College Park City Council members yesterday decided to defer a vote and allow city staff work with two council members to study overhauling the city’s noise police, possibly going beyond the current plan to lengthen the time period during which the city can double-fine residents and landlords for repeat-offense noise violations.
Confused? So was the city council.
The topic is a policy that allows the city to double the $500 fine for a residence’s noise violation after the first offense, as long as the second offense happens within six months. The change on the table would extend that length of time to 12 months, making it easier for violators to have their fines doubled.
Despite a strong response from students and residents on opposite sides of the issue, the proposal was met with confusion and frustration from city council members last night, as they decided for the second time to delay a vote on the measure.
In nearly 900 letters Student Government Association President Andrew Friedson delivered to city staff before the meeting, students complained the proposal time increase compels landlords to start passing the charges onto their tenants because of a common clause in lease agreements. Opponents of the policy point out tenants could be fined $1,000 – the penalty for a second offense – even if they weren’t living in the offending building at the time of the first violation.
District 3 Councilwoman Stephanie Stullich maintained excessive noise keeps residents awake at night.
But after a lengthy discussion in which council members found themselves confronted with convoluted wording and the realities of inconsistent code enforcement, some council members had given up on the issue.
“I think the simple fact that we’ve gone through 50 minutes going through various permutations of this, we need to go back and look at this legislation fresh,” District 3 councilman Mark Cook said. “But if all eight of nine of us keep having to ask over and over again and we’re not getting it, a code enforcer out at 1 in the morning isn’t going to get it.”
Mayor Stephen Brayman said the council may not be ready to vote on anything until summer, possibly after the end of classes. A vote had originally been scheduled for next Tuesday after Stullich first proposed the measure three weeks ago.
“Is there any way that it’s legal to ask a newcomer to a property to be responsible for a previous person’s transgressions?” asked Danielle Kogut, SGA student liaison to the council. “It doesn’t sound fair to me.”
City attorney Suellen Ferguson said that is not only legal, but the city has no way to force landlords to pay their own fines rather than passing them on.
But Ferguson and the city’s Public Services Director Bob Ryan explained to the council other problem areas with the existing noise ordinance rules. They said relatively few noise complaints result in an actual citation and fine, that the fines are typically charged only to one violator who a code enforcement officer identifies as a resident. Additionally, the fines are often drastically reduced in court outside of the city’s control.
“If we’re so concerned with how our noise code enforcement operates, why aren’t we discussing how we can put more money into code enforcement to solve these problems, so we don’t have to legislate, legislate, legislate,” Kogut said. “I think instead of making this legislation, we should consider why we have so many problems that are bothering Ms. Stullich’s neighbors.”
After extensive discussion last night and at the previous public hearing, it became increasingly clear that council members didn’t understand how noise enforcement worked now or how it would work under Stullich’s proposal. Several eventually agreed with the argument voiced by the SGA, including District 1 councilman Jonathan Molinatto.
“I understand the problem with noise violations, and I certainly sympathize with property owners that have to deal with that,” he said. “However, I’m afraid of punishing people whose only wrongdoing – besides committing one noise violation – is choosing the wrong roommate,” a roommate who had previously incurred a noise violation.
Kogut suggested that the 6- or 12-month period should be reset whenever any tenants move in or out of a property. Molinatto suggested the city follow independent violators instead of properties. And District 2 Councilman Bob Catlin suggested abolishing landlord fines in favor of a “point system” through which excessive landlord problems would lead to occupancy permit revocations.
Mayor Brayman asked to see a report on their progress in two weeks, but is not optimistic that anything will be ready to be voted on before students leave for summer vacation.
“I think we have shown on this issue a lot of input from students,” Friedson said after the meeting. “It would be unfortunate if their positions are not represented.”
holtdbk@gmail.com
