City of College Park, Maryland Budget Worksession

April 22, 2017 8:00 a.m.

Agenda

Review and Approval of Agenda

8:00 a.m. City Council review of the General Fund budget

A. 8:00 a.m. Public Works • Administration • Solid Waste Management (Refuse Management; Leaf & Grass Collection; Litter &

Graffiti Control; Recycling; Compost Yard Operations) • Street Management & Parking Lot Maintenance (Street Cleaning; Signage; Street

Maintenance; Snow & Ice Control; Parking Lot Maintenance; Parking Lot Garage) • Buildings & Grounds (Public Works Buildings; Recreation Facilities Maintenance;

Building Maintenance; Turf & ROW Maintenance; Tree & Landscape Maintenance)

• Engineering Services & Pavement Management Plan • Fleet Services

B. 10:00 a.m. City Council Review of the Capital Projects Fund & Debt Service Fund

11:30 a.m. Lunch Break

C. 12:00 p.m. Miscellaneous issues and other budget matters

• Responses to questions raised at the April 8 W/S • Review of updated budget figures

D. 1:00 p.m. City Council discussion

• Council requests for inclusion in budget • Consideration of other items not included in proposed budget (“Parking Lot List”) • Wrap-up & direction to City staff

2:30 p.m. Adjourn

Bring Your Pavement Management Plan and This Packet With You On Saturday

(Times are estimates only)

001

Attachments

Item

Page Number

1. Proposed Budget Ordinance 17-O-04 3 2. Changes to Proposed Budget 5

3. Responses to Questions and Discussion from April 8, 2017 Budget Worksession 7

4. Items Requested by City Council for Inclusion in the FY 2018 Budget 9 5. Other Budget Requests for Council Consideration (Parking Lot List) 10 6. CPCUP Request for $50,000 for Homeownership Program 11 7. CPCUP Request for $20,000 for Program Associate 14 8. Request for additional funding for on-campus tailgates 17 9. NCPCA Budget Requests 21 10. EAC Request for $25,000 for UMD scholarships 22 11. College Park Day 2011 – 2016 Summary 25

002

FY 2018 FY 2018 Council FY 2018

PROPOSED Changes/ Proposed Changes Proposed

BUDGET Corrections Budget Ordinance on 4-22 Budget Ordinance

GENERAL FUND

As Originally

Submitted

For 4-22-17

Worksession

Final for

Introduction

4/25/17

Revenue:

General Property Taxes 9,737,861$ -$ 9,737,861$

Other Taxes 4,520,000 4,520,000

Licenses & Permits 1,259,200 10,000 1,269,200

Intergovernmental Revenue 301,772 301,772

Charges For Services 1,047,638 1,047,638

Fines & Fees 2,628,150 2,628,150

Miscellaneous Revenue 299,820 5,250 305,070

Total Revenue 19,794,441 15,250 19,809,691

Expenditures:

General Government & Administration

Mayor & Council 575,430 7,000 582,430

City Manager 405,947 405,947

City Clerk 327,114 327,114

City Attorney 196,000 196,000

Finance 899,703 650 900,353

Human Resources 457,305 250 457,555

Communications & Public Relations 186,271 (7,500) 178,771

Information Technology 718,258 5,643 723,901

Non-Departmental Expenses 209,921 209,921

Elections and Other Boards & Comm. 65,721 (200) 65,521

General Government & Admin. 4,041,670 5,843 4,047,513

Public Services 3,696,779 79,172 3,775,951

Planning, Community & Economic

Development 805,735 805,735

Youth, Family & Senior Services 1,083,246 7,650 1,090,896

Public Works 5,847,259 - 5,847,259

Transfers to Capital Projects Fund 3,410,410 (77,415) 3,332,995

Transfers to Debt Service Fund 559,342 559,342

Contingency 350,000 350,000

Total Expenditures 19,794,441 15,250 19,809,691

Excess Revenues over Expenditures 0$ -$ 0$

Proposed Budget Ordinance 17-O-04

003

FY 2018 FY 2018 Council FY 2018

PROPOSED Changes/ Proposed Changes Proposed

BUDGET Corrections Budget Ordinance on 4-22 Budget Ordinance

Proposed Budget Ordinance 17-O-04

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND

Revenue:

Funding Sources other than General Fund 1,423,800$ 1,423,800$

Transfer from General Fund 3,410,410 (77,415) 3,332,995

Reserves (Fund Balance) 8,461,315 8,461,315

Total Revenue 13,295,525 (77,415) 13,218,110

Expenditures:

Capital outlay 6,858,059 (127,415) 6,730,644

Excess Revenues over Expenditures 6,437,466$ 50,000$ 6,487,466$

DEBT SERVICE FUND

Revenue:

Parking meter revenue -$ 220,000$ 220,000$

Parking fines revenue - 50,000 50,000

Transfer from General Fund 559,342 559,342

Total Revenue 559,342 270,000 829,342

Expenditures:

Principal 382,000 382,000

Interest 177,342 177,342

Total Expenditures 559,342 - 559,342

Excess Revenues over Expenditures -$ 270,000$ 270,000$

004

FY 2017 FY 2018

Estimated PROPOSED

FY Total BUDGET

GENERAL FUND:

1,889,824$ -$

Revenue:

General Property Taxes

310.17 Revitalization Tax Credit (20,000)

310.90 Tax Interest & Penalty (Refunds) 20,000

323.40 Licenses & Permits - Occupancy Permit Revenue 10,000

Miscellaneous Revenue

362.15 Old Parish House - reduce estimate for FY2017 (2,500)

362.16 Facility Management Fee-City Bldgs.(entry correction) (6,750) (6,750)

362.16 Davis Hall - reduce estimate for FY 2017 (1,500)

366.__ DCPMA reimbursement for police 12,000

Expenditures: (Negative = additional expense)

1010 Mayor & Council

510.12-11 Travel & Training (4,000)

510.30-54 Lobbying (3,000)

1022 Finance

Overtime & FICA (2,150)

Capital - Software 1,500

1006 Communications & Public Relations - Postage 7,500

1005 HR - Overtime (250)

1024 Information Technology

Overtime & FICA (4,300)

INET (1,343)

1012 Elections - Cable TV Camera Operator 200

2010-2030 Public Services - Overtime, Night Differential & FICA (79,172)

Youth & Family Services

4010 Administration - Overtime & FICA (5,350)

4011 Clinical - Overtime (150)

4012 Seniors - Overtime & FICA (2,150)

4010 Building Cleaning Services (4,500) -

Changes to Proposed Budget

Proposed Budget Excess Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures

as originally submitted

005

FY 2017 FY 2018

Estimated PROPOSED

FY Total BUDGET

Changes to Proposed Budget

GENERAL FUND (Continued)

Public Works (net effect of -0-)

5020 Additional Laborer - Salary & benefits (45,271)

5010 Eliminiate request for Admin Asst - Salary & benefits 59,134

5021 Increase Engineering Intern by 0.2 FTE's (13,863)

Net effect of changes (additional net expenditures) (15,250) (77,415)

Reduce (increase) Transfer to Capital Projects Fund for:

LED Sign at Duvall Field removed from Capital Budget 40,000

YFS Acoustical Panels (10,000)

Reduction in Community Garden estimated cost 19,000

Facilities Cap. Reserve 28,415

1,874,574$ -$

Capital Projects FundAdd - YFS - Acoustical Panels (10,000)$

Reduce I-Net 50,000

Remove LED Sign at Duvall Field 40,000

Reduce Community Garden 19,000

Reduce Facilities Capital Reserve 28,415

Separate Property Acquistion from Facilities Capital Reserve &

reallocate funds for Hollywood Commercial Revitalization project):

Facilities Capital Reserve 750,000

Property Acquisition (250,000)

Hollywood Commercial Revitalization project (500,000)

Move Community Garden to Sustainability Initiative

Community Garden 5,000

Sustainability Initiative (5,000)

Net effect of changes - net expenditure reduction 127,415$

Parking Debt Service Fund:Parking meter revenue 220,000$

Parking fines revenue 50,000

Additional Revenue 270,000$

Proposed Budget Excess Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures

as revised

006

1st Budget Worksession - April 8, 2017 Responses to Questions and Discussion

- Votes to be taken at 4/22 Worksession (in addition to Council requests and “Parking Lot” items)

o CPCUP – additional $50k (note – per email from CPCUP - asking for another $20k) o IFC Tailgate – additional $3,000

- Adjustments made to Proposed Budget as a result of this Worksession:

o Old Parish House and Davis Hall rentals for FY 2017 were adjusted to zero as there has been nothing received year-to-date and based on repairs/completion schedules, none are expected for the remainder of the year.

o Lobbyist amount increased from $20k to $23k in FY 2018. o Overtime inadvertently left out of original proposed budget will be added – total of $93,000. o Will add a footnote to the City Attorney narrative (p.33) that APC legal fees are charged to program #3012, not

in #1011. o Based on the City Council’s decision to have no election night broadcast – the $200 that was in the FY2018

budget in Elections (p. 53 -1012-510.35-25) will be deleted. o $12,000 will be added to the Proposed Budget for Revenue from the DCPMA reimbursement for Contract

Police. In prior years this amount was netted with expenditures. o The cost of the Community Garden in the Capital Projects Fund has been changed to $5,000 (a reduction of

$19,000 from the $24,000 originally proposed). This amount is being moved to the Sustainability Initiative line in the Capital Projects Fund budget as it is a part of that program.

- Responses to questions from the Worksession: o How does the City Attorney bill for attendance at City Council meetings - $3,000 flat fee per month

For attendance at weekly staff meetings – billed for time o What are other municipalities paying for legal services? City Manager is requesting info from surrounding

jurisdictions.

o Credit card fees in Finance: Discussion regarding charging a convenience fee to our customers will be scheduled for a future

worksession. Is there a fee when customers use a debit card or bank card (versus credit card); is there a charge for

pay by phone? Yes to both - anytime a customer uses any type of card the City incurs a fee. The percentage fee for a debit card is usually lower than the percentage fee for a non debit card but the per transaction fees for debit cards are typically higher. Fees vary depending on the specific type of card used. The fees for nondebit cards include a % fee(ranging from 1.43% to 2.96%) and a per transaction fee (ranging from 4 cents to 22 cents).

Debit card fees range from percentages of 0.05 to 2.65 and per transaction fees from 10 cents to 22 cents. The above excludes American Express cards – for March we paid 2.15% ($46 fees on $2,150 total charges). The bill does not break down a per transaction fee and % charge.

o INET costs – the IT Manager is preparing a memo to respond to questions about the purpose and if there are

any alternatives. She is also preparing a report to respond to some of the questions about the City’s cyber security adequacy.

007

o Human Resources Budget - clarification on cost and timing for Employee Engagement Study and follow-up work: The budget as shown reflects the appropriate amounts requested – the actual study will be covered in

the FY2017 budget and costs related to follow-up work of $20,000 are requested in the FY2018 budget.

o College Park Day costs:

City staff time is charged directly to the line for College Park Day (001-1006-510.38-60) What are the additional costs requested? Total budgeted costs for CP Day are:

• Event planner: $16,350 (the FY17 budget was $11,000 but paid $16,350) • Additional stage, performers, rentals: $4,500 • City staff payroll: $4,500 (charges from DPW, DPS, other depts for staff time associated with

preparing for, setting up, staffing the City booth, and related work for College Park Day.) • Attractions and Performers - $8,000 • Advertising & Shirts - $10,500 • City participation expenditures: $9,800 (increased from $8,800 from last year to provide a

cushion in case sponsorship revenues were not as high as last year). Total: $53,650

o Speed Notification signs and/or purchase of additional mobile handheld speed cameras We will send information on radar speed indicator signs of various design as soon as we get it.

The City has just this spring deployed a handheld automated speed enforcement camera. We have not

yet had enough time to evaluate its effectiveness. This device, like fixed speed cameras will be leased from our vendor when the new contract amendments required by changes in state law becomes effective. Use of this handheld device is limited to those areas approved for speed cameras. They may not be used in other areas to issue speed citations. Staff does not recommend leasing of another handheld camera in FY 18. After evaluation of the cost-effectiveness in the first full year of use, staff will determine whether lease of another handheld camera should be recommended.

o Increase in Ethics Commission legal fees

We reviewed the actual costs going back to FY 2011. In some years the legal fees exceeded $10,000. Election years result in several extra meetings for the Ethics Commission. Additionally, there was an increase in legal fees approved in FY ’17 for the Ethics Counsel. The Ethics Commission has to respond to requests and challenges, and we don’t have any control over those (i.e., the number of advisory opinions that are requested or challenges that are filed), so we don’t have any real control over the legal fees.

- Other items:

o Consolidating Committees, Boards etc with the appropriate General Fund department (liaison)- The City Council concurs with the City Manager’s recommendation with moving those budgets to a

General Fund department (liaison) but wanted the Committees, Boards etc to be notified of the change.

Based on the timing and logistics we recommend postponing this change until the FY 19 budget to provide time for departments and committees/boards to work out the details.

o The City Council requested a future worksession to discuss how to effectively utilize advisory committees

o Performance Measures will be included in Final Budget document.

A Council worksession was requested at a future date to discuss performance measures.

008

Items requested by City Council for inclusion in the FY 2018 budget:Request or Amount in FY18

Estimated Cost Proposed Budget Location in Budget Request for:Wojahn:

130,000$ 10,000$ Recycling - #5025 -Food Waste composting program

1,000 - n/a - Membership in the Mayors Innovation Project - $1,000 (1 piano through the Pianos on Parade program)

Brennan:

15,000 15,000 Litter & Graffiti - # 5023

1,200 1,200 Signage #5014

Will come out of FY17 budget-to be installed in FY

2017

1,000 - n/a - New break-away posts where the Trolley Trail meets the road

1,600 - n/a - New Banner for the Poles along the Trolley Trail

2,500 - n/a - Refreshed bulletin board in Jack Perry Plaza.

Kabir:100,000 - n/a - Development impact study

11,000 11,000 Cap. Projects Fund - Additional street lights

1,000 - n/a - Farmers market signs4,000 - n/a -vendor canopy grants

5,000 5,000 Mayor & Council #1010 - Council internship grant

10,000 10,000 Cap. Projects Fund - YFS acoustical panels

Nagle:75,000 75,000 Cap. Projects Fund -Dog Park in north College Park in FY2018

Multi-million 250,000 Cap. Projects Fund -Purchase of property for redevelopment (full cost to be bonded)950,000 - n/a - Community Center on purchased property

Stullich:20,000 10,000 Community Develop. #3011 - Chain link fence removal incentive

6,000 3,000 Tree & Landscape Maint

#5020 -Shade tree incentive program

100,000 100,000 Cap. Proj. Fund - Neighborhood sidewalks

11,000,000 1,000,000 Cap. Proj. Fund - City Hall (full cost to be bonded)

- 10 Additional Trash/Recycling Receptacles to be located or replaced at staff’s discretion

- Small Metal Litter logo signage to be mounted on the center pole holding new can

009

Other Budget Requests for FY 2018 Proposed Budget

for Mayor & Council consideration (these are not included in Proposed Budget)

1) Request by the Education Advisory Committee for an additional $25,000 for

Scholarships for College Park students to attend University of Maryland summer educational camps (shown in 1010.25-38) in response to growing and enthusiastic response from College Park youth and their parents to this opportunity.

2) Purchase and installation of License Plate Readers to monitor one location at a roadway entrance to the City - $60,000.

3) Additional Safety/surveillance camera for the City-$25,000.

Note: There is funding for 3 cameras ($75,000) included in the Capital Projects Fund – CCTV

4) Proposed Food Scrap Collection and Disposal - $50,000 - $130,000

5) City’s Home Ownership Grant Program - $50,000

6) City-wide Parking Study - $50,000

7) CPCUP request for additional funds for Home Ownership Grant Program - $50,000

8) CPCUP request for additional funds to support an additional program associate position- $20,000

9) IFC Tailgating request for additional funding - $3,000

010

011

012

013

Eric Olson, Executive Director Valerie Woodall, Program Associate eolson@collegeparkpartnership.org vwoodall@collegeparkpartnership.org 240-416-3184 845-649-2477

COLLEGE PARK CITY-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

College Park City-University Partnership 4500 Knox Road College Park, MD 20740 www.collegeparkpartnership.org

April 14, 2017

Mayor Wojahn and City Council Dr. Wallace Loh, President City of College Park Main Administration Building, Room 1101 4500 Knox Road University of Maryland College Park, MD 20740 College Park, MD 20742 Re: Partnership request for $20,000 additional funding to support new Partnership staff member Dear Mayor Wojahn, President Loh, and Councilmembers, Together, the City, University, and Partnership are achieving a great deal in our community – from increasing homeownership and new businesses, to improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and creating a greener community with more educational opportunities for College Park families. We are writing to you today to request an additional $20,000 contribution from both the City and University to the Partnership’s annual allocation to support our capacity. This would raise the annual contribution from each partner from $125,000 to $145,000 annually. At the December and March Partnership Board meetings, the Board asked staff to outline a proposal to increase staff capacity at the Partnership. This letter and proposal is sent on behalf of the College Park City-University Partnership Board, who on April 12 voted to request an increase in funding from both the City and the University to support an additional program associate. We are making much progress on the University District Vision and this past year we accomplished a significant amount. Together, with partners at the City, University, Prince George’s County and State of Maryland, we administered $400,000 in grant funded projects. For example, a grant we were awarded supported the new façade at the ArtHouse + Milkboy, expected to open in April/May 2017. Our Homeownership Program for City and University employees continues to stabilize neighborhoods, with 19 families using the program to date. The College Park Safety Ambassador Program, which now has 15 safety ambassadors on staff, is active and on patrol within the community. Terrapin Row, a mixed-use student community of 1,500 residents and retail opened, and construction of the Cambria Hotel and Fuse 47 is well underway. Ground was broken for a new College Park Academy in the Research Park. Even with these accomplishments, the organization would benefit from additional staffing so that it can do even more toward achieving the University District Vision 2020. In particular, the Education issue area requires a dedicated level of attention in order to truly succeed due to the nature of PGCPS, number of schools, and bureaucratic layers. In addition, we believe that every initiative will have more attention and be more effective with an additional staff member. What follows is proposal for the City and the University to consider supporting this request.

PROPOSAL FOR NEW STAFF POSITION

Additional Program Associate Supported by a $20,000 increase in funding from both the City and University, setting aside $40,000

for a new staffer total (with or without benefits). Structure: Reports to the Executive Director. Current Program Associate would be bumped up to

Senior Program Associate. Work duties: Split committees and administrative work associated these committees between the

program associates. Grant administration for these strategy areas, staffing committee meetings, following up with tasks and initiatives. Oversee some Partnership communications.

014

2

BENEFITS OF ADDED CAPACITY: While we are achieving a great deal, below are the largest items that we have not been able to devote the time and energy necessary to make significant progress*: Homeownership program expansion: While thus far we have been able to successfully fund, promote, and administer our current homeownership program, our goal is to increase the program’s capacity and scope to include other employers in the City and bring more state and private resources to the table. We are developing an expansion plan, and have had meetings with DHCD staff on the subject, but to work out the details, outreach to the business community, launch and administer a more robust program, it will take significant staff resources. Cost: Not expanding the Homeownership Program is an option, but not pursuing a larger program could hamper our ability to stretch our funding and to truly “scale up” our homeownership initiative and more significantly stabilize neighborhoods and attract homeowners to support that key goal of the University District Vision. We supported 12 homebuyers in 2016, which is good, but it would be great to double that number (or more). Neighborhood stabilization: Some of the initiatives in this area have been placed on the back burner, such as coordinating with Startup Village students and recent graduates to create a sustainable pocket neighborhood in College Park, and exploring potential interest in changes to rental house code rules, and further promotion of homeownership in College Park. Cost: Without additional capacity, some of these initiatives will likely stay on the back burner. Local jobs/workforce: We have done a little work in this area – meeting with the Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship to explore ways for local residents to start local businesses/co-ops to provide local goods and services, and helping to connect businesses with local labor. But we have not had the staff capacity to devote sustained attention to this. Cost: With College Park booming with redevelopment, there is no real coordination to link local residents with those jobs. If the Partnership does not take this on, it is unlikely that this will be taken up by others. Bus transit expansion: This is a critical need. If it is going to be done, this requires significant coordination, and bringing together a wide range of stakeholders – municipal leaders throughout the corridor, the county, university, the business and development communities, student leaders, and more. The complexities here include that there are at least three different bus providers, questions of funding, determining how many hours/days of service should be expanded, routes, and more. Coordinating this project alone could take the majority of a staff person’s time for many months. Cost: Without additional capacity, or dropping other work, bus expansion will likely not happen. PreK-12 Education: We have developed several proposals over the years for greater university-integrated programming in local schools. We have looked at models that use a sustainability theme, or an arts theme. We have looked at the variety of programs that the university has a role in currently in local schools, and – with university and community partners – would like to explore how to expand those. We have thought about starting a simple – but labor intensive – program where university students are in classrooms to help as teacher aides on a regular basis, which supports a better student/teacher ratio. We are waiting on next steps on education until after we get our education survey results back in June. We will want to have the capacity to work on delivering what parents want based on the results of the education survey. This will take significant staff resources to coordinate with PGCPS, university, and community partners. Cost: Significantly improving our local public schools is the key to attracting and retaining families, including those affiliated with the University. Without sustained, dedicated focus on local schools, we will not achieve our University District Vision goal. We are coordinating a $17,000 study of what is desired in local schools, so we should have the capacity to follow up on the study results and initiate coordination and implementation of study results. Sustainability Initiatives: Nearly all of our Sustainability Committee’s topics need greater attention, although some of our partners are doing good work in these areas and we are serving more as a forum for discussion than a catalyst for action. These include: Composting, which could be a city function and they are doing some exploration; Clean Energy, which both the City and University are engaging in, but more can be done for residential and commercial; Stormwater Management, which Andy Fellows is working on; Sustainability in local schools, that we

015

3

could help push forward with more capacity. Cost: More focus on sustainability will keep the energy on this important topic and provide resources to make the sustainability programs more prominent and successful. Arts/environmental arts/enlivening public spaces: While we are moving forward with the lighting on the Baltimore Avenue Bridge over Paint Branch, and we have launched a music/arts series this spring, the vision we seek is for a lively “Riverwalk” and public spaces with interesting art and environmental markers celebrating College Park’s rich diversity, history, natural environment, and more. The bridge lighting is just a first step, but an initiative to truly transform our public spaces will require a great deal of coordination with City, University, County, neighborhoods, the business community, artists, students, faculty, and more. Cost: The Partnership is in a good place on this initiative, but taking the next steps to expand this revitalization is key. Without additional capacity, expansion may slow or stall as other needs take precedence. *Note: All of these projects are projects that are in the works, on the back-burner or need more staff focus. If, for example, current staff takes over one of these items as their complete focus, something else that is currently being worked on successfully may then move slower than is ideal. On behalf of the City-University Partnership’s Board, we respectfully request that the City and University consider increasing their general contributions to the Partnership by $20,000 to support new staff capacity. This would bring the City and University’s contributions to the Partnership for general operating expense to $145,000 each. Thank you for your continued support and partnership. Please let me know if you have any questions at 240-416-3184. Sincerely,

Eric Olson Executive Director College Park City University Partnership

016

017

018

019

April 7, 2017

Dear Mayor and City Council:

The City Council established the Neighborhood Quality of Life Committee (NQLC) to support the implementation of strategies that reduce neighborhood problems, increase homeownership, build positive relations across the community, and expand affordable housing. The Work Group that preceded the creation of the current committee identified 63 strategies for the committee to explore to meet its goals.

One strategy that NQLC has supported — and continues to support — is the expansion of on-campus tailgating prior to home University of Maryland football games. The goal of this strategy is to reduce the large tailgate parties in residential neighborhoods and to increase attendance at football games. In the past, tailgate parties in residential neighborhoods have attracted thousands of participants on game days, sometimes starting as early as 6 am, and have created severe noise disturbances requiring substantial City resources to address, including significant time from City contract police and City code officers, as well as University police and County police. In addition, these tailgate parties in residential neighborhoods often were associated with heavy binge drinking, creating health and safety risks for both party participants and neighbors, as well as generating large amounts of trash and litter.

Beginning in 2013, the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC) worked with the University of Maryland Police Department, other university officials, and the Panhellenic Association to initiate a program of on-campus tailgates intended to alleviate the severe problems created by neighborhood tailgates and to provide a safer venue for students to socialize prior to football games. That pilot year proved successful, resulting in substantially fewer neighborhood tailgate parties on the days of the pilot tailgates, and the decision was made to expand the tailgates to include all home games (typically 4-5 games per year).

Since that time, the campus tailgates have continued to be a successful strategy. In 2016 the tailgates were moved to the practice field and attendance grew substantially — to between 5,100 and 5,700 per event, compared with 274 – 2,431 per event in 2015. The campus tailgates have resulted in a dramatic reduction in extreme noise, trash, and other previous game day problems in Old Town and Calvert Hills, where the private tailgates were predominantly held, and also have freed up police and code enforcement staff to be able to focus on other areas of the City rather than having to focus almost exclusively on responding to noise complaints on game days. In addition, UMPD officials who actively monitor the tailgates have noted that participants were generally well-behaved and there were minimal issues with excessive drinking or other health and safety problems.

After discussing the on campus tailgating program at its March meeting, the NQLC unanimously voted to send a letter to the Mayor and Council urging the Council to continue to support this effective strategy to reduce problems in our neighborhoods and increase safety for tailgate participants. This is a cost-effective collaboration with the University, and the City’s investment benefits both long-term residents and students — an excellent example of how the City and the University can work together and achieve mutual benefits.

We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

The Neighborhood Quality of Life Committee

020

NCPCA North College Park Community Association c/o Youth and Family Services 4912 Nantucket Road College Park, MD 20740 College Park City Council 4500 Knox Road College Park, MD 20740

Dear Councilmembers:

At its regular meeting on April 13, 2017 the membership of the North College Park Community Association (NCPCA) voted unanimously to support funding for the following items in the 2017-2018 budget.

1.   YFS Meeting Room Improvement. When a sizable group of people meet in the large meeting space at YFS, we often hear echo and noise. While NCPCA has been using the space on a temporary basis, we understand that the space is used for other community programs, including those serving seniors in our community. NCPCA members support making improvements to the acoustics in the room to improve the experience of these types of events and meetings.

2.   Homeowners Resource Fund. The fund is intended to provide assistance to financially distressed homeowners for the completion of major home repairs when funding might otherwise not be available. Many of the City's single family homes were built over 50 years ago, and many are liable to require expensive emergency repairs when vital systems such as furnaces fail, or water pipes burst. A homeowners resource fund would help to stabilize residential properties when financial distress might otherwise delay needed repairs, lead to a prolonged cycle of City Code violations, cause more costly property damage, or result in foreclosure. Severe unrepaired damage in one home can be damaging to an entire neighborhood. NCPCA members support funding for such a program, and understand that further discussion is needed by the City Council to determine the mechanics and policies of the program.

3.   Infrastructure Impact Study. NCPCA members support funding for a study of the infrastructure of College Park (including but not limited to roadways, fire services, police, water, and sewer) to handle current city population as well potential future developments. The study would consider: (a) the City’s current infrastructure, (b) the projected infrastructure with the development currently underway, and (c) the proposed infrastructure with the development that is scheduled to begin very soon.

Please let me know if you have any questions,

Jackie Pearce Garrett, President North College Park Community Association

021

022

023

024