others. Mayor Davis added that there is also a concern with pitting one group against another. As a former union member herself, however, she said she would certainly be willing to hear what they have to say.

Mr. Rogers said their point was not to say the police should be treated differently. They would encourage other City employees to seek representation. As things stand now, however, the F.O.P. is the only labor organization in City government, and it cannot represent other employees.

Mr. Turnbull too said he was a “pro-labor kind of guy” but added that Council members necessarily examine things differently from a Council perspective than they might as individuals in other roles. He said it would be helpful to him to learn something of the history of this subject in City government.

Mr. White said there had been several requests to consider collective bargaining over the years but that Council had always been persuasive that this was not in employees’ best interests because it establishes a relationship that is automatically adversarial. He said that he too had a concern about entering into any agreement with one part of the complement of workers that did not apply to the others. He said Public Works as well as the Police Department had raised the issue in the past.

Mr. Turnbull asked what changes would be required legally to implement it. Mr. Rogers responded that there would have to be a revision to the Personnel Code by ordinance.

Mr. White asked that Mr. McLaughlin locate for Council a copy of the existing “meet and confer” agreement with the F.O.P.

Mr. Rogers asked about the implications of putting the issue to referendum on the November ballot. The Mayor suggested that this might not be the most favorable year, since the tax increase in part reflects the increased cost of the police retirement program. In addition, placing it on the ballot with a Council election tends to politicize it.

Mayor Davis said she would not mind discussing it at a work session.

Mr. White raised the question of whether it would be Council or the City Manager with whom a union would properly negotiate, given that the Charter gives the City Manager authority over staff, and since a union would deal with issues other than salary.

This part of the work session concluded at 8:55 p.m., at which time the members of the Police Department left, and Ms. Craze arrived. During the transition Council considered the informational items below.

Other Business

Mr. Putens expressed concern at a resurgence of solicitation at Hanover Parkway and Greenbelt Road. He said the time has come that something must be done, even if Greenbelt Road is a state highway. He said there are people standing in the middle of the street, and it has become a public safety issue.

There was discussion of the upcoming hearing on CB-12. Mr. Moran said the City is on record, and he also reminded County Councilman Peters of the City’s position by letter. The Mayor asked him to e-mail the sponsors of the bill as well.

Greenbelt Station Concept Plan

Ms. Craze said the revised plan contains changes subsequent to the version approved by the District Council.

Mayor Davis asked about a school or police station. Ms. Craze said a school would probably not be required for this number of housing units; a police station would have to be located in the north core.

Mr. Roberts asked what would happen to the existing commercial property at the location. Ms. Craze said it would stay where it is. She said, “This is a project that has ignored its surroundings.”

There was considerable discussion of the connector road, which is now two lanes with a median, as opposed to the previous four. Ms. Craze said this road has to be a connector for pedestrians and bikes as well as cars; otherwise, there is no access to the north core and the metro from the south.

Mr. Turnbull suggested WMATA should add a metro stop with no parking at Greenbelt Road that could serve the south core of this project and Berwyn Heights.

Ms. Craze said staff is still advocating a mixture of income levels for the residential units, and the developer is still addressing this only by providing a mixture of apartment sizes.

Regarding the failed mitigation site, Ms. Craze said no information has yet been produced to show that this area could not return to wetland. Mr. Roberts says Citizens to Conserve and Restore Indian Creek (CCRIC) has said this area has adapted into serving a new function as an amphibian migration route between the vernal pond and the wetland.

Mr. Roberts noted the total absence of outdoor recreation areas or ballfields. Ms. Craze responded that the developers think that indoor fitness centers will compensate and that this is essentially an urban environment that is not intended to be child-centered. She said the developer is required to put forward $300,000 in recreation funds that will all go to M-NCPPC if Greenbelt does not lay claim to part of it. In addition, she said, the City has not gotten the commitment of open space that it was promised. She said the Planning Board will need to revise its own conditions for Greenbelt to be eligible to receive some of the funding, but that the developer’s answer to the recreational space issue has been the provision of the indoor facilities and the payment of the $300,000.

There will be 16,500 structured parking spaces in the north core. Parking is planned to be unmanaged and therefore free of charge. Ms. Craze said she thought the City should take a position supporting managed parking. Council asked her to look into whether there is any other parking facility in this area that approaches this scale. Mr. White commented on the negative impact this was likely to have on Metro ridership.

Mr. Roberts asked about stormwater management. Ms. Craze said the City has not been given details and has requested more information be presented on this and other environmental impacts.

Mayor Davis asked that CCRIC be notified about the May 28 work session.

Council requested follow-up by the May 28 work session on several items, some of which are pending on the CAR Report, including checking on: WMATA’s interest in partnering on a roundabout at Metro Access Road and Cherrywood Lane; the environmental compliance of the Smith property; and the status of the wetland mitigation site report. Council also agreed with Mr. Turnbull’s suggestion that the City talk with Audrey Scott regarding the possibility of the City’s annexing the state-reserved land.

Mr. White suggested that the City’s best tack to take might be to try to influence the federal agencies that will be pivotal to enabling the beltway interchange and environmental permits. He suggested going to the EPA if the state does not provide adequate answers. Ms. Craze suggested that after the Environmental Assessment is done, the City should press for a full NEPA. Council supported Mr. Turnbull’s suggestion that the City not wait but send a letter now questioning the state’s position that no NEPA will be needed.

Ms. Craze said it would be helpful to discussions if the City could better articulate what kind of development it wants and which issues are most important. She said it would be helpful to quantify what the City wants.

Mr. McLaughlin suggested holding a political “summit” of sorts sometime after the May 28 work session for the benefit of area elected officials. He said Councilman Dernoga is interested, and it may be that Senator Pinsky and Councilman Peters would be sympathetic to the issues as well.

The meeting ended at 11:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Gallagher
City Clerk

City of Greenbelt, Maryland
City Offices, 25 Crescent Road, Greenbelt, MD 20770
Phone: 301-474-8000 FAX: 301-441-8248