Along with the main topic of Cherrywood Lane’s proposed multifamily housing development, the city council discussed an array of topics at its December 9 meeting ranging from environmental preservation to police matters. In late September, council held a worksession with the Forest Preserve Advisory Board about proposed changes to the Forest Preserve Article of the Greenbelt City Code and the Forest Preserve Stewardship Guidelines. The changes include additional language and definitions for more clarity, more examples and maps. Since then, an ordinance was drafted, and the council held a public hearing at this meeting for comments on the draft. No members of the public elected to comment.
“That was the fastest public hearing we’ve ever had,” said Councilmember Edward Putens.
Council agreed that the next step will be introducing the ordinance for the first reading at their next meeting. A first reading is when an ordinance is introduced, but not voted on.
Law Enforcement
A Police Department representative was also present and recommended to the council that they extend an existing contract with Axon Enterprise, Inc., which provides body cameras, digital evidence management and Taser weapons. The recommended extension would be five more years. The contract will upgrade technology, provide training, increase the number of body cameras and provide a training system for deescalation and advanced mental health scenarios.
“The combination of the latest technology weapons and training will best prepare our officers to resolve difficult and high-stress situations in the safest manner possible.” The total five-year cost of the contract will be $390,647, which is an increase from current spending.
Council approved the recommendation unanimously, but not without discussion of the potential dangers of cameras and the lack of dashboard cameras in the contract.
The Police Department also recommended that council approve a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Ring, Inc., an application that allows people to share crime and security information and interact with others in their community. City staff recommended that council approve the MOU.
“This could greatly assist our detectives in solving open cases,” the police department said.
“I am really happy that you’re doing this,” said Councilmember Judith Davis, noting that the MOU would maintain users’ privacy. “They have to go through the company, and then the company will ask if the person wants to help,” Davis said. “The police will not know where the devices are located, the police will not know the names of the neighbors that have a device. I think that’s great… it’s going to be kept very private.”
Greenbelt resident Bill Orleans expressed he still had privacy concerns about the MOU, and noted that the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed concerns over the devices.
“Maybe we’ll someday have a chief of police and a hierarchy in the police department that is not as friendly to civil liberties as we have currently,” Orleans said. “And who is to say that there might not be the opportunity to take advantage of that which Ring records, whether or not the owner of the device on the door gives his or her consent.”
Still, the motion passed unanimously, though Councilmember Silke Pope and Putens were not present for the vote.
Opioid Lawsuit
Mayor Colin Byrd requested that a motion for the city to participate in an opioid-related lawsuit be included on the evening’s agenda. The motion would include gaining legal counsel to represent the city “in opioid-related litigation.” The city would join nearby municipalities including Laurel, Upper Marlboro, Cottage City, Forest Heights and North Brentwood in doing so.
Pope raised concerns over the financial risk of the lawsuit, but Davis countered those concerns.
“Basically, if the lawsuit loses, there is no cost because that’s part of the deal,” Davis said. “If we win, then all of the expenses would be taken out of whatever recovery money there is.”
She added that she wasn’t concerned over whether they didn’t gain any money from it, but more so about making a statement toward the companies being sued in the lawsuit. Councilmember Rodney Roberts, however, said it was important they got money from the lawsuit, so they could use it to combat problems that the opioid crisis has created.
The motion passed unanimously.
“Thank you, colleagues, thank you everybody,” Byrd said.
BEP Proposal
Council also discussed the public meeting held by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) earlier this month as part of its steps in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposal to move one of its production facilities from D.C. to the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
Director of Planning & Community Development Terri Hruby brought up a discussion on why there are only two options – build or no build – being considered in the EIS, as well as why earlier sites that were under consideration for the facility no longer are.
The EIS is expected to be published in fall 2020, followed by a 45-day public comment period and hearing.
“I appreciate the two comments that you suggested,” Davis said. “But I think we could also have comments that were brought to us by folks when we had this on an earlier agenda.”
Those comments include concerns about traffic, wildlife, wastewater treatment and its impact on a nearby creek, always-on security lights, among others.
Roberts urged council to oppose the development and brought up a further concern. “I’m concerned about what happened at the (public meeting),” said Roberts, noting that comments were not taken at the session in the auditorium, and that comments taken beforehand in display rooms were met with conflicting answers.
“No one was allowed to speak, no one was allowed to get answers to their questions,” Roberts said, suggesting that council send a letter to urge the BEP to extend the public comment period, which expired on Sunday, December 15.
Council approved Roberts’ motion to add that suggestion to the letter, as well as the motion to send that letter with concerns.
Also announced at the meeting was that council held a closed meeting on Wednesday, October 30 about the employment of appointees, employees and officials over which council has jurisdiction and to discuss pending legal matters with legal counsel. All members voted to keep the meeting closed, except for Pope, who was not present, and Roberts, who voted for the meeting to be open.
Council meetings are generally open to the public. For more information about the timing of these meetings go to greenbeltmd. gov.