[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6268188,"mediaKeyId","3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e","parentId",3057922,"title","Council reviews CPJA proposal for police‑building study; staff to search archival studies before committing funds","audioSeconds",531,"startMs",6374000,"endMs",6905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e&start=6374&end=6905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e/thumbnail_6374000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6268188/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-reviews-CPJA-proposal-for-policebuilding-study-staff-to-search-archival-studies-before-committing-funds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268188-0638b21288a94de0eccf3ca98dd5224c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202773&Signature=j97xDrsdzlZ9YlbC1rAVnmwc~B4b63P7zst6V4OvKgUu2HCZ09Mjyy4EnlNre6137-wLezHJ~sCdUd~kFu6F6MCl6Kv5r2aMFXA4LRLEG0Rn2DFA5sVKl-iI1JhyYbTiNDn9RlC5ByvkoVDXKNr3EJNjaYYUBVzF1J8yTEG9q7GFOEsKQDytmePIrjE1PRZu6UAIKbv-9EFEVUIvXZo9Nc-2Ks-HG0B1cW3xexGaZCns7qkHi0-EifnxIxDDCcV~7rdHO7fIOjVW1YFLMvkf1GP1fi290Xa2iFNtBJy3iIq8TemEmGOPptD0vgAOxjnQpAB8kx6QSBNmzF6XnvvU9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-19T02:34:21.217Z","article","Councilmembers reviewed a consultant proposal from CPJA for a feasibility study on a new police building and discussed an interim option to reconfigure existing municipal space. Council did not vote on the proposal and asked staff to seek prior studies and provide a detailed scope and cost breakdown.

What was presented: City Manager Simpson said he received CPJA's proposal, which included a baseline feasibility study price of about $56,250 for a standalone police building study and an optional task to evaluate renovating existing town‑hall/nutrition‑center space to provide immediate operational relief. CPJA's proposal also included deliverables such as existing building surveys, floor‑plan redesign, utility impact notes and a cost estimate for recommended layouts.

Council questions and concerns: Councilman Herring and others asked why the city would commission a new study if an earlier feasibility study (cited as February 2008 in the discussion) already exists. Staff said they have not located the earlier document yet and will search city files and Iron Mountain archival storage. Councilwoman Jones and others cautioned that that prior studies may or may not satisfy current grant or state underwriting requirements and asked staff to confirm whether state or grant funders would accept an older feasibility study.

Seniors and potential interim relocation: Some councilmembers expressed concern about one CPJA option that suggested using part of the nutrition‑center facility for police roll call or interim space. Several members said they would not want to displace senior programming; staff said the CPJA option was exploratory and that any renovation would be evaluated to preserve senior services or find alternative space.

Outcome and next steps: Council did not authorize expenditure at the work session. Staff committed to: (1) search for prior feasibility reports (including Iron Mountain archives) and report back; (2) ask CPJA for a separate, itemized scope and cost for the standalone feasibility study and for the renovation option; and (3) confirm whether potential state grant funders would accept older feasibility work or require a new study. Councilmembers emphasized urgency because of potential state funding opportunities but did not approve the study at this meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Glenarden 7 April 2025 Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","CPJA submitted a feasibility study proposal for a stand‑alone police building and an alternative to renovate existing space; council requested staff to search for prior studies (including a 2008 study) and to obtain clearer cost breakdowns before deciding.","taxTitle","Glenarden City, Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",71657,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6268193,"Council debates work‑vehicle parking rules after earlier prohibitions; no change adopted at work session",290,3202000,3492000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e&start=3202&end=3492","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e/thumbnail_3202000.jpg","/articles/6268193/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-debates-workvehicle-parking-rules-after-earlier-prohibitions-no-change-adopted-at-work-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268193-cbdb3a0ee9a007f30ddbd18bdb845d5e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202773&Signature=FCWeA8cEhvO4dZ4GIbqwTYG-OJt392PG7xkzJePkaqODMB4xoCwcj2U~n6v8Za-ZtXkbmOdzjaP42qddHOPOYPaHwmBuwR9OOcDFNaf0ZQuVcYDIFvcPh850BglX2s3imjALBdtuyTo8Ux2P9-gvWmqF8AKEHAELnpzeDIU3E6d2QG-vhc6rSPA3rIsTqH3J4uMHIHjgwAAQZRPiDHPV2jbma6n9piWwla0bPvuyuN8gwGHYPebyd9hlN3pZQTwZdOgYJVLqApcpXhIHVjFFyFXxeDI2AtydIW5HXqstNawNA0i-quKjJRrmuKts6YL8SJ0Yc5XQwDjSd7WQj~M34Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Glenarden City Council spent significant time debating revisions to an ordinance regulating the parking of work and commercial vehicles in residential areas, but the work session ended with no final vote and no new enforcement policy adopted.

Background: The current code language under discussion restricts commercial vehicles from parking in public streets; councilmembers were considering amendments to clarify whether the restriction should apply to all pickups and vans or only to “work” (business) vehicles. The earlier ordinance had been controversial because residents said it limited personal vehicle choices and would push more vehicles onto the street.

What council members argued: Councilman James Herring proposed amending the ordinance to refer specifically to “work vans and pickups” rather than all vans and pickups, citing resident concerns about being unable to park personal vehicles on the street. Several colleagues — including Vice President Angela Ferguson and Councilwoman Fareed — said the original intent was to relieve narrow‑street congestion and protect emergency‑vehicle access; they argued that size and obstruction, not the vehicle’s sticker, should drive enforcement.

Council members described competing harms: restricting commercial/work vehicles could push more cars onto the street, while allowing large vehicles on narrow residential streets could block passage and complicate emergency responses. Vice President Ferguson and others raised specific hardship scenarios involving households with a disabled family member for whom driveway arrangements would impose practical difficulties.

Enforcement and definitions: Councilmembers debated relying on weight thresholds (existing code references an 8,500‑pound limit) versus use‑based definitions (commercial/use for hire). Several members urged a consistent, legally sourced definition; others warned that a case‑by‑case exception process would be administratively burdensome and unfair.

Outcome: The council asked staff to revisit the ordinance language and to explore an exceptions process or clearer criteria (for instance, documented medical needs or very specific weight/size thresholds). There was consensus that enforcement should be two‑pronged — continued officer enforcement plus ordinance language — but no final vote or ordinance amendment was adopted at the work session. Councilmembers asked staff and counsel for a redraft that balances resident hardship, enforcement practicality and public safety concerns.

Next steps: Staff will redraft the ordinance to clarify definitions and exception criteria and return to a future work session for further consideration.","A lengthy council debate centered on whether to prohibit large work or commercial vehicles from parking on city streets, with councilmembers split over fairness, enforcement, and exceptions for residents with medical needs; no final vote was recorded at the work session.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6268198,"Votes at a glance: council moves several street and sidewalk proposals and adopts amended agenda",690,2370000,3060000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e&start=2370&end=3060","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e/thumbnail_2370000.jpg","/articles/6268198/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-council-moves-several-street-and-sidewalk-proposals-and-adopts-amended-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268198-2bdfee7b3e3938ac56fae5e120c28f7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202773&Signature=b8pv6k8bfIAG~d0RwSLaV7iTUKHFIuNbk0nG2WzcbmjRLwxhK2i92oal4OdMcNs14jXOUlYxtzpTykeu98IKM5RWgk8WjB6MqHwBqi2jUnbsri6tnZJBqlfJPok2bPBiVLZ6ggoYOxn5gS8IJu9nSK9cnjt9z-OKv9OwrCr2mTE2h1ZEqgXGn1Eaq2HV88~H6JnLM1L5v7eA41lD~fYhMcXKYCqq5lwCIgo4QJKZa0LDZEDo~hJHIeDS8Xu1YADK5q48-60lmiKJymn7WeMNUPwa9sqSlojTIVDQKuavmy-ULl4S8zTEsIjB4pwf8R6wtnq9-29AajGvHmBNvIpVsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Glenarden City Council adopted its amended agenda by unanimous consent and advanced several resolutions related to street and sidewalk repairs, and the clerk and staff recorded several administrative items for later action.

Key outcomes recorded in the meeting transcript:

- Amended agenda: Adopted by unanimous consent after brief discussion (no roll‑call recorded).

- Resolution to approve NCI Construction proposal for asphalt repairs on Hay Street (proposal dated March 2025; amount $134,863). The resolution cites FY25 capital budget account 7632308010 as the funding source. The council reviewed the scope, asked the city manager and contractor about bus loading and possible substructure issues, and staff indicated a contingency and monitoring plan; council proceeded to move on after questions. (Resolution R‑50 referenced for tracking.)

- Resolution to approve NCI Construction proposal for sidewalk repairs on Glen Elm (Glen Elm) Parkway from Delwood Avenue to Echols Avenue (proposal dated March 2025; amount $51,731.32). Funding cited as FY25 capital budget account 7632308010.

- Resolution to approve NCI Construction proposal for new sidewalk construction on Church Street (amount not specified in the meeting transcript). The council reviewed and moved the item forward.

- Appointments to the Glenarden Election Board: Dion Devon Jones and Carla Foster were presented as appointees; the clerk confirmed certification procedures and candidates were later named for the May 5 election.

Items discussed with no final vote recorded in the transcript:

- Resolution authorizing a CPJA feasibility study for a new police building (CPJA quote for a standalone feasibility study shown; transcript includes discussion and questions but no adopted motion recorded). City staff said the CPJA study for a standalone police building was approximately $56,250 for the feasibility task, with optional additional renovation/design items noted.

- Retirement benefit resolution and Gold Room rules: both were discussed and legal comments noted; no final vote was recorded in the work session transcript.

Notes: Where specific vote tallies were not read aloud the minutes use neutral language: the clerk and council proceeded to the next item where the transcript recorded “hearing none, we will move on.” For resolutions that referenced Prince George's County contracting (NCI and county contract references), councilmembers asked staff about contingencies and budget lines; staff responded that identified capital budget funds were available. The council did not record roll‑call vote lines for these resolutions in the excerpt provided.","At the work session the council adopted an amended agenda and advanced multiple construction proposals for street and sidewalk repairs; several appointments were announced and a number of items were discussed but not finally decided.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6268203,"Council reviews stop‑sign camera pilot, forwards ordinance to county for public hearing",3280,425000,3705000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e&start=425&end=3705","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3057922-ed0394fcef8a7d593f5818a0b771fe8e/thumbnail_425000.jpg","/articles/6268203/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-reviews-stopsign-camera-pilot-forwards-ordinance-to-county-for-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268203-44d02aa62a3a4129abff92a7008ecc66/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202773&Signature=VK45HbJWyW3zExTZqhKwUIVFsoDXAClzxTqSDEN-yVRd9x8p1ZHtkWgoHIq5Kin~7D2JIURzuKwO6RetTjaSaTGMTEuS30F3r0AXg~qD7vyW3lO5M6G~y2N-kOK0XmdW86yukKtbv5MzOlfrgpiUzHTarJvhs5CRFYMWLVSvZtY-s~yjeo6y4BWO1Gy8fcXKjCcuD19T~FuHlJaj-TfAyaxUShwMpSqs5DegHmeRNobgWn-KZPGnharAkMuq1J14aSCho9fy1LE8r8ywAR1TxzbU~Esyh0fx5YU8HjSGdRDoQrQRNXdDBlvZ2OFvp7rcbpg0ph~1OkivV6FGtzWqTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A private vendor presented data showing thousands of daily stop‑sign violations at seven Glenarden intersections, and the City Council moved the city's emergency ordinance to the county review process and a required public hearing.

The presentation came from Rob Carl of Aveo and Dhruv (co‑founder and president of Aveo), who showed results from pilots in Prince George's County and nearby municipalities and described required local steps under county bill HB364. Aveo reported an aggregate average of 2,967 violations per day across seven monitored intersections in their sample and said one pilot location recorded a 50% drop in violations within the first 60 days. The company recommended a local ordinance, a county approval letter and a posted public hearing as prerequisites for siting their solar‑powered cameras.

Why it matters: Council members framed the issue as a public safety matter, citing pedestrian and school‑zone concerns along Glenarden Parkway near Glenarden Woods Elementary School and other high‑traffic corridors. The ordinance would allow the city to seek Prince George's County approval to install camera poles and enroll in the county process that Aveo said enables automated enforcement at certain intersections.

Councilwoman Robin Jones presented the emergency ordinance (Ordinance 0112025) and said the measure would “immensely help the police department” by providing continuous, technology‑based enforcement while officers address other duties. Jones told colleagues she had received legal sufficiency review from the city attorney earlier in the evening and would circulate the revisions the next morning.

Several members asked technical and procedural questions. Aveo said the county requires a local ordinance, an approval letter from the municipality and a posted public hearing as part of HB364 compliance; the company estimated about a 30‑day county review period after filing the required packet but warned that county business such as budget season could lengthen that window. Aveo said the devices are solar powered, have a low visual profile, and provide an online portal that allows motorists shown violating to view their recorded violation and learn from it.

Councilwoman Fareed and others pressed whether the data shown for neighboring jurisdictions demonstrated an “egregious” problem in Glenarden; Jones and Aveo responded that while they did not find the highest‑speed violations in Glenarden, the observed rates of noncompliance — in some locations above 70–80% — raised safety concerns. Chief Bryant and Captain Robinson (Glenarden Police) supported a multi‑pronged approach that combined technology with continued officer traffic enforcement.

Outcome: Council members agreed the ordinance should proceed to the county filing and a local public hearing. City staff and Aveo said they will prepare the county packet and public‑hearing notices; Aveo offered to draft sample ordinances and to attend the public hearing if asked.

Next steps: City staff will circulate the final legal language of Ordinance 0112025 to council members and prepare the county packet. The county process requires a posted public hearing and an approval letter; Aveo estimated about 30 days for county review once the packet is filed.","A vendor presentation showed widespread stop‑sign noncompliance at seven Glenarden intersections and prompted Councilwoman Robin Jones to advance an emergency ordinance to seek Prince George's County approval for a pilot automated enforcement program.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reviews CPJA proposal for police‑building study; staff to search archival studies before committing funds

Council debates work‑vehicle parking rules after earlier prohibitions; no change adopted at work session

Votes at a glance: council moves several street and sidewalk proposals and adopts amended agenda

Council reviews stop‑sign camera pilot, forwards ordinance to county for public hearing