Worksession Minutes

 October 1, 2007

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present were Mayor Calvo, CMs Dennison, Gourley and Lofgren. MPT Jewitt had an excused absence. Also present were Town Administrator Murphy, Clerk Harper, Joseph Lasick, Isabel and Christopher Morrow, Nuraddin Abdulmannam and citizens.

1. Mayor

Announcements: Mayor Calvo and MPT Jewitt graduated from the Academy of Excellence in Local Government.

Calendar: A preliminary and backup date for the District 21 legislative dinner was set for November 29 and November 26, respectively. A date for the employee appreciation lunch was set for December 19, 1 p.m.

Minutes: On a motion by CM Dennison and second by CM Lofgren, the September 17 worksession minutes were approved 4 to 0 with corrections. Corrections to the September 12 Town meeting minutes are to be submitted Clerk Harper for approval at the next Town meeting.

Department Reports: Mayor Calvo reported that he spoke with WSSC Contract Inspector Mike Trail regarding the Seminole Street project. Berwyn Heights had requested WSSC to perform core drills on the newly resurfaced street to test the quality of materials and workmanship but was rebuffed. After a letter of complaint to WSSC's General Manager, however, an inspection team was sent out last week and to perform the requested core drills. Meanwhile, Berwyn Heights had already commissioned its own core drills. Results of the 4 core drills showed that the new asphalt surface was less than the required 8” and that the trenches, where water mains had been replaced, were not correctly backfilled. WSSC will ask its contractor to redo Seminole Street trench if the core drills test results show that the trench does not meet WSSC required standards. This would probably occur in summer 2008. Berwyn Heights still plans to do a complete renovation of the 5600 to 5700 blocks of Seminole and Ruatan Streets at that point and would save approximately $60,000.

Mayor Calvo continued that the recently purchased police car has been outfitted and is in use. The Council will discuss what to do with this and other spare police cars at the next worksession. Officer Chapman was promoted to Corporal and Officer Bennett will be promoted to Private First Class at the end of her probationary period.

CM Gourley reported that he received a new estimate for painting the Town Administration Building, which is $2,900. Work will begin in the next couple of weeks. The audit began today. CM Dennison reported that a children's Halloween Costume Party will take place on October 27, 4 - 7 p.m., and a Tree lighting ceremony on December 7. Also, several important Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS) meetings are taking place in October.

Citizen comments: Mayor Calvo received a number of comments on the wrong date listed for the Halloween Party on the front page of the Bulletin. This mistake has the potential for reducing attendance at the event in question and should be corrected with a Town-wide mailing.  A procedure to avoid such mistakes in the future should be developed. Mayor also had positive comments about the possibility of turning Berwyn Heights Elementary School (BHES) into a pre-K - 8^th grade school. He also had comments about the proposed noise ordinance and a rat problem at the Checker's restaurant.

CM Dennison received comments about a fight on 56^th Avenue, the proposed Town retirement plan, the Pontiac Street field and NIMs emergency management training. CM Lofgren had a comment about a refuse collection problem that is on tonight's agenda for discussion.

Mike Attick commented that some participants of the pandemic flu drill were omitted in the acknowledgments in the Town Bulletin. He further asked why Osage Street has been re-paved in its entirety and whether it is commonplace to discuss promotions in executive session. Mayor Calvo replied that on Osage Street WSSC replaced both water and sewer lines, which required the re-paving of the entire street. Personnel matters relating to individual employees must be discussed in executive session to protect his privacy.

2. Public Safety

No items were discussed.

3. Public Works (moved down on agenda)

4. Administration

No items were discussed.

5. Code Enforcement

Zoning variance: Mayor Calvo welcomed the owner of the property on 5812 Goucher Drive, who is requesting the Town's support for variances to exceed the 30% lot coverage provision and rear and side yard set back requirements of Prince George's County Zoning Ordinance. The variances are needed to construct an 18' x 26' addition in lieu of the existing deck. The owner explained that he has a small house and would like to add the room to accommodate family reunions and a parent that visits frequently. His neighbors have been informed of the plans and have no objections. CM Gourley moved to recommend approval of the variances. CM Dennison seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0.

Code appeal – 8528 60^th Avenue: Mayor Calvo explained that the owner of a rental property is appealing a $100 fine for a high grass violation pleading that he misunderstood the Town's notices. The first notice of a violation went out as a door hanger on August 7, 2007 and a certified letter giving a compliance deadline of August 24 went out on August 17. The owner signed off on the certified letter but did not have the grass cut. Instead the owner's spouse stopped by the Town office to request clarification as to what the violation was for. He was given a full explanation by the Code Director as well as copies of the initial citation but failed to comply. A fine was imposed on August 27 per certified letter. The owner called the Code Department on August 30 and again requested clarification. He said that he misunderstood the instructions previously given to him and stated he wished to file an appeal. The grass was cut on September 2.

CM Gourley moved to uphold the fine. CM Dennison seconded. Mayor Calvo commented that this property has been messy for a long time and been cited for other violations, including renting without a license and tenant - landlord conflicts. CM Lofgren asked how much time the owner was given to comply with the initial notice of violation. He was told that, as a repeat offender, he had 7 days to comply but in fact was given 3 additional weekend days. The motion passed 4 to 0.

Refuse collection appeal – 8821 63^rd Avenue (discussed out of order): Mayor Calvo welcomed the home owners, outlined the appeals process and asked them to present their case. The owners explained that they have been in the process of renovating their home and improving their property. As a result of dismantling a bathroom and an old shed, they needed to dispose of a pile of concrete, shed parts and old furniture that exceeded the 3 cubic yard limit. As they were aware that the removal of building materials required an arrangement with the Public Works Department, the owners called the Department on August 31 and requested an estimate for the removal of the refuse pile. Code Enforcement Director Solomon came to the property the morning of September 4 and over the phone obtained a removal estimate of $250 from Public Works foreman Hockman, who had previously looked at the pile of debris. The owners paid $250 by check to Ms. Solomon, who gave them a receipt.

The owners continued explaining that Public Works removed all materials except a pile of concrete later on the same day. They left a notice stating that concrete is not collected.  The owners called the Public Works Department on September 5 and 7 to ask why the concrete pickup was refused, but were not able to get a hold of the Public Works Director. The following week, the owners spoke with Code Officer Hall, who told them that the concrete should have been picked up. The owners again tried to contact the Public Works Director, who was unavailable, and related what Mr. Hall had told them. Upon returning their call, Public Works informed the owners that Director Solomon said that Officer Hall never spoke to them. Public Works further said that the Code Director and Public Works Director would meet regarding the matter on September 17. The owners asked to be present at the meeting but were not notified. On September 17, the owners received a notice of violation of Ordinance No. 117 – Refuse Collection, which said that residents are responsible for the removal of concrete and other building waste. The owners commented that the Ordinance is ambiguous and does not explicitly exclude concrete from collection. It does state that residents can contact Public Works to request removal of remodeling and building waste for a quoted fee. In the midst of the controversy, they also spoke to an employee of the Department of Environmental Resources, who told them that they were labeled as troublemakers by the Public Works Department. This and the difficult interaction with the Public Works Department induced them to bring their grievance to the Town Council.

CM Lofgren said that the dispute involves Sections 4 F, G and I of Ordinance No. 117, which define the duties of home owners and occupants in disposing bulk refuse, remodeling and building waste and arranging for a special collection. He said that the pile set out by the residents exceeded 3 cubic yards and required approval by the Public Works Director for a special collection. The owners disputed that their pile exceeded the 3 cubic yard limit. They requested a Public Works inspection because they intended to dispose of building waste. CM Lofgren pointed out that Public Works didn't know this when they inspected the pile and gave the estimate based on the size of the pile. They only noticed the concrete after they had removed the other refuse. CM Lofgren commented that he inspected the concrete pile himself and found the bins and bags too heavy to lift. He also found that there was a strong smell of dog feces. He doubts that the refuse would have been approved for collection if the concrete had been found in this condition. The owners objected that the inspection must not have been very thorough.

Mayor Calvo asked a number of questions to clarify the time line of events. He confirmed that that Code Director Solomon was the principal contact with the residents. Code Officer Hall also spoke with the residents and at one point suggested that the concrete should have been removed. However, he was not authorized to make this determination. The residents repeatedly contacted Public Works but were unsuccessful in getting resolution. Mayor Calvo then strongly criticized a written statement by Public Works Director Coleman regarding this case, in which previous trash collection problems with this residence were cited. The residents concurred that their interactions with Public Works have become more problematic over the past year, but did not know why.

CM Lofgren said that as long as he has lived in Town, concrete has never been collected. The normal course of action is for Public Works to suggest haulers to residents that specialize in removing building materials. This is what the crew, who picked up this refuse pile, did. When they found the concrete, they told the owners' mother, who was present at the time, that they don't pick up concrete and gave her contacts for haulers. On the other hand, CM Lofgren thought that crewmen should not be called upon to make estimates themselves or to interpret ordinances. He suggested that at the best course of action may be to refund a part of the special collection fee and ask the owners to contract with a private hauler to remove the remaining concrete.

Mayor Calvo commented, that while the Ordinance may not be clear about the removal of concrete, he is of the opinion that the Town's Public Works Department should not be required to pick up concrete as a matter of policy. He agrees that the interpretation of the Ordinance should not be left to crewmen but are the responsibility of the Public Works Director, who should inspect and approve special collections. Additionally, when making an appraisal of a special collection, some questions should be asked to determine what is thrown away and to tell residents that concrete is not collected. These steps were not followed, which is why he recommends refunding the entire $250. The handling of this case on the part of the Public Works Department was unprofessional and did not follow correct procedures. The Council should probably clarify procedures and/or revise the Ordinance to avoid a recurrence this problem.

CM Lofgren agreed with Mayor Calvo that the case could have been handled more professionally. However, he believes that Public Works could handle this type of situation if the Ordinance is revised and clear procedures established. He said that when he moved into Town, the Public Works Department took everything that was put out at the curb so as to keep the Town looking neat. But nowadays, environmental concerns and regulations make collections more complicated and expensive. As a result, trash collection procedures need to be tightened and all materials that are not collected enumerated. This may have the unfortunate consequence of more illegal dumping, as residents try to avoid paying removal costs themselves. Further, Public Works employees may want to avoid talking with residents or Code Enforcement for fear of saying the wrong things.

Mayor Calvo said that the problem here was basic communication, responding to phone calls and asking common sense questions about what is being thrown away that failed to take place. The Town should acknowledge that the case was not handled right, return the fee and improve its procedures. It would be more expensive for the Town to remove the concrete than to give the refund. CM Gourley agreed that there was a communication problem and that the Council needs to clarify procedures. However, he disagrees that a full refund should be given as staff time and effort was expended in removing a large trash pile. CM Dennison agreed that the process needs to be streamlined and communication with residents improved but that she would not blame just one party.  She would probably support a partial refund.

CM Lofgren moved that $100 of the removal fee be refunded, that concrete not be collected, that the owners be requested to contract with a hauler and the residents be given a reasonable amount of time to get the removal accomplished before a Clean Lot violation is issued. CM Gourley seconded. The motion failed with CMs Lofgren and Gourley in favor and Mayor Calvo and CM Dennison opposed. CM Gourley moved to postpone further discussion to the next worksession. CM Lofgren seconded. The motion passed 3 to 1 with CM Dennison opposed.

At 9:10 p.m., the Council took a 10 minute break.

5. Code Enforcement (continued)

Code appeal – 8511 60^th Avenue: The property owner explained that he had a sofa, chairs and storage container in the front driveway for pickup by the Salvation Army. However, the things were not picked up at the appointed time. Other items cited in the initial violation included a metal wheelchair ramp needed for moving a disabled daughter in and out the house and paint buckets intended for painting the house. The owner further explained that he did not receive a door hanger left at the property on July 31 or the 1^st certified letter sent on August 6, 2007 notifying him of a Clean Lot violation with a compliance deadline of August 21. However, he did receive a copy of the 1^st certified letter sent in the regular mail on August 15 and a 2^nd certified letter sent on August 22 informing him of a $100 fine and payment deadline of September 6. He signed for the certified letter and proceeded to clean up his front yard by August 26.  On August 30, he came to the Code Enforcement office and say that he had cleaned up his yard and to ask how to file an appeal for the $100 fine.

The Council asked questions to clarify the sequence of events. CM Lofgren commented that it is impractical for the homeowner to abide by the 15 day compliance deadline given in the 1^st notice of a violation if he does not receive it. This home owner proceeded to clean up his yard promptly after he received the copy of the 1^st violation notice and fine notice and then contacted the Code Department to follow up.  CM Dennison moved to waive the fine, CM Lofgren seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0.

Code appeal – 5600 Goucher Drive: Mayor Calvo explained that this property owner, who was not present, was given a door hanger Clean Lot violation notice on August 1, 2007 for having a brush pile and several other pieces of debris in the side yard. The 1^st certified letter was sent August 9 with a compliance deadline of August 24. A copy of this letter was sent in the regular mail on August 21. A second certified letter informing the resident of a $100 fine was sent on August 27 with a payment deadline of September 11.  The owner called the office on September 11, stating that she received the fine notice only today but no other violation notice prior to this. As the compliance deadline fell on the same day as receipt of the fine letter, the owner requested and received an extension of 3 days.  The owner proceeded to clean up the brush pile and wrote a letter of appeal to request a waiver of the $100 fine.

In discussions, CM Gourley said he believes this resident that a violation notice was not received as she is a long-time resident with strong ties to the community. Mayor Calvo said that this case raises the question whether regular mail copies of certified letters should be sent to every residence cited for a code violation, regardless of whether it is a rental or owner occupied residence.  Certified letters are necessary to serve as proof in a court of law that a violation was sent. However, they are frequently not received because they must be picked up at the post office if they are delivered when the home owner is not at home. CM Lofgren said that certified letters tend not to be picked up because they usually bring bad news. As this problem recurs regularly, a fix needs to be found. Sending a copy in the regular mail may help solve it. CM Gourley moved to waive the fine. CM Dennison seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0.

Building and Inspection Ordinance No. 104: TA Murphy briefly reviewed the main features and latest changes made to Ordinance No. 104, which regulates the process for obtaining building permits, dumpster permits and portable temporary storage units (PODS) permits. In Section 6, Paragraph 4, a further change in the wording was made to replace the words “can” with “may.”

Ordinance No. 104 Fee and Fine Resolution: TA Murphy reviewed the proposed fees and fines:

l        Building permit fee equal to County fee.

l        Building permit late fee - $25

l        Roll-off container (dumpster) permit fee - $25 / 15 days

l        Roll-off container permit late fee - $15

l        Roll-off container permit penalty fee (placed in Town right-of-way) - $25

l        Portable Temporary Storage Unit (POD) permit fee - $35 / 30 days

l        POD permit late fee - $20

l        POD permit penalty fee (placed in Town-right-of-way) - $25

l        (Council) Exemption (from 60 day limit) and approved conditions penalty fee for roll-off container or POD - $50

l        Cash deposit for building, roll-off container or POD in Town right-of-way - $1,000

CM Lofgren proposed to make all POD fees the same as roll-off container fees for simplicity sake. Mayor Calvo asked that Councilmembers make motions to change fees. CM Gourley moved to increase the roll-off container permit penalty fee to $100. The motion failed for lack of a second. CM Lofgren moved to make all POD permit fees, fines and time limits the same those for roll-off containers. Further, he moved to reduce the exemption and approved conditions penalty from $50 to $25. CM Dennison seconded. CM Gourley moved to amend the motion to decrease the POD permit fee from $25/ 15 days to $25/ 30 days. CM Lofgren seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0. 

Mayor Calvo moved to keep the exemption and approved conditions penalty fee at $50 because those applying for an exemption from the 60 day permit limit, already have a permit and should be familiar with the conditions. Further, a $25 fine would not discourage residents from exceeding the 60 day limit. CM Gourley seconded. Mayor Calvo revised his motion to propose increasing the penalty for exceeding the 60 day limit to $50 a week to make it a serious disincentive. CM Lofgren said he wanted to keep the penalty at $25 as in his original motion. He moved to divide the question so that the exemption penalty could be approved separately from the other fees and fines. CM Dennison seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0. The motion to make all POD fees and time limits the same as roll-off container fees, except the POD permit fee, passed 4 to 0. 

CM Lofgren moved to levy a fine of $25/ week if a permit holder fails to apply to the Town Council for an exemption to the 60 day limit for placing a roll-off container or POD on his property. CM Dennison seconded. Mayor Calvo said this creates a loop hole because permit holders simply need to apply for an exemption and won't have to pay any fee or fine until the Council holds the hearing. He proposed to require permit holders to apply and receive an exemption from the Town Council to avoid a fine. CM Lofgren agreed that the language should be changed to “apply and receive” an extension. Mayor Calvo moved to table the current motion. CM Gourley seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0. 

Mayor Calvo said the Council needs to decide 1) if  “exemption” should be changed to “extension” 2) if a permit holder needs to only “apply for” or “apply for and receive” an extension to avoid a fine and 3) if the fine should be $25 or $50 per week. Council could not come to an agreement on options 2) and 3) but agreed to clean up the language and vote on the different options at the upcoming Town meeting. CM Dennison moved to clean up the language. CM Gourley seconded. The motion passed 4 to 0.

Commercial Clean Lot Ordinance No. 134: TA Murphy reviewed the most recent changes to the Ordinance. He explained that in Section 7D an exemption was created permitting commercial properties to store abandoned, junked, wrecked, untagged or unlicensed motor vehicles when actively being inspected at an authorized vehicle inspection station. Properties zoned I-1 are prohibited from storing such vehicles unless the Prince George's County zoning ordinance permits it. TA Murphy added that the County Zoning Ordinance is silent on how many wrecked or untagged vehicles can be kept on a property and how they should be stored. Section 7I was added to allow the storage of construction materials and motor vehicle parts, where permitted in the I-1 zone. Further, Section 10 was revised to create 3 sets of penalties for different violations. Violations for unclean, unsanitary and unsafe conditions, including abandoned, wrecked and untagged vehicles, which are described in Section 7A - F, must be corrected within 5 days before a fine is issued. Violations for neglected landscaping through clutter and animals kept in unsanitary conditions, which are described in Sections 7G - K, must be corrected within 15 days. Violations relating to buildings through infrastructure that are in disrepair, which are described in Sections 7L - S, must be corrected within 30 days or be corrected within 30 days or addressed in an action plan and time table approved by an authorized Code Enforcement Official. No further corrections were offered, except a renumbering in Section 7.

Ordinance No. 134 Fine Schedule Resolution: TA Murphy reviewed the Fine Schedule. He explained that the fines correspond to the 3-tiered penalty system outlined in Section 10 of the Ordinance. Violations that must be corrected within 5 days will be penalized with a $100 fine if not corrected, with additional $200 fines levied for each 5 day period the violation remains in effect. Failure to pay the fine will result in fines being recorded as a lien against the property. Similarly, violations that must be corrected within 15 days or 30 days, receive a penalty of $100 if not corrected, and $200 fines for additional 15 or 30 day periods the violations remains in effect. No further changes were proposed.

Kerstin Harper, Town Clerk