[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_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",6216358,"mediaKeyId","3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41","parentId",3651598,"title","Council updates on community garden, farmer’s market and Gold Room enterprise finances; staff to form garden committee and tighten Gold Room reporting","audioSeconds",4843,"startMs",3527000,"endMs",8370000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41&start=3527&end=8370","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41/thumbnail_3527000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6216358/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-updates-on-community-garden-farmers-market-and-Gold-Room-enterprise-finances-staff-to-form-garden-committee-and-tighten-Gold-Room-reporting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216358-9c4e1606282244f36d96b7832cc6b02d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775403811&Signature=fGjRMaEDcg6TAZnakkAHl953hlx4xGerdFPnH6Kl2MqqypZw0g~DsmaJbz0dzsV4RsacDKyxZ-J~dP-B9l7MbwPpcHoBP1uY9DmDSESzQ-rfRutiy3BfcSXPGAIGGLlyGafl~ltLfY0SXqUYrS2czV-PMDSpridVdZZzHoxoNMP9MCZNvSVDfgA-pzLHrGkUge3SrmiFC8hq5OkVpdFGU3MHKKyPjZf2olxLzdVinG-hdHQnKvHClb9Afis3IVhxYTk2HoHYOssRiymeRvT4e5N~avrhPDMJLnmhK3c0xBKgYxhJHfg6K7cDc6NpLRHVggIFSUA0T09wevaHWxyR3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-03T13:49:58Z","article","Staff told the council the community garden has nine constructed raised beds, a deer fence, and plot assignments ready; a launch/education event is planned for June 21. Administration said approximately $10,000 remained in FY25 project‑charge funds and asked whether to proceed under the existing resolution or prepare a separate authorization for spending. Staff recommended proceeding under the existing authorization and using remaining FY25 funds to cover event expenses, citing a plan to budget for the garden in FY26 if the pilot proves successful.

Council members asked whether the garden committee should be formed immediately with current council members or wait until the incoming council is sworn in; staff said they could form the committee now and adjust later. Councilwoman Jones emphasized that minutes should show any consensus direction and requested voice votes be recorded when the council gives consensus during budget discussions.

Separately, staff and council reviewed the Gold Room (city event/banquet facility) and enterprise operations. The Gold Room coordinator reported enterprise revenue trends and said some months produce strong rental income while others do not. Councilmembers expressed concern that the Gold Room’s enterprise fund showed a shortfall in planned revenue and that marketing/advertising budgets were underused (for example, only a few hundred dollars spent on advertising year‑to‑date while thousands remained). Council members argued the enterprise should either operate nearer to break‑even or the city should transparently show any cross‑subsidies; several members asked management to produce clearer profit/loss statements, explain staffing and marketing plans, and identify how advertised fee waivers affect revenue.

No new spending beyond the existing project‑charge authority was approved at the work session. Staff was directed to formalize the garden committee, proceed with the June event using available project funds, and return with a detailed Gold Room financial and marketing plan for council review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Glenarden - 2 June 2025 Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reported nine community garden plots are ready, a June 21 launch event is planned, and the Gold Room enterprise is operating at a deficit; council asked staff to form a garden committee, spend remaining project funds this fiscal year for startup, and provide clearer Gold Room financials and marketing plans.","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},6216361,"City outlines police‑station feasibility study; state provided $4 million but timeline and cost estimates vary",405,3000000,3405000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41&start=3000&end=3405","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41/thumbnail_3000000.jpg","/articles/6216361/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/City-outlines-policestation-feasibility-study-state-provided-4-million-but-timeline-and-cost-estimates-vary","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216361-4bd26b7e91be1973a68a4a0c02e306db/orig.mp4?Expires=1775403811&Signature=IxMqe77Nz3~rZ2WVf8pIxveMCGglflGH1R6Iw0Utz-dy80ZV5TkCTK1pnpQog86OrdUfoG-J80hkP5W~8ea6yJE5MpOyAPJOELN7Dr0KnVf6DqDnR1PMwYHu8~moCvll5BmhmlXfpWG-KuGdOuBkpfrjgdF3Bev0CMvh78Tl6T4QVn5lTfI-jUnrPT29lyQZ4wtGKu5GJkvCTu9UcS8f8vuCoQgcsPcegM5LlJDqyx5T32T9Kb4scGYCD2n5RA3TfXyGxeX6rFOYwNyNhxGAfEJr4wBJ8MVC6N50J67ypzEfjNhb2w3greh8zfV-pEPgmFVXedS7WLmGmjKB2XOPXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff and consultants reported progress on a feasibility study for a proposed Glenarden police station and summarized a timeline that would carry the project through design and into construction if the council decides to move forward. The council also confirmed a secured state allocation of approximately $4 million for the project.

Consultants (CPJ) walked council members through the feasibility scope: space needs, site walk‑throughs of two candidate locations, permit and traffic analyses, assessment of impervious‑area impacts and mitigation options, and an initial square‑footage estimate. A CPJ representative said the feasibility study should be complete by mid‑August and would inform next steps, including whether the project should proceed to an RFP for design or design‑build procurement.

Staff outlined a multi‑phase timeline that assumed council approvals at key milestones: completion of feasibility (mid‑August), procurement for design (October–November), design completion around February 2026 and construction that could take another 12–24 months, implying occupancy in mid‑2027. Police Chief Bryant — who attended the meeting — said an on‑site conversation with the architect indicated a longer schedule of about three years to deliver an operational facility; he asked staff to reconcile the differing estimates.

Council members asked for clearer, consistent timelines and cost estimates to present to state and other funders. Staff said the feasibility report will deliver cost drivers and options for lowering the project price tag; the council has already identified roughly $4 million of state funding toward the project. No procurement decisions were made at the work session; staff agreed to provide additional schedule and cost details in the feasibility final report and to present procurement options for council consideration.","Consultants will complete a feasibility study by mid‑August; staff summarized a pathway that could result in a design completion in early 2026 and a 12–24 month build — a timeline disputed by the chief, who cited a three‑year build estimate.",{"_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},6216364,"Council to rehear curb‑cut petition at public hearing after judicial‑review filing for 8807 Glenarden Parkway",433,928000,1361000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41&start=928&end=1361","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41/thumbnail_928000.jpg","/articles/6216364/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-to-rehear-curbcut-petition-at-public-hearing-after-judicialreview-filing-for-8807-Glenarden-Parkway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216364-a1c6fdfb8f251a4f3247ee1ed1117fda/orig.mp4?Expires=1775403811&Signature=NhCenCzTxPN7nVTSgTY13FrG322JYhAtUobwGfSFN3ztdsanXKMXM1V1e9deR~I5wL9Sl~tRWYUC-6xLiOav38PdNDqTvyHk8FImSnxUGeAT7LLnUoxmPYu4KmP6tEDG12m3dVA1gxhmot9oaZn58~ELa1XgSN6NUqlrHshKAyvutT8JPbDKeAVjlOfmoqQVTSOhX3BEX6SQw9il2rljmiqnVZK-V8aUZ2I7~bTyWmGPltOYFsWkTBkmC17sfG6P3HPj-cBmXDnazR6DLepeTbc8Ck1vDyfC0rPh03OlS0EuMkNV8qu-LNQQ2qr9waYReJaaONPKqomZ7379Agdsgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council members agreed to bring the petitioner in for a public hearing on a curb‑cut and construction proposal for a parcel at or near 8807 Glenarden Parkway after the applicant filed a petition for judicial review alleging insufficient written findings when the permit was denied.

City Attorney Bentley Green explained that the petition for judicial review was filed last fall after the curb‑cut permit was denied and that the petitioner’s attorneys asked for an on‑the‑record opportunity to present and to address unresolved factual or procedural issues. Attorney Green recommended that the council schedule a public hearing so the applicant could present updated plans and answer questions; he said the council could then deliberate in closed session and issue formal findings and an official decision.

Council members asked whether the applicant’s presentation should be open to the public and whether the council could decide in closed session; Attorney Green advised that the council could hear public testimony, allow the applicant to present, then adjourn to closed session to deliberate and direct staff to prepare findings and an opinion for transmittal to the petitioner.

Councilwoman Jones requested that staff and the applicant provide photographs and diagrams of the lots and nearby houses to make the planning impacts clear on the record. The council agreed to schedule the applicant for the next public hearing and to have city attorneys attend. No final decision was made at the work session; rather, the council set the next procedural steps and asked staff to coordinate logistics and ensure a record suitable for any further judicial review.","After a petitioner filed for judicial review of an earlier denial of a curb‑cut permit, the council agreed to schedule a public hearing for the applicant to present evidence and allowed a closed‑session deliberation and formal findings to follow.",{"_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},6216366,"Council reviews expanded Flock camera grant, placement and privacy concerns",461,2141000,2602000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41&start=2141&end=2602","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41/thumbnail_2141000.jpg","/articles/6216366/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-reviews-expanded-Flock-camera-grant-placement-and-privacy-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216366-f85fdd91f49844e5bfaae52ceb7e5f22/orig.mp4?Expires=1775403811&Signature=Y4DkAa4272-lWjrDAylHYQlAYQHazGl1gOM8VzbkQfheo47SoY0incC~wdE1I8E~CBXdT~dPpa9niCAeRLICFN~YFuPNosdzTDP0mPspQRNuFkZHYda8EF8l1HqvramPjIkBppbhHLetMtBXF3EUdhwflR41psEPiMkPn3v8ydI1xnL-OhYWyy6IEyHiwuYtCK43Oe4lAZJtq1j-AEBAdrJgaL2-NhsGdQCNMwN-rXYLzkYUTAV4vmWiMt~9S9SM9QAi0rRFtI~EKObFI1aQ6AMsroN5W8evOsaM5FQKfCWVP3B2kpcO598HuFiIqIP5jaLoxuwQZirbK-XWUp2Mxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The council reviewed an amendment to an earlier grant award for the Flock automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) pilot and discussed the planned camera locations and privacy safeguards after residents and council members raised concerns about the devices’ angles and 24‑hour recording.

City staff and Police Chief Bryant summarized the updated award: the state award had been supplemented, boosting the total available to roughly $51,000 and allowing the pilot to run two years rather than one. “That just allowed the pilot program to be extended,” a staff presenter said; staff indicated the supplemental funds came from the same state agency and did not require a new application.

Police and staff described the proposed camera map and the rationale for specific placements: main arteries into the city, park parking lots and locations near the Veterans Memorial. Chief Bryant and a Flock representative said some cameras were sited slightly outside city limits to widen capture of vehicles entering the city; staff said those locations could be moved inside the municipal boundary if the council preferred.

Councilmembers and residents pressed staff about privacy and scope: Vice President Ferguson and Councilman Herring questioned a camera sited on Brightfield Road outside the city limits and raised objections to 24‑hour recording directed toward park spaces near residences. The chief said camera angles had been adjusted to focus on parks and parking lots rather than private homes; staff said they had worked with Flock technicians to “get the angles where it won't be pointing at people’s houses” and planned to mount one camera on a standalone pole behind the Veterans Memorial to capture backside activity without filming residences.

Councilmember Herron asked when an ordinance or policy specifying permitted camera use and retention would be prepared; staff said they would follow up with the city attorney and expected to draft proposed use and oversight policies. The council asked staff to return with final placement plans and angle diagrams before hardware is permanently installed.

No final vote was taken at the work session; staff said the amendment to the previously accepted grant would be placed on a regular meeting agenda for formal acceptance if the council wanted to record the increase in a resolution. The council’s immediate direction was to refine placements and privacy angles and provide the ordinance/policy draft for review.","Council reviewed an amendment increasing the Flock camera grant to about $51,000 to fund an extended pilot and discussed camera locations and privacy adjustments after residents raised concerns about cameras pointing toward homes and parks.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6216368,"Glenarden council agrees to publish proposed property-tax rate increase to $0.3947 per $100",4994,5802000,10796000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41&start=5802&end=10796","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651598-f7fd25aebcfcde9e93e5ef3ebe9baa41/thumbnail_5802000.jpg","/articles/6216368/Glenarden-City/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Glenarden-council-agrees-to-publish-proposed-property-tax-rate-increase-to-03947-per-100","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216368-f3e8a9990f77a45d5cda47b69c600f6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775403811&Signature=ALGltJ4oTHp3SsEuGFdtiqqopq~zh4-rURUBHPPaL6PzWQKX4xmG8gh8ETeDhlOy2gm5jl-mV6PuUpAl4n5T~MHHdU2xewLQMVx6LP0c-9hgbq-nxRtAE6Pjg3dRWD0c1RQjJ8c8S3piuyljHsyGZKX0gHM8DZ44wRiaepYSYfeujvGGeXYhNTrDSbhVzcSo6tsAcGc8jooEDP3QAiZrLuwzA6utf7E8E1Xyv4zUQd7LHBRODjs3CmDvgK7s0WkZNbXpwcfSlCw9LS7rGaPyj2X8gawUdiNsOOaCKPUT3JkUPPX0I~hSct7dDYxdhHYW7hOufmKAjARlT8BbGDrh7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Glenarden City Council voted by consensus to advertise a proposed real‑property tax rate of $0.3947 per $100 of assessed value, directing staff to run required public notices so the council can hold a public hearing before final action.

City Manager Simpson framed the proposal as the administration’s recommendation after it identified a structural shortfall under the city’s current rate. “The city of Glen Arden last adjusted its real property tax rate in fiscal year 2023, setting it at 0.3338 per $100 of assessed value,” Simpson said. He told the council the administration calculated a “required rate to maintain services” at 0.3947 and described the difference as a shortfall equivalent to 18.2% over the current rate.

The decision matters because the proposed rate would raise revenues the administration says are needed to avoid drawing down reserves beyond a level the treasurer recommended. Simpson and Treasurer Stewart told council members that without raising the rate the city would close budget gaps by using reserves and that would be fiscally unsustainable over several years. Council members asked staff for detail on how much of the gap would be closed by reserves versus new revenue, and for the advertisement and public‑hearing timeline.

Council members debated the balance between fiscal stability and pressure on residents. Councilman Herring warned that continued use of reserves would deplete the city’s savings within a few years and argued the council had “no choice” but to act now. Councilwoman Fareed cited the ordinance and charter process and supported moving forward with lawful notice. Councilwoman Jones and others asked staff to record and publish clear minutes for any consensus directions during the budget process.

After discussion the clerk polled the council on whether to advertise the proposed 0.3947 rate; all members present signaled yes when called. The council instructed staff to publish the statutory notice promptly and to schedule the formal public hearing required by law; staff said publication logistics required working with a newspaper and the earliest hearing date would depend on the publication schedule and the state filing deadline.

Staff directed the treasurer to prepare the formal advertisement and updated budget documents reflecting the proposed rate and to circulate the revised budget to council members before the next meeting. The council did not adopt a final rate at the work session; this action was limited to authorizing the required advertisement and setting the process for the hearing and final vote.","Council members voted by consensus to advertise a proposed real‑property tax rate of $0.3947 per $100 of assessed value and set a public hearing after staff said the rate was needed to close an operating shortfall; staff will place the legal ad for a required 7‑ to 14‑day notice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council updates on community garden, farmer’s market and Gold Room enterprise finances; staff to form garden committee and tighten Gold Room reporting

City outlines police‑station feasibility study; state provided $4 million but timeline and cost estimates vary

Council to rehear curb‑cut petition at public hearing after judicial‑review filing for 8807 Glenarden Parkway

Council reviews expanded Flock camera grant, placement and privacy concerns

Glenarden council agrees to publish proposed property-tax rate increase to $0.3947 per $100