Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business License Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenarden City Council weighs enforcement as staff flags 11 businesses missing paperwork
Summary
City staff told the council 11 businesses lack required documentation—mostly certificates of occupancy—prompting split council views between immediate shutdowns and outreach. Council requested a written list and a risk analysis before formal enforcement.
Mister Green told the Glenarden City Council that notices were mailed to local businesses and that "of the, businesses operating within the city, 11 businesses, have not complied." He said staff had visited the businesses and that the principal compliance gap was missing documents, not unpaid fees.
The council pressed for details and a course of action. Councilman Williams and Councilman Herring urged strict enforcement, saying noncompliant businesses should be shut down until they hold required permits. "They shouldn't even be operating if they don't have a U&O," Herring said, referring to use-and-occupancy permits. By contrast, Councilwoman Jones urged outreach and assistance before closures, arguing health and safety risks should guide immediate action.
Mister Green clarified that nine of the 11 had paid the license fee but lacked the county-issued certificate of occupancy (often called a U&O). He told the council that one business also lacked a state license. He also said Maryland law limits certain penalty collections: "Maryland state law right now caps that at 1000 dollars." Councilman Herring cited city code (section 11037) and a higher daily penalty amount in the code text; the council asked for legal confirmation of fines and whether fines can be applied retroactively.
Council members asked Mister Green to provide: a written list of the 11 businesses with addresses and dates of notices; the specific documentation missing for each; and a risk analysis describing economic impacts if enforcement leads to closures. Several members suggested CPIE/Prince George's County inspectors be involved for use-and-occupancy enforcement; Mister Green said he has already contacted county staff who will take cases from the city's referrals.
The council did not record a formal vote on enforcement in the transcript. Instead, members expressed differing positions: some supporting immediate stop-work orders, others wanting one more step of outreach and a risk assessment to inform a formal resolution. The council directed staff to resend the list and documentation, to coordinate with the county's permitting/inspection authority, and to return with a legal memo and the requested risk analysis to guide any ordinance or enforcement action.
The council's next procedural steps include attorney review of fine limits, receipt of Mister Green's list and risk analysis, and potential referral to Prince George's County permitting/inspection for U&O enforcement. The matter remained under discussion at the end of the meeting.
