On October 9, 2024, at 3:00 PM, the Frederick Mayor and Board of Aldermen held a combined business meeting and workshop. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance and approval of the September 25, 2024, minutes by a 5-0 vote. The consent calendar approved the release of two surety bonds totaling $347,811.22 for Riverside Technology Park projects. The workshop focused on two main agenda items: the school mitigation fee policy and a fee-in-lieu of parkland dedication for the 7615 Hayward Road Apartments development. Public comment was heard on the school mitigation fee. The board discussed potential adjustments to the fee and future use of collected funds, but no formal votes were taken on policy changes. The meeting concluded with elected officials' comments and adjournment.
1. School Mitigation Fee Policy
2. Fee in Lieu of Parkland Dedication – 7615 Hayward Road Apartments
Good afternoon, and welcome to the mayor and Board of Alderman Business Meeting and Workshop for the 9th of October. We begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge the changes to the flag for the United States of America. And to the Republic for existence. Underground. We have minutes to approve September 25th, 2024. So moved. Motion by Alderman Shackerford, second by Alder Woman Kazemchick. All those in favor. That is five-zero. Thank you very much. We have a business meeting today. Items on the business meeting agenda are considered routine by the mayor and board heard at the workshop pursuant to the rules of procedure of the Board of Alderman. They'll be approved in one motion without separate discussion of each item, unless a person, any person present request an item be removed, an item that is removed will be considered separately, either at the end of the business meeting or at a regular public meeting. So move. All those in favor, that is five-zero. Thank you very much. Two items on our workshop agenda today. Item number one, discussion of school mitigation fee paid by developers qualifying projects in accordance with the adequate public facilities ordinance regulations of chapter four of the city code. Up that she's provided to you all. It is an option available to a developer when the project is when the project is tested for APFO and any of the schools serving the proposed project are above 100% of the capacity, but below 120% of the state rated capacity. So projects that only fall on that threshold, it's an option, it's not mandatory. Uh, we have had a project in the past say I could pay the fee, but I just want to wait the five years. Um it was three years at the time, um, but that that is an option. There's also the option that a developer can always propose a mitigation plan. So they could actually propose something to bring about adequacy. I will build you a new school. Um that has not happened to date, obviously. Um, so most projects that are eligible uh elect to pay the fee. No one is trying to build us a school, unfortunately. Um the other important thing to note is that a project that is um applying for and receives uh low-income housing tax credits, if they they still get tested, so they're still subject to the APFO. If they are above 100% but below 120%, they have the option to pay the fee, but the fee is legislated as zero dollars. Um so they are not exempt from the APFO in in that sense, they still go through, they still get tested. Uh if they were over 120% of the the state rated capacity, they would not have an option. Uh they would just be on hold or propose to build school. Um so that is a nuance that's important to note. In the executive summary today, uh, we did provide the current fees, which are the fees that were set in 2011. Um just for starting point in terms of options. If the the will is to increase them, um, you know, there's always the basic option of just increasing to 2024 or almost 2025 dollars. Uh the the fee from 2011 is probably um out of date and and could be increased just based on inflation alone. Uh, the other option uh that we presented was to mirror the county's uh fees. The interesting thing about the county's school mitigation fee process is that it no longer really applies to new development applications, they ceased that option, it only applied to projects during certain years that were locked in under agreements. Um they have since taken that out off the table as an option for projects that fail the school test, um, but they do revisit those fees every year, and they are based on school construction costs, and we've provided those as well. I think that hits the high points. I'm happy to answer any questions about kind of the mechanics of how we um test and apply or the existing fees, um, how we collect them just real quickly. We do collect uh for multifamily units, we collect those at the time of permit. So when they apply for the permit, we add that fee. And now, and this is lovely with open gov, um we are actually able to program that. That was a manual process that we had to go through that someone actually had to get the permit, look and go, oh, this isn't a development that has to pay the fee, and then go in and add the fee. Now, ahead of time with the technology that open gov provides, we can actually flag that fee on a location.