Meeting at City Hall:
January 9, 2006
3:00-5:00 p.m.

These notes were produced by the College Gardens Civic Association and have not been reviewed by other organizations. The CGCA asked City staff to clarify some points and issues.
This meeting was held as part of a cooperative effort among the City of Rockville, the College Gardens Civic Association (CGCA), the Plymouth Woods Condominium Association, and the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to discuss the process for reaching an agreement on Storm Water Management (SWM) concerns for the College Gardens area including the possible or eventual use of the College Gardens Park for an SWM pond. The overall goal is to reach a solution that would achieve SWM objectives (including federal and state requirements of Rockville) and at the same time result in an acceptable, or even improved, park configuration for the community.

Attending:
Mary Lou Berg, Assistant to the City Manager City
Burt Hall, Director of Recreation and Parks City
Mike Critzer, Parks Services Manager City
Craig Simoneau, Director, Department of Public Works City
Nate Wall, Environmental Specialist, Community Planning and Development Services Department City
Lise Soukup, Environmental Engineer, Public Works City
Dwayne Jenkins, Neighborhood Resource Coordinator, City Manager's Office* City
Mark Pierzchala, President CGCA
Jerry Leighton, Vice-president CGCA
Barbara Marinelli, Secretary CGCA
Paul O'Brien, SWM Chair CGCA
Charles Burroughs, observer CGCA
Carol Hall, observer Garden Club of College Gardens
John T. Wright, President Plymouth Woods Condominium Association
Mary Pat Wilson, representative MCPS
Rakesh Bagai, representative MCPS
Dr. Albert DuPont, acting principal CGES MCPS
Michael Shpur, MCPS
Liza Gutierrez, reporter The Gazette
*Dwayne Jenkins was away on an emergency but will participate in future meetings.

Note: The six individuals from College Gardens represent all viewpoints on the SWM and park issues, ranging from having been on the previous Watts Branch Watershed Study to opposing any major changes to the park. Many thanks for their giving the time to witness the proceedings.

The agenda included:

1. Welcome/introductions
2. What has Mayor and Council asked this group to do?
3. Potentially Affected Individuals (PAIs) discussion
4. Goals of the Process
5. Timeline
6. Survey
7. Additional topics to be discussed by the group

The meeting was freewheeling in some respects. While all items were discussed, they were not necessarily discussed in the order above.
Item 1: Efficiently accomplished.

Item 2: On December 12, the Mayor and Council agreed to have the above group meet. At this first meeting on January 9, the following goals were put forward by Mayor and Council:
Explore CG park pond expansion
Determine who should be involved in the process
Design of the proposed storm water facility using park land and upgrading of park
Involvement of public
The need to work with MCPS with College Gardens Elementary School construction's effect on their obligations for SWM
Need for expediency in the decision-making process recognized

Mark Pierzchala interrupted the start of the review of the Potentially Affected Individuals (PAIs) in order to make a few points. He noted that he had sent an email ahead of time to Marylou Berg with some additional agenda items. Among those items was the topic of an alternative site for the SWM pond, immediately west of Princeton Place at the end of Auburn Avenue. The potential use of this alternative site would affect who the PAIs would be. He further emphatically made the point that there was an artificial time pressure due to the timing of the school's construction and the need for the MCPS to know how they would have to handle their storm water from the new CGES. He noted that the City should have approached the CGCA a full year earlier to talk about the park and SWM. That advisory would have allowed enough time to properly engage the community. He also stated that there were some people in the neighborhood who want to fight any large change to the park and expressed dismay at the surprising way in which the park pond was brought back into discussion (at the Mayor and Council meeting of December 12, 2005), which caused a huge feeling of resentment in the community. This resentment would make it more difficult to persuade the community to accept any change. Other agenda items Pierzchala had suggested in his email to Marylou Berg included: a) resources to be committed to the overall project, b) timelines, especially how the February 4, 2006 hearing for the new CGES plays into these meetings, c) review of the government process (all levels: City, State, Federal) for devising park plans, SWM facilities permits, approvals, inspections, money and all the rest. In response, Mary Lou Berg noted that these items would be taken care of in item number 7. Mark Pierzchala made it clear that the CGCA was committed to cooperating in this process.

In reaction to Mark's questioning how much time we had, Burt Hall spoke to the timelines at issue and suggested that the final decision may not be on quite as tight a deadline (February) as first discussed. (There is now a sign posted in front of the school concerning a special exceptions hearing on February 4.) Hall said that MCPS, for now, would have to design for their worst possible scenario; that of having to handle storm water on the school site. He further noted that the whole process could take several months and that at a later time, if it worked out, MCPS could alter its SWM planning to dovetail with the park solution. It is true that this would mean that MCPS would have to bear the expense of the design of the on-site structure. In response to a question from MCPS representatives, Burt Hall and Craig Simoneau told them that they should bid the on-site SWM structure flexibly (add or drop provision).

Mark informed the city that, according to CGCA bylaws, and articles of incorporation, Yale Place and Scarborough Square Apartment groups are within the purview of the CGCA. He also explained that we communicate with those particular communities via yard signs and newsletters and bulletins left in the main office of each group and that for the single-family homes, block captains deliver most of our information to house doors. He also noted that about 50% of the single-family community signed up to receive CGCA e-mail. There are 340 single-family homes.

Item 3: In determining PAIs, the group brainstormed who could be affected by our decisions. The City typed the following from the list created by the participants.

- Members of CGCA (single-family homes as well as Scarborough & Yale)
- Plymouth Woods
- MCPS
- Commercial (Celera, Comcast, etc.)
- Montgomery college
- College Gardens ES (school, PTA, students)
- Other City users: BAR-T, soccer, cricket… Rockville Sports
- Maryland Department of Environment /US Army Corps Of Engineers
- Environmental Groups (Potomac Conservancy, Audubon)
- WSSC (drinking water intake)
- City Departments: City Manager’s Office, CPDS, DPW, R&P, Neighborhood Resources

The above list is an enumeration of interested parties, some of whom have to be dealt with, but they wouldn’t necessarily be part of the discussions now taking place.

Paul O'Brien discussed the historical facts of the interactions on storm management over the years between the city and the CG community. It was established that there were verbal understandings between the former City Environment Officer (Pam Roe) and the CGCA that were not part of the subsequent contract between the City of Rockville and the contractor for the Low Impact Study. He noted that there are also City laws and previous Mayor and Council actions that we should be paying attention to. It was also acknowledged that we need to handle large-volume storms with pond expansion or a similar method. He also noted that the alternate site mentioned above was considered by the Watts Branch Watershed Study group, and it was found to be too small. During this discussion it was also noted that there are 3 major runoff areas:
Commercial areas, apartments that as of now drain into the 54-inch pipe that goes under the park
Auburn Avenue runoff (and related), which could be handled by the alternate site
Plymouth Woods runoff

Paul concluded by stating that we need to see some plans, or sketches, of various proposals so that people could intelligently pass judgement on them. Mark stated that we have not given up on an alternative site.

City Staff conceded the possibility of a multi-pronged approach to SWM.
Lise reminded that group that the park needs to be upgraded, whatever the outcomes of the SWM issue. The new school being rebuilt puts this in a good timeframe. Mike Creitzer established that the park was deeded in 1966 and the facilities installation was completed in 1972. A lack of lavatory availability was explained by Burt Hall, following a question by Dr. DuPont (mainly safety and vandalism concerns).

Item 4: Process Goals were discussed:
Look at alternatives
Take National Nite Out activities under consideration
Recommendations for improving the park
Shepherding how the park and facility will look

Most participants agreed that there would have to be a public meeting of some sort on the issues.
Hall noted that the park is city land and that it is because of prohibitions on tree cutting in forest park area that we need to look at existing parks for the answer. He reminded the participants that a previous DPW project proposal in the Forest Preserve was soundly and roundly defeated by community protests. He explained that the city owns approximately 450 open acres in recreation areas so there are real limits in dealing with where to put a storm management pond. Mark Pierzchala answered that while there had been protests from the community previously about a massive DPW project in the Forest Preserve that the proposed alternate site for a pond was on a far smaller scale and that it might be acceptable to the community in comparison to having the College Gardens park greatly restructured. Further, it would be up to the CGCA to explain such an alternate site to the community.

Mark stated, " We want a commitment to SWM at the LID level and want make sure that we are not abandoned by the city. This is in addition to whatever is decided for the park."
Paul mentioned that one solution could be award grants that could be used for private property areas if the owners wanted to participate.

Mark reviewed his Park meetings of January 7 and 8 that took place within the park itself. Conclusions from this effort are included in the list below.

A short discussion took place in which there was an agreed perception on the part of community participants that soccer was much more important than softball to park users in the area but will await the outcome of the survey. Officially, the goals listed during the discussion period:
Goals (list by CGCA)
Educate stakeholders on need to address CG watershed's SWM process
Preserve and refurbish active and passive park features
Keep supporting application of LID SWM
Commit to protecting stream valleys from erosion and pollution
Specific park features to provide
Large gathering space (400) people
Save all the trees
More facilities for teens
Safety upgrades
Sledding area;
Better, more updated, active recreation features
Usable restrooms available year round (shielded port-a-potties one option)
Pond needs to be better maintained; not so big
Do a survey of all stakeholders of both SWM issues and park features – use techniques to improve response rate
Keep tot-lot (determine age to target)
Try to get CGES students’ opinions on playground
Maintain sense of scale in park
Address SWM quality and quantity for drainage area
Work with MCPS to make sure CGES gets built on schedule
Develop elementary school educational program for SWM pond
Get alternative designs for park/pond layout
Take recommendations back to Mayor and Council

Process goals, the list that was developed at the meeting is hereby provided by the City (largely redundant of the above list).
- Educate stakeholders on need to address College Gardens’ watershed’s SWM problems.
- Preserve and refurbish active and passive park features.
- Keep supporting application of LID SWM.
- Commit to protecting stream valleys from erosion and pollution.
- Specific park features to save /provide: Large gathering space (400 people), all the trees, more facilities for teens, safety, sledding area; better or more useful active rec features; restrooms - (Porta-potties) open all year.
- Pond needs to be better maintained – not too big.
- Do a survey of all stakeholders of both SWM issues and parks features – use techniques to improve response rate.
- Keep tot-lot (determine age to target).
- Try to get kids’ opinions on survey.
- Maintain sense of scale in park.

Item 5: In developing a timeline, it was stated that some permits could take from 12 to 18 months
During this time other fixes could be made such as layout sketches, park/SWM survey, and education sessions with information on SWM.
Get park layout acceptance.
There is a report on our progress due to the Mayor and Council in February. There is another due date in May to Mayor and Council (not sure what this is).
On the timeline issues, Craig suggested that participants bring designs to the table next round to be released for the survey and for educational activities.
Mark cautioned rushing into any more detailed discussion today, and Burt made the point that we do need to plan for getting the information out.
The City provided the following from notes taken from the meeting.
- Rough sketches of layouts?
- Park/SWM survey?
- Education sessions and information on SWM?
- Another meeting on public process Monday, January 23 from 3p-5p.
- Alternatives Development with Architect and Engineer consultant
- Alternatives Review – different ways:
Charette?
- Once a park layout is accepted by Mayor and Council:
Engineering Design Stage
- Outside permits – ACOE, 18 months- MDE 401/404 (wetlands, water way)
NRCS for dam safety
- Local – City permits, Forestry approval, Rec & Park Board, Commission on Environment, - CIP approval process
- Construction Bid Stage
- Construction

Item 6: Burt Hall suggested a survey on park issues and design. Mark Pierzchala related that the CGCA Executive Committee had already allocated $500 for its own survey that was in the planning stages in that Committee. There will be a meeting to determine if the City and Association can work together on this project. Mark noted that the idea of a survey is to be fair and to be seen as fair. It is a method of determining the true opinion of the community. There are well-known techniques that can ensure a large response to the survey.
Craig Simoneau stated that if no other solution is found, it will cost MCPS half a million dollars to do its own SWM, which involves underground storage tanks. He also talked about available funds for park rehabilitation

Item 7: From Pierzchala’s agenda items: In answer to the question of which government agencies are concerned, some of the agencies were listed, but since this is a complicated issue, the city will provide a complete list soon.
Total amount of resources for an overall project include money from the CIP for the SWM project in College Gardens, money scheduled for park maintenance, and possibly money from MCPS. It is possible that Mayor and Council might be willing to put more money toward the overall project if that would result in a better community solution. Sums from $300,000 to $500,000 were discussed, but it all depends on how this all plays out.

Government process. This was reviewed very briefly during this meeting. A request to the City to give this to us in writing has been made. It does not appear that a public hearing would be necessary, but one was advised.

The next meeting was set for Monday, January 23, 2006, at 3:00 p.m. This meeting will discuss a survey and other ways to gather information from the community.

Notes taken by Barbara Marinelli and subsequently edited by Mark Pierzchala.

Return to SWM Index Page