REGULAR MEETING OF THE GREENBELT CITY COUNCIL held May 22, 2006.

Mayor Davis called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL was answered by Councilmembers Konrad E. Herling, Leta M. Mach, Edward V. J. Putens, Rodney M. Roberts, and Mayor Judith F. Davis.

ALSO PRESENT were Michael P. McLaughlin, City Manager; David E. Moran, Assistant City Manager; and Kathleen Gallagher, City Clerk. City Solicitor Robert A. Manzi arrived at about 8:10 p.m.

Mayor Davis asked that everyone observe a moment of silence in honor of two former residents: Phillip K. Novick and Greenbelt Pioneer Doloris McWilliams Fitzpatrick. After noting that Memorial Day would be next week, the Mayor asked to remember the 2,400 soldiers and Marines who had died so far in Iraq and another 280 in Afghanistan, and she commented that the price of maintaining security at home is not free. After leading the pledge of allegiance to the flag, she introduced two Boy Scouts in the audience who were attending the meeting as part of their work for badges.

CONSENT AGENDA: It was moved by Mr. Putens and seconded by Mr. Herling that the consent agenda be approved as presented. The motion passed 5-0.

Council thereby took the following actions:

MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

- Work Session, May 3, 2006

- Regular Meeting, May 8, 2006

- Work Session, May 10, 2006

- Work Session, May 15, 2006

Approved as presented.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Advisory Planning Board, Report #06-05 (Springhill Lake PPS): Council accepted this report and agreed to consider it with this topic later on the agenda.

Advisory Planning Board, Report #06-06 (Ambulatory Care Center DSP): Council received this report and agreed to consider on the agenda of the next regular meeting.

Park & Recreation Advisory Board, Report #06-6 (Contribution Group Applications): Council accepted this report, having considered it previously at the budget work session for contribution groups on May 10, 2006.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Mr. Putens and seconded by Mr. Herling that the agenda be approved as presented. The motion passed 5-0.

PRESENTATIONS

Memorial Day Poppy Presentation - Unit 136, American Legion Auxiliary: In honor of Memorial Day, Rosita Dietrich, Rose Unruh, Rusty Beeg, Silke Pope, and Verna Rupert, officers of the American Legion Auxiliary of Greenbelt Post 136, accompanied Junior Miss Poppy Melanie Pope in presenting poppies to Council. Ms. Dietrich, president of the Auxiliary, read the poem “In Flanders Fields” and explained the symbolism of flowers used to honor those who died in battle while serving in the armed forces. Mayor Davis thanked them for coming and reminded everyone that the Memorial Day ceremony at Roosevelt Center would be at 10 a.m. on May 29.

Honorary Animal Control Officer - Elaina Perry: For her past two birthdays, seven-year-old Elaina Perry has been celebrating her birthday by collecting contributions for the Greenbelt Animal Control Program. In appreciation for her efforts, the Mayor appointed Elaina as an Honorary Animal Control Officer and presented her with an animal control officer badge. Animal Control Officer Susie Hall thanked Elaina and said that a number of other children were now following her example and taking up the idea.

Life Saving Award - John Wojcik: On April 23, 2006, Parking Enforcement Officer John Wojcik saved the life of a man who was walking head on into traffic, in an apparent effort to cause a collision and commit suicide. In recognition of his actions, Mayor Davis presented Officer Wojcik a Life Saving Award and plaque.

Tree City U.S.A. Award: Greenbelt was recently notified by the National Arbor Day Foundation that it has been named a “ Tree City USA” for 2005, the City’s sixth year to receive the designation. Charles Jackman, chair of the Advisory Committee on Trees, expressed appreciation to the City Council and to Bill Phelan, staff liaison to the committee, for the City’s efforts in this area.

Public Works Week – Proclamation: May 21-27 is Public Works Week. Mayor Davis read a proclamation declaring May 21-27 to be Public Works Week in Greenbelt. Bill Phelan, Assistant Director, Public Works, received the proclamation on behalf of the department.

Maryland Municipal League (MML): Mr. Putens added that he, Ms. Mach, and Mr. Herling attended a meeting of the Prince George’s Municipal Association the prior week, at which two certificates were presented to Mayor Davis by a representative of the MML, for serving on the board and the legislative committee. The Mayor thanked him and announced that he had also received a certificate for participating on the convention planning committee.

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 2007 BUDGET AND THE CONSTANT YIELD TAX RATE: Mayor Davis read the agenda comments and reviewed a memorandum provided by the City Manager enumerating the amendments Council had made to the proposed budget. She declared the public hearing to be open and asked for any comments.

Charles Hagelgans, 125 Hedgewood Drive, spoke to say that he was glad to see there were no new positions in the City budget and that he hoped that the one existing grant-funded position would not be continued if it would require a tax increase. Mayor Davis said that position was the Service Coordinator at Green Ridge House, which was providing important services but which would most likely continue to receive federal funding.

The Mayor asked if anyone wished to add anything else regarding the proposed real property tax rate, since this was also the public hearing required by the state on the constant yield tax rate. There being no one else who wished to speak, she announced that the City =s property tax rate would be set when the FY 2007 budget is adopted on June 5, 2006, at the regular City Council meeting to be held at 8 p.m. in the Council Room of the Municipal Building. She then closed the public hearing and reconvened the regular meeting.

PETITIONS AND REQUESTS: None.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

The following items and events were commented on:

Mr. McLaughlin: the It’s Municipal Government competition, won once again by Magnolia Elementary; the Post Office’s move from Roosevelt Center to Ora Glen Drive over Memorial Day weekend; the start of the repaving of Ridge Road this week; and the receipt of confirmation by the State Comptroller’s office of the decrease for movie theaters of the Admissions and Amusement tax effective July 1.

Mr. Herling: an event honoring foster parents that he attended on behalf of the City.

Ms. Mach: the Nursery School fair and auction; the dedication of the new Bladensburg High School.

Mayor Davis: confirmation with Mr. McLaughlin that to date there was no confirmation that a mobile Post Office would be provided, residents could call the Greenbelt Connection if they needed a ride, and the City would have a facility up and running within 60 days of passage of the budget; thanks to Beverly Palau for It’s Municipal Government activities; the Green Man Festival; Seat Pleasant’s 75 th anniversary and Hyattsville’s 120 th; and the dedication of a memorial tree and bench at Greenbelt Lake for Hugh Jascourt.

LEGISLATION: None.

PRESENTATION ON FY 2005 FINANCIAL REPORT: Mayor Davis read the agenda comments. Greg Bussink and Mike Stephens of Clifton Gunderson were present to answer questions on last year’s audit, which found no material weaknesses in the City’s financial record-keeping.

SELECTION OF AUDIT SERVICES FOR FY 2006: The Mayor read the agenda comments. Jeff Williams, City Treasurer, said the City’s usual practice is to appoint an auditor for one year with the option of two more years. It was moved by Mr. Putens and seconded by Mr. Herling that the firm of Clifton Gunderson be retained to undertake the FY 2006 audits for the City and for Green Ridge House. Mr. Herling asked for the rationale for the 7.8% increase. Mr. Stephens said it reflected normal salary increases but also the fact that accounting firms were required to place an increased focus on internal processes and controls “post-Enron.” He said this emphasis would increase even more in two years when stricter guidelines for seeking fraud were introduced. He said the new requirements result in increased time and responsibilities for auditors. When the vote was taken, the motion carried 5-0.

SPRINGHILL LAKE PRELIMINARY PLAN OF SUBDIVISION: Mayor Davis read the agenda comments. Terri Hruby, Assistant Director, Planning Department, said there were quite a few issues still in contention, but staff was recommending that the City Council not support the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision (PPS) for two primary reasons: the lack of dedication of athletic fields, which was a condition of the approval of the Conceptual Site Plan (CSP), and the absence of a letter from the Board of Education indicating transfer of the existing elementary school site, as well as any resolution to the questions regarding adequate elementary school capacity. She added that county planning staff were recommending rejection based on inadequate Fire Department and EMS staffing for Prince George’s County. Ms. Hruby said she believed it also failed to meet police staffing requirements for the subdivision. She said she would not give a detailed presentation, since the plan remained essentially the same as it had been when Council was briefed on it two weeks ago.

Mr. Herling asked what procedure would follow if the Council did not support the plan. Ms. Hruby said the City would write a letter and make a presentation at the hearing. If the Planning Board rejects the plan for any reason, the applicant would have to reapply.

Mr. Roberts then moved the staff recommendation, which was to oppose the PPS because it failed to comply with the mandatory dedication requirements set forth in the conditions of approval for the Conceptual Site Plan, did not meet subdivision requirements pertaining to public safety, did not include a letter indicating the Board of Education’s intent to transfer the Springhill Lake Elementary School site, and did not address school capacity concerns.  It was further moved that the City Council oppose environmental variation requests J, L, N and either E or H(1), H(2) and the part of G associated with permanent disturbance from the construction of the road/stream crossing. Mr. Herling seconded the motion.

Mr. Putens said he was intrigued by the report of the Advisory Planning Board (APB), which recommended approval with conditions. George Branyan, chair of the APB, said the board found the two sides were very close on the school capacity issue if a different formula was used, one from Fairfax County that the board believed more realistically reflected the housing types actually proposed. He said the APB thought the athletic fields could be adequately addressed in conjunction with the schools at the Middle School site, with the City providing upkeep. He said the board recognized that it was not possible to get the acreage for fields the City had wanted within this plan. He added that the APB vote had been unanimous. With regard to stream crossings, he said the board looked at pedestrian and bike circulation, as well as car circulation, and disagreed with staff that one of the two crossings into the northern corner could be eliminated. Eliminating one of them would mean reducing connectivity and access between the tower buildings and the center of the development. Eliminating the other would reduce pedestrian access from the Metro station. Overall, the board recognized there would be some negative environmental impacts but thought there was adequate balance given the amount of land being preserved.

Mayor Davis asked whether the potential students from Greenbelt Station had been taken into account in the calculations on school capacity. Mr. Branyan said they had not. He agreed this was of concern but said there was time to work on those issues prior to the issuing of the first building permit.

Mr. Roberts said he was surprised at the APB recommendation, which he thought reflected “wishful thinking.” He said he did not think adequate facility issues could ride on uncertain promises. He said there had been agreement that three more fields were needed over and above what would be available at the Middle School. Mr. Roberts raised some issues with Mr. Branyan about building height, but Ms. Hruby later clarified that this matter had not been reviewed at this time by the APB because it was an issue for the Detailed Site Plan stage.

Mayor Davis asked about the alternative calculations for school capacity. Ms. Hruby said the developers had provided information about this to the county school board and to City staff. She said further information could be provided to Council.

Mr. Herling said he did not think the APB and staff recommendations were that far apart. Both had essentially the same conditions, but they came to different conclusions. Mr. Branyan said the APB thought some of the issues being raised were not real issues. For example, they did not think it was a requirement for the schools issues to be completely addressed at the PPS stage, and they did not think county police and fire staffing were actual issues in Greenbelt. He said they thought the developer had met most of the conditions and that it was time to move forward.

Regarding the staff report, the Mayor asked about the required 22.3 acres of off-site woodland mitigation. Ms. Hruby said they were working with AIMCO to find ways to address some of this on site, but there were no guarantees that it could even be addressed within the Anacostia watershed, since it could be anywhere in Prince George’s County. Mayor Davis said she was also still concerned about the landscaping covenants for the streets the City would take over.

André Gingles, attorney for the project, answered questions from several Councilmembers regarding access to recreational facilities. He told the Mayor the private recreational facilities would be open to the homeowners as well as the renters. He told Ms. Mach they could consider use of tennis courts by the local schools. He told Mr. Herling they would have to review whether the Olympic-sized pool could be made available for county and school competitions. He said liability issues and other concerns would have to be considered.

Mr. Gingles thanked both the City staff and the APB for their time in working through so many issues. He said that at this point, there is not a great area of disagreement. He said the City had been instrumental in encouraging the complete redevelopment of this area and asked that the baby not be tossed out with the bath water. With regard to adequate countywide staffing, he said those were County Planning Board issues and would be decided there but since City services apply, this should not be an issue on which the City would oppose the plan. With regard to ball fields, he said they are working within the CSP condition that allows them to seek approval of the alternative of assisting the City to purchase an off-site location. He said the school capacity issue does not have to be resolved at the PPS stage.

In response to a question from Ms. Mach, Mr. Gingles said they had agreed to the contributions to public safety referenced in the staff report. She asked why they would not dedicate the two acres that had been cleared, yet they wanted to dedicate public streets. Mr. Gingles said these two items were different: AIMCO prefers to own the property within the project, whereas the streets lead into the public right of way. Ms. Mach also asked what the plan for current residents to be able to rent or buy is. Patti Shwayder, senior vice president of AIMCO, said she would put such a plan back at the top of the list, but the need is still a long way off. Ms. Mach also asked about amount for the schools, which she said is $20 million up front, rather than the $31 million that is estimated for the actual cost. Mr. Gingles said this amount, with the money calculated over time, would fund the additional units to be added to Springhill Lake.

Mr. Putens said that, despite the different conclusions, he did not think the staff and the APB were that far apart. He asked what would happen if the School Board said no to giving up the Springhill Lake Elementary School site to AIMCO. Mr. Gingles said they would probably be “back at zero” for at least a long time. Mr. Putens wondered why the plan would move forward without the School Board commitment. Mr. Gingles said he thought the School Board would get there but that the City’s action should not wait for a School Board action, although the City might wish to encourage the School Board to act. Mr. Putens said he wanted to see the change in amount of green space that had occurred as the plan had changed. Mr. Gingles said he did not have those figures but he knew it had increased and that it was in a more useful configuration. He said they would have definitive numbers at the time of the DSP. Mr. Putens said he was unhappy with being “pushed” by this deadline. He said there were still problems with the density, the open space, and the recreational space that needed to be worked out. Mr. Gingles replied that there were still quite few stages in the planning and permitting process through which these things could be worked out. He said the project should not be stopped because of that.

Mr. Roberts said the School Board had estimated the total replacement cost for the site and the school facility to be on the order of $60 million. He said the $21 million figure that AIMCO kept citing did not take into account the loss of the old school and its property. Mr. Gingles said they had at one time proposed to fund the entire Middle School project, at which time the School Board would have had about a $15 million “net win,” but the county subsequently decided not to pursue that route. He said at that time, AIMCO returned to the $21 million “up front” offer, which was the county’s preferred alternative. He said this was agreed to prior to the approval of the CSP, which is why the condition is attached to the CSP that dedicates this funding to this particular project rather than the general fund for county schools. Mr. Roberts said that the bottom line was still inadequate school facilities and that this and inadequate public safety and recreational facilities impact the whole City. He said he thought it was critical to say “no” to the project plan now since it was not up to the Greenbelt standard and the deficiencies were major ones. Mr. Gingles responded that, with regard to the items Mr. Roberts was citing as remaining unfunded, it was important to keep in mind that the project would eventually generate $10 million in new tax revenues for the City.

Mr. Herling agreed with Mr. Putens that he wanted to see the change in the green space. He said he was also concerned with affordability and with walkability, particularly with regard to children walking from throughout Springhill Lake to the Middle School site. Ms. Shwayder said the plan placed the high rises at the farthest distance from the new school site and the townhouses closer for that reason. Mayor Davis said she wanted a distinction made between keeping the existing school, which badly needs to be replaced, and the existing location. Although Councilmembers agreed that two elementary schools were needed for Greenbelt West, there was not agreement on where the two should be located. Mr. Gingles argued that this was a matter for the School Board to decide later. Mr. Roberts said there was a county requirement that AIMCO provide another 15 acres on the site if the existing site were turned over to AIMCO, but others agreed that although County Councilmember Peters wanted the School Board to require this, it was not a condition that had been adopted by the School Board.

Mayor Davis then opened the discussion to the audience. Joan Falcão, 114 Julian Court, urged Council not to approve the plan, primarily because of the ball fields and the school situation. She said being allowed to provide “funding in lieu” only works if there is land to buy, and in this case there is not. She also opposed the higher buildings, which she said would substantially change the City. The Mayor said she agreed the height of the buildings was a problem.

Lowell Owens, 119 Northway, spoke on behalf of Citizens to Conserve and Restore Indian Creek (CCRIC) to say that most of their concerns related to items that would come up with the Detailed Site Plan. He said they would like to see Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards applied. They would like less storm-water run-off. He said he thought three acres for a ball field could be found if there were less focus on developer profit. He encouraged the City not to compromise, since Metro has made the property very valuable and AIMCO is unlikely to walk away from it.

Ruth Kastner, 125 Hedgewood Drive, said that although the APB had recommended approval, there were citizens at the APB meeting who opposed the plan. She encouraged Council to oppose it.

Robert Fireovid, 114 Julian Court, said the project as planned does not add to the community. He said he was particularly concerned with the high density and urged Council to oppose the plan.

Charles Hagelgans, 125 Hedgewood Drive, also urged opposition. He said he did not like the plan to combine the elementary and middle schools. He agreed with others that for the developer to be permitted to provide funding in lieu of land does no good when there is no land to buy. Ms. Mach remarked that there is experience to demonstrate that combining an elementary and middle school on the same campus can work well.

Clement Lau, 6 Greentree Place, said he was opposed to the plan because he did not find it compatible with the rest of Greenbelt. He was also concerned with its impact on existing resources like the public library, which is “already maxed out.” On the other hand, he said the swim team could really use the Olympic-sized pool, if that were to be permitted.

Doug Love, 3-D Plateau Place, expressed opposition, saying that residential and commercial construction should be designed around schools and recreational facilities, not vice versa.

Bill Orleans, Greenbelt, said he opposed the plan and thought that all the components of Greenbelt West should be required to work together on their plans. Mayor Davis said that could not be required.

Keith Chernikoff, 210 Lastner Lane, said the unanswered questions about the school needs were a problem, as was the lack of a definite plan for ball fields, either on the property or nearby. He said he thought they needed to do another traffic study as well. If the necessary assurances were provided, however, he would like to see the project go forward with the County Planning Board on Thursday.

Mr. Gingles spoke again to encourage Council not to stop the momentum of the project just because there were some items on which full agreement had not yet been reached. He said the plan actually proposes less density than would be allowed at this location. He reviewed the list of what AIMCO was offering to provide, including the new City recreation center. He argued against the idea that putting ball fields on this site was a good idea, considering the parking and lighting that would be needed.

The Mayor asked him why, if it was so important to AIMCO to keep the momentum, they had not been more responsive to the issues raised at the meeting two weeks ago. She asked why they had not brought a letter from the School Board. She said she thought she had asked them to provide more information on what alternatives they had considered for ball fields in determining that none of the possibilities would work. He responded that they believed the best location for ball fields was at the school location and that they could work to accomplish that. He said the City’s Advisory Planning Board agreed with that. He said they had also made an attempt to purchase an off-site location, which still might be feasible. He said they were in compliance with everything that was required of them.

The Mayor said the City has no permission to use School Board fields. Mr. Roberts asked why they did not say three years ago that they did not intend to provide fields. He asked repeatedly when the developer was going to meet its responsibilities. Mr. Gingles said they had said consistently that they did not think ball fields were appropriate to this plan and design. He said the condition included on the CSP approval gave the option of pursuing an alternative, and they were working within that condition.

In response to questions from Mayor Davis, Ms. Hruby reviewed the environmental variance requests with which both City and county staff, as well as the City’s environmental consultants, had issues; clarified the need for further traffic study or interchange funding prior to removal of the unit cap; and said the roads to be dedicated to the City would all have to be brought up to City standards first.

Regarding the traffic impacts, Mr. Herling asked if coordinated intra-City transportation would have any effect on the projections. Ms. Hruby said it would have some effect on the projected number of trips.

Mayor Davis asked if the City could oppose the plan but provide the list of conditions from the staff report in the event that the County Planning Board approved it. Mr. Manzi said that was perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Putens said he still had a problem with the high-rise buildings. He said they had “lost him” when they kept adding height without correlated increases in green space.

Mr. Herling agreed with Mr. Putens that he wanted to see the change in the green space. He said he was also concerned with walkability, which is important to both Greenbelt and New Urbanism, and affordability.

Ms. Hruby distributed a list of 31 staff conditions dated May 19, 2006. Various Councilmembers asked to add conditions. Mayor Davis asked to extend the conditions on the schools to say that capacity should be addressed for Greenbelt West, not just Springhill Lake. She also said there should be a condition like the one employed for Greenbelt Station to require start-up funding for police officers until the tax revenues caught up. Ms. Mach asked to require a plan to offer preferential rent to current residents; Mr. Herling wanted to strengthen transportation requirements within Greenbelt and up to the borders. Mr. Roberts wanted to add a requirement for a central walkway system. There was discussion of bike lanes, which Ms. Hruby said would be better looked at with the DSP. In response to a query from Mr. Putens, it was clarified that this list of conditions had not been given to the developer yet.

Ms. Mach asked that the conditions be provided with the City’s letter in the event that the County Planning Board should approve the plan. There was considerable discussion of whether this should be a separate, second motion or not. Mr. McLaughlin said the City had done this in one motion before. Ms. Mach moved amendment of the original motion to include provisions of the conditions to the County Planning Board in the event that there was action to approve the plan. Mayor Davis seconded the motion for discussion. After considerably more discussion of how to express it, including a request from Ms. Kastner that it be done as two motions, Mr. Roberts said he agreed to Ms. Mach’s amendment to his original motion. Eventually, it was agreed to restate the motion to say that the City’s opposition was based on the list of staff conditions but not to say that these were conditions the City wanted included in any approval action of the County Planning Board.

Mr. Gingles said he wanted to say for the record that this document had just been presented to them, with the result that they had not reviewed or discussed the 31 conditions, let alone the ones that had just been added. Mr. Putens agreed with him that the document should have been provided to them in advance. Mayor Davis added that Greenbelt residents should be aware that one result of the City’s opposition could be that some or all of AIMCO’s offerings could be off the table now as well.

Mayor Davis said she originally had been very enthusiastic about this project and the improvement it would bring to residents of Springhill Lake. She appreciated the mix of housing types and the increase of the percentage of units for sale rather than for rent. She became concerned, however, when there ceased to be movement on some of the areas of disagreement.

Ms. Mach said she still thought this was an exciting project, but she was disappointed that the Planning Board deadline had arisen without sufficient agreement on the major issues, including the schools. She said she hoped it would be possible to go back and resolve these matters.

When the vote was taken, Council supported 5-0 the original motion to oppose the plan with the inclusion of the list of concerns that needed to be addressed.

PROGRAM OPEN SPACE FY 2007 ANNUAL PLAN: Mayor Davis read the agenda comments and pointed out a couple of errors in the text of the plan, which Ms. Hruby corrected. Ms. Mach said that since this program is about acquisition, she would find it helpful to discuss in executive session what acquisition is possible. It was noted that this topic had not been discussed in closed session since Ms. Mach and Mr. Herling were elected to Council. Mr. McLaughlin remarked that any of these projects would return to Council for approval prior to action. Ms. Mach said she understood that and would support the plan but would like further discussion in closed session. Mr. Roberts asked if there was a time limit on the spending of the funds. Ms. Hruby said, no, but that there was strong interest in seeing tangible projects happen this year. Mr. Roberts moved Council approval of the FY 2007 Annual Plan. Mr. Putens seconded. The motion carried 5-0.

MEETINGS: Council reviewed the meeting schedule. Mayor Davis said she wanted to add to the list of meetings to be scheduled work sessions on the City emergency plan and the homelessness situation. She also listed a number of stakeholder meetings to be held with elected officials after the elections. Mr. Putens said he might not be able to attend the next regular meeting because of rescheduling he would have to do because of the Small Cities conference.

ADJOURNMENT: A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Mach and seconded by Mr. Putens. The motion carried 5-0. The Mayor adjourned the regular meeting of May 22, 2006, at 1:10 a.m. on May 23, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Gallagher

City Clerk

"I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct report of the regular meeting of the City Council of Greenbelt, Maryland, held May 22, 2006. "

Judith F. Davis

Mayor

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