[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6059638,"mediaKeyId","3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0","parentId",3294075,"title","Seat Pleasant council amends FY 2025–26 budget after heated debate over COLA, salary caps and professional development","audioSeconds",3285,"startMs",4035000,"endMs",7320000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0&start=4035&end=7320","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0/thumbnail_4035000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6059638/Seat-Pleasant/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Seat-Pleasant-council-amends-FY-202526-budget-after-heated-debate-over-COLA-salary-caps-and-professional-development","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6059638-72e6d137c96f74541e65854c962b1a0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176618&Signature=UawMx4-ux4gAnQmU2Yyq~HK88iIKz~-cKgGwkwrgxlTJBLMrc0sXMxVzaeG-djJUNmRMEyWXkkUEXW~lni7DtOpWOJM68JPELKNfgmqxaEnQ2iDQdBIyvN8ZPiuzBK12KhjlVvu1ig3Bg~5RD9N7WukSGzTwazDPvc58gXfL9xMlANM1kx7-FS5mvMSxKWTZuRQCDIOciPdCzororapN-5atBYt~c2mqmbhb5NVKyNt7yJvakIm4P3XyhphJC4PHk8H~1XWDLNUnLYTiU4SrRg6luLbi-EMZGWVwsDyjhVqaOZTvTjFLQQkn8w-TPEjtP0~-krAXtfp17466gP8XZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Seat Pleasant, MD","date","2025-05-13T01:58:23Z","article","The Seat Pleasant City Council considered and voted on multiple amendments during the second reading Monday of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget (Ordinance O25-13), focusing discussion on cost-of-living adjustments (COLA), newly proposed positions and department professional-development allowances.

Councilwoman Kearney introduced four text amendments aimed at strengthening reserves and trimming recurring costs: withhold COLA for employees whose base salary exceeds $50,000 (redirect savings to reserves); keep the public-engagement events budget at FY2025 levels ($75,000) and move any excess to reserves; reduce the council’s professional-development allocation from $15,000 to $10,000 (and reduce the economic‑development PD line from $11,050 to $10,000); and cap salaries for two newly proposed positions (deputy city clerk and outreach coordinator) at $50,000 each.

The council voted on several of those measures. A motion to withhold COLA for salaries above $50,000 passed (vote on record: 5–2 during the meeting). Councilmembers debated legal limits on applying COLA selectively; a former human-resources manager noted during discussion that “COLA will have to be applied [to] all employees” and legal counsel and the finance director cautioned that the method of applying or withholding COLA may require further legal review. Kearney said she was willing to consider alternatives such as a one‑time bonus for lower‑paid employees rather than an across‑the‑board COLA.

On staffing, the council debated two new positions that had been added to the proposed budget. Earlier in the process, finance had transferred $60,000 from contingency to fund a deputy city‑clerk position; staff later adjusted FICA and related figures to reflect that change. Councilwoman Kearney proposed capping the deputy clerk and the outreach coordinator at $50,000 rather than the $60,000 shown in the draft; that amendment passed 6–1. A separate motion by Councilwoman Love to eliminate the deputy‑clerk position failed on council vote (measure recorded as failing 1–6). Finance staff explained that the only technical change since the prior reading was adjusting FICA and related line items after removing $60,000 from contingency for the deputy‑clerk position.

The council also approved Kearney’s motion to hold the public‑events budget at $75,000 for city events and move any remainder to reserves. Members discussed whether professional‑development cuts would limit elected‑official or staff training; those lines will be reduced to $10,000 for council professional development and $10,000 for economic development per the amendment.

Discussion also touched on the practicalities of travel and training budgeting: councilmembers and staff recommended booking conference travel earlier and using scholarships and city vehicles when feasible to save costs. Legal counsel and the finance director urged caution before adopting policies that could run afoul of employment law; the HR representative said mandatory COLA withholding across selected employees may not be legally viable and the council discussed alternatives such as one‑time bonuses.

By the end of the session, the council had approved multiple Kearney amendments that shift some recurring salary increases into reserves and reduce several discretionary PD allocations; they rejected the motion to eliminate the deputy clerk but passed the salary‑cap amendment. Several councilmembers said they wanted better documentation and clearer breakout numbers in the ordinance text before final publication; staff agreed to update the ordinance language and line items and to circulate corrected figures to the council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Public Session (05/12/25)","oneSentenceSummary","The Seat Pleasant City Council considered and voted on multiple amendments during the second reading Monday of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget (Ordinance O25-13), focusing discussion on COLA, newly proposed positions and professional-development allocations.","taxTitle","Seat Pleasant, Prince George's County, Maryland","taxId",74492,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6059643,"Seat Pleasant holds first reading on revised noise ordinance with new decibel limits and waiver process",2238,1362000,3600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0&start=1362&end=3600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0/thumbnail_1362000.jpg","/articles/6059643/Seat-Pleasant/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Seat-Pleasant-holds-first-reading-on-revised-noise-ordinance-with-new-decibel-limits-and-waiver-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6059643-32f308647d27ae9cf136ec9337e5f4ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176618&Signature=e6FMXljGn9lbWV1iJXoanCmJF3LLi~fP2TtLgwj5q8TTyqD2VsbvF-sQyDSFiYVQH7nyiAx-wKB3H9n03cCVx3bf2hzrWMes83~yqpN8zqSaphndg5UmLDx72lEQ7Jrg0g3LV5FglskLlp-nNpBr1g-r2e4-01PC5w4BrxKYgb4ocZDDMH09sPOBxSZzDy4Cw5q8cV~bVROv7TPABxAD2vCQQEo~ToPwPPyvagb9u3jQMlPsCr6fmZuAUoWB~wSZuokFT9G-FeefQcLc0M9MK86V0uI240mYjJM4QRe4XoSHXGiSkPCfgxH4Lv4VpVkWMS-AIyTpFNNQopEFqggELg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Seat Pleasant City Council held the first reading Monday of Ordinance O25-11, a rewrite of Chapter 1.12 (Noise) that adds definitions, sets maximum decibel levels by zoning and time of day, creates a measurement standard, and establishes a temporary-waiver process overseen by the city manager.

The rewrite would, among other things, define daytime as 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. and nighttime as 9 p.m. to 8 a.m.; cap maximum continuous daytime levels at 75 dBA (industrial), 67 dBA (commercial) and 65 dBA (residential); lower nighttime caps (for example, 55 dBA in residential zones); and treat “plainly audible” detection at 50 feet as evidence. The measure remains at first reading and will return for additional review and amendment.

Council members and police officials spent much of the discussion on enforcement and unintended consequences in attached housing and high-density wards. Councilwoman McCarthy asked whether the waiver process would effectively exempt entire rows of attached houses, saying, “Are we gonna provide the whole ward for waivers?” Chief Haywood said the department tested the draft in an actual residential neighborhood and stressed that officers use discretion: “If we deem it to be a violation, we make notifications. If we deem it not to be a violation, that's where we try to use the mediation processes to try and alleviate some of these things.”

Mayor Kelvin Porter said the ordinance’s numeric standards give officers “a benchmark of what level of noise is not acceptable,” and explained that an officer’s meter reading is only one form of evidence: the draft says “evidence based on the audible impression formed by an enforcement officer is equally sufficient” to a meter reading. The proposed measurement section also references Maryland Department of the Environment guidance and national standards (ANSI, ASTM, SAE, EPA) and allows the city to rely on commercially available sound meters.

The ordinance would let the city manager grant limited, temporary waivers for events if the public benefits outweigh the noise impacts. The manager must post notice on the city website, in the city newsletter and at the event site; the draft requires a minimum public notice period before approval. The enforcement section retains a verbal-or-written warning requirement before issuing an initial citation except where the source is a vehicle or where a warning was already issued within 90 days.

Council members raised concerns about particular provisions. McCarthy warned that, in attached housing, typical neighbor conversation can be heard through shared walls and asked how the metrics would avoid harassment complaints; Chief Haywood said simple speech is unlikely to reach the decibel thresholds in the draft and that the department prefers mediation over “heavy handed” enforcement. Councilwoman Scott noted that sound meters and related equipment can be costly and asked whether councilmembers would be provided meters; the mayor and the chief said enforcement would be done by officers, not the council, and that residents can use off‑the‑shelf apps or meters for their own information.

Council members also questioned the time window (8 a.m. to 9 p.m.), noting older residents who keep earlier schedules and the summer need for early yard work; staff said the times were chosen to align with neighboring jurisdictions, including Prince George’s County, but that the council could revisit the hours in committee. Several members urged clearer public communication and field-testing in multiple neighborhoods before final passage.

Because this was the ordinance’s first reading, the council did not adopt the measure. Councilmembers asked the public safety committee and staff to return with clarifications on waiver notice timing, the effect on attached housing, and the draft’s enforcement steps before the second reading.","Seat Pleasant City Council held the first reading Monday of Ordinance O25-11, a rewrite of Chapter 1.12 (Noise) that adds definitions, sets maximum decibel levels by zoning and time of day, creates a measurement standard, and establishes a temporary-waiver process overseen by the city manager.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6059633,"Council denies variance for 6607 Greg Street after neighborhood compliance opposition and neighbor flooding complaint",1276,8904000,10180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0&start=8904&end=10180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3294075-7737a2cef0e7bee7415e9580ad178ad0/thumbnail_8904000.jpg","/articles/6059633/Seat-Pleasant/Prince-Georges-County/Maryland/Council-denies-variance-for-6607-Greg-Street-after-neighborhood-compliance-opposition-and-neighbor-flooding-complaint","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6059633-0714f22db3263b3e63028577ae8400e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771176618&Signature=DKtBYT4Pq0sGeJ52npRrlMGpDJch8EDHDTidHXGAtONUOjmqiAm1hEgaQK6hFX29Jtc-CRdH32PV-Jz657FPkAXFzPMXdL9upK0XWRw0bEkIR0KV6ouafO7MhAWxWrVS~dGfr1odcCzp7G4IVA1toWpH3La8rnWfxY3bM6WvgctvLZNYCP--5jOxXHCM8Bqotv-a8R6rjuupEOlx4GohIIUqbSjne-WvRoowsjm8XWXzJAzwZuh1QmjSmA64eNXA2UHFmto6tiq~ZEta~0L4-5upicfFmcM5MnNfvejtD~s2Ls2~5c1~UybZAvpE1lV646FaYtADTo8M-fj5y~rNow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Seat Pleasant City Council voted 6–1 to deny a variance request for a property at 6607 Greg Street after the city’s Neighborhood Compliance Division recommended opposing the request and council members cited neighbor safety and property impacts.

Neighborhood Compliance staff told the council that Prince George’s County zoning requires front yards of at least 25 feet and rear yards of at least 20 feet (citing county table 4) and that the structure as built does not meet the required rear-yard setback. The compliance report cited the City Code provision adopting the county building-code provisions (Chapter 63.6) and opposed the variance because adoptees of the county code require those minimum setbacks.

Council member Love described prior field inspections and said excavation and grading tied to the construction had caused water to enter a neighbor’s house: “When we investigated it, we realized it came from what they did in the backyard,” she said, and urged that the affected neighbor be made “whole” before any approvals. Council members also noted the property remains partially unfinished, with siding not installed and signs of squatting reported.

Staff and council members discussed county authority over variances in cases where municipal review is advisory or where county code applies. City staff said the council must provide a response to the county when a variance is pending; they also noted that if the owner does not correct outstanding issues the city could pursue enforcement steps later under its property‑maintenance and building rules.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councilman Raynor moved, and Council approved, a motion to accept the neighborhood compliance division’s recommendation to oppose the variance; the recorded vote was 6–1 in favor of denying the variance request.

City staff said they would follow up with compliance and the owner about remediation steps and would provide information to the council on any enforcement timeline should the owner fail to remedy the neighbor’s damage or to bring the work into compliance with county and city rules.","The council voted 6–1 to deny a zoning variance request related to setbacks at 6607 Greg Street after the Neighborhood Compliance Division opposed the variance and councilmembers raised concerns about a neighbor's flooding and the structure's encroachments into required yards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Seat Pleasant council amends FY 2025–26 budget after heated debate over COLA, salary caps and professional development

Seat Pleasant holds first reading on revised noise ordinance with new decibel limits and waiver process

Council denies variance for 6607 Greg Street after neighborhood compliance opposition and neighbor flooding complaint