PRESENT:
Mayor Williams Councilmember Clay Councilmember Robinson Councilmember Schultz Councilmember Seamens Councilmember Snipper		City Manager Matthews City Clerk Carpenter Deputy City Manager Ludlow Public Works Director Braithwaite

 

ABSENT: 

Councilmember Wright

 

The City Council reconvened at 7:32 p.m. in the Azalea Room of the Takoma Park Community Center -- Sam Abbott Citizens' Center, 7500 Maple Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland.

Ms. Clay commented on traffic calming issues in Ward 2. She recounted the history of the process of the neighbors and staff to come up with a solution. She encouraged neighbors to talk with each other to develop a consensus.

Mr. Seamens noted the public hearing scheduled for February 24 to receive comments on traffic calming in the Sligo Park Hills and Ritchie Avenue communities.

Mr. Snipper encouraged residents to attend the public hearing to comment. He noted that quite a few people who do not live in the immediate area would be affected by the proposal.

Mr. Schultz reminded residents of Ward 6 that Ward 6 night at the City Council would be held on February 16.

Minutes of November 16, 2009 were adopted upon motion by Mr. Snipper; seconded by Mr. Seamens.

Ms. Matthews reported that the Friends of Mike Morrissey presented a check for $3,250 to the Friends of the Library.

Ms. Matthews announced a call for public art to include certain installation sites around the City and art panels to be installed at the bottom of the gateway signs.

Ms. Matthews reported that staff had analyzed the status of funds for the auditorium renovation and were ready to sign a change order for the lobby area.

Councilmembers requested information on the final design of the lobby and scheduling of a discussion about vending in the lobby area.

(1) Sherman Avenue Speed Bump Request

Kay Daniels Cohen, President of the SS Carroll Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the speed bump. She requested that the bumps be similar to those on Maple Avenue.

(2) Discussion of Sherman Avenue Speed Bump Request

Ms. Braithwaite said that the City Engineer had done measurements of the street. There is currently a speed bump in the middle of the block that is in compliance with the Code. The additional speed bump would be out of compliance. The City Engineer suggested removing the existing speed bump, and installing two. The removal cost would be several hundred dollars.

Mr. Williams said the Council was trying to move away from requests for specific locations, and more toward general locations. He requested that whatever was decided, the ordinance should provide flexibility for the future.

Mr. Snipper said he was in favor of installing the two speed bumps as proposed. He noted the success of the changes that were done on Erie Avenue.

Ms. Clay said that she did not want to see Maple Avenue style bumps elsewhere in the City because of problems caused for motorcycles and bicycles.

Mr. Williams noted that Maple Avenue was the only deviation from the City standards for type of speed bump.

Ms. Braithwaite said the City uses either its standard design or the Montgomery County standard. The City standard is a hump on a bump, posted for five miles per hour. She said that they have not yet found a bicycle friendly speed bump, other than to narrow the hump so that there is more space between the curb and the speed bump. She said the contractor is provided a template to ensure that the dimensions are according to the design.

(3) Discussion of Public Works Facility Renovation - Sanitation Services

Ms. Matthews noted that the discussion was a follow up to the January 4 worksession regarding the public works facility renovation. To provide the Council the opportunity to consider whether the City should continue providing sanitation services, Ms. Matthews presented background on the cost of the City’s services versus the cost of services if the City were to contract with Montgomery County. She noted that because the City funds the service through tax revenues, property owners were able to deduct the charges. If residents paid a fee, as is done in Montgomery County, the fee would not be deductible. Ms. Matthews also noted that in snow emergencies, sanitation workers provided a second shift for snow removal. If the City contracted with Montgomery County for sanitation, she would recommend entering into contracts with vendors for snow removal.

Ms. Matthews also indicated that there would be some savings in the cost of the public works facility renovation, in the amount of approximately $384,000, if the facility did not need to accommodate the sanitation division. The design fees for the change would be in the range of $25,000 if a redesign were needed. Additional savings would be realized because the City would not need to purchase trucks for trash and recycling collection.

Ms. Braithwaite noted that the City would still need to administer the contact, oversee complaints, and promote and educate residents on refuse and recycling collection. She explained that the sanitation division was a well designed program, and the most scrutinized, tracked, and efficient division.
 
The Council discussed the options, noting that it would impact the level of service provided by the City, there would not be much, if any, savings by contracting, homeowners would no longer be able to deduct that portion of their property tax for the service, and there would no longer be a second shift familiar with the City and its needs for snow removal. Other considerations mentioned by the Council included the desire to not contract out services that are recurring and not wanting to give over City services to a higher level of government. Councilmembers expressed a desire to look at other, less efficient, City services. There was a consensus to not give further consideration to contracting out sanitation services.

Ms. Matthews asked the Council if there was continued interest in pursuing turning over road maintenance to the County. There was Council consensus to not look further at this option.

(4) Review of Short Term Goals in the Strategic Plan

Council discussed the Strategic Plan.

Mr. Snipper commented that the idea was to develop a series of five-year plans, to get the City to think creatively about what staff wanted to see.

Mr. Williams asked for the City Manager’s comments on developing a five year proposed expenditure budget.

Ms. Matthews noted the downturn in revenues and how it would impact future budgets and the level of services. She indicated that she would be in a better position to do this after she had developed the FY 2011 budget.

Mr. Snipper suggested dividing activity into two big pieces: 1) things we know about and are easier to predict (replacement of a trash truck, for example); and, 2) results of union negotiations or things that are difficult to predict with a high, medium and low estimate.

Mr. Snipper commented on his desire to see performance based budgeting. He said the sanitation program would be a good place to begin since it has been well studied already.

Mr. Robinson commented that he was interested in understanding how the strategic plan would fit into ward plans.
 

Ms. Clay said she would prefer that the Council just select divisions for development of performance measures. She would like to see an outside review and an inside review. Council concurred.

Ms. Ludlow noted that the Council may wish to review the assumptions in the plan at a later time.

Ms. Clay suggested that the City recruit volunteers to help locate opportunities for funding and help to write grants for the bike transportation enhancement plan. Ms. Matthews suggested that the Safe Roadways Committee be given the opportunity to work on this.

Mr. Robinson noted his interest in finding a way to address tension points in the plan, for example, the City will continue to have rent stabilization, yet the City will support, strengthen and promote local businesses.

Mr. Williams noted that the City was capitalizing on the community’s tremendous interest in the arts and culture, as stated in the plan. He complimented the work of the Arts and Humanities Commission and Sara Anne Daines.

Mr. Snipper noted that the auditorium would be coming on line soon; it would add another level of opportunity.

Mr. Williams commented that a strategy would need to be added for the use of the auditorium.

Ms. Ludlow noted that when the 2011 budget comes forward, it would make sense to revisit the plan to see how it might be changed to reflect budget priorities.

Mr. Schultz commented that one key indicator was to increase the number of residents rating the availability of shopping opportunities as good or excellent as reported in the resident survey or other evaluation tools. He noted that this was one area where the survey showed the number had decreased.

There was agreement to lower the priority, for the near term, of developing a five-year plan for collaborative efforts between the Police Department, the Recreation Department and the schools on health and safety projects.

The Council discussed online reporting of Pepco outages and expressed frustration that lights in the City are not included in the County reporting system.

In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Ms. Ludlow indicated that the idea behind having committees host activities in the Community Center was to encourage use of the building.

Ms. Clay said she would like to do a "Council Coffeehouse" program on CityTV. She was also interested in finding ways to get youth more involved with media programs in the City.

Mr. Snipper commented that each of the plan sections has key indicators. He questioned how some of the information for the key indicators would be provided. He said he would like to see the results as part of the annual review of the plan. He suggested that staff think about the appropriate time to be providing the information in advance of the budget.

The Council adjourned for the evening at 10:55 p.m.