Frederick Housing, Health, and Education Committee Meeting - March 6, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Housing, Health, and Education Committee Summary
The Housing, Health, and Education Committee of the City of Frederick met on March 6, 2025, at 10:00 A.M. to discuss a proposed housing workplan, a public art workplan, and a request to terminate restrictive covenants on three properties. The committee approved minutes from February 20, 2025, and heard public testimony.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the February 20, 2025 meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Jim Smursall (former city community development director) commented on the housing workplan, suggesting the planning department use American Planning Association resources for single-room occupancy (SRO) ordinances and recommending the city establish local income limits and fair market rents as per Ordinance 23-20. Later, on the covenant issue, he clarified that the properties were purchased with federal Community Development Block Grant funds, which may have sunset provisions, and noted the covenant includes a mayoral/board release clause.
- Monica Perez (homeowner at 22 West 7th Street) requested the city release a restrictive covenant recorded by the city in 2003, which her title company interprets as running in perpetuity. She stated she fulfilled Habitat for Humanity's requirements and paid equity share, and the covenant prevents her from selling at market value. She has a March 13 closing date and asked for expedited action.
- Jennifer Grove (real estate broker for Ms. Perez) explained the title company placed an exception on the title due to the covenant's “in perpetuity” language, and that the original title policy listed it as an exception when Ms. Perez purchased the property.
- Eric Anderson and Darby Swanson (Habitat for Humanity of Frederick County) stated they were unaware of the city's covenant until the current sale, and their interpretation is that the covenant was fulfilled upon sale to Ms. Perez.
Discussion Items
- Continued Discussion of Proposed Housing Workplan:
- Tenant Protections Website: Council President Nash proposed creating a city-specific website to provide tenant and landlord rights information, sourced from the Maryland Attorney General. Councilmember Shallford emphasized the need to protect both renters and property owners, and suggested using existing Rental Housing Program funds for catastrophic situations. No action taken; staff will draft website content and bring back for consideration.
- Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Ordinance: A request for information was sent to advocacy groups, developers, and the Affordable Housing Council, with responses due by May 1. Councilmember Shallford cautioned against overcomplicating the ordinance, noting it can be refined later. Staff will work with legal and planning departments to draft an ordinance shell by May.
- Public Art Workplan: Councilmember Kazimchek introduced the topic, highlighting the need to catch up on public art maintenance and policy. Manager of Arts and Culture Layla provided updates: retaining a conservator for collection assessment, conducting cultural asset mapping (Eastside and Golden Mile workshops), and incorporating public art language into RFPs for projects like the West Side Community Center and East Street Rails with Trails. A draft workplan is expected in the next few meetings.
- Request to Terminate Restrictive Covenants at 18, 20-22 West 7th Street: Councilmembers reviewed a request from Monica Perez to release city- recorded restrictive covenants (from 2003) that require the property to remain affordable in perpetuity. City attorneys clarified the covenant is ambiguous and likely no longer enforceable because the Hope VI program is defunct. Councilmember Kazimchek expressed reluctance to set a precedent of acting on short notice, while Councilmember Shallford urged scheduling the vote as soon as possible to avoid harming the resident. The committee agreed to place the matter on the March 20, 2025 city council agenda for a vote rather than action that evening.
Key Outcomes
- Housing Workplan: Staff to draft a tenant protections website and an SRO ordinance shell; updates expected in May.
- Public Art Workplan: Draft workplan to be presented at future committee meeting; manager to continue community outreach and policy development.
- Restrictive Covenant: The committee voted to refer the release request to the March 20, 2025 city council meeting. Councilmembers expressed general support for terminating the covenant, though the timing was debated. Ms. Perez was advised to request an extension on her closing date.
- No other formal votes were taken.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. I called order, the um Housing Health and Education Committee. I apologize. I do have um pneumonia, and am so if my voice goes completely, or I have a bad coughing fit, Councilmember Shallford will take over. Um we have heard nothing from Councilmember McCain, so hopefully he'll show up at at some point in time. Um we will start with a pledge of allegiance. Um approval of the minutes for February twentieth. So moved. I'll second that in favor. Thank you. Okay, we're just gonna move straight into the continued discussion of the proposed housing work plan. I do want to say a quick thank you to leadership and staff for your hard work on this. Um, I I realize that we ask questions, and then we come the next time and we get answers, and that's just brilliant. I love it. So um, I'm gonna give this to um President Nash and Off we go. I can we do have an updated work plan attached to the backup. Um, nothing lot of a lot of requests are out at the moment, so we'll certainly keep those uh updates coming as those requests are answered, hopefully uh very soon. With respect to specific work items on the agenda today, we have two considerations before the committee. One is with respect to tenant protections. One of the items in our work plan is to consider increasing tenant protections. And so essentially committee, we are looking for the next steps forward into what those tenant protections should look like and what they can be. I mean, the president is doing uh with respect to our federal workforce and our contractors who work in the city of Frederick specifically and call the city of Frederick home. So one of the things that I know is on all of our minds is how do we take action now to ensure that we keep people in their homes and that we ensure that people know their rights with respect to their tenancy. So this the proposal that you have in front of you is a relatively simple one. It just proposes creating a website uh that is specific to the city of Frederick. And of course, we would share all this information with the county and anyone else who, you know, obviously this could be uh a joint website, you know, but we just wanted to put this in front of you uh with respect to what could be on this website. Um Madam Chair, for the purposes of today, this was really just to put it in front of you, start thinking about it. We don't need to take action today on this. We can come back and revisit this and sort of start to um get specifics on paper. Uh, but I also need to, with your permission, send this to the communications department for their input. We do have someone on staff who specifically works on website, so obviously, you know, would want their input as well. But um just wanted to get this in front of you early so that you know if you had any specific input or any follow-up items uh that we would of course take those into consideration as we move forward. Thank you, President Nash. Um I I've got maybe I'm missing something in in the past couple of days that's certainly possible. Um in my backup, I have the um brainstorm tenant protections, the committee brainstorm tenant protections, and then I have like just this list of um the the website and what the website will entail. That's all that that is the whole backup on this, correct? Okay, thank you. Yep, you got it. Um I have just uh I personally have a couple of questions. I'm gonna let my colleague go first and then okay, thank you. Um so I I see the lease requirements and the tenant protection, which is absolutely important. But as we've noted, we part of the reason we're looking at this is because of what we see coming down from higher levels of government. And I think that it is just as important to protect the um landlords who are um the idea is not to say, okay, well, this renter can stay in this property for free for three months because you know, because that helps nobody. It just doesn't. Um we want to protect the renter as well as the owner of the property so that they can continue to move forward in the ways that that they're meant. And the way I read this, I don't see that noted here that that we're talking about protecting the unit as well as the person who's living in the unit. Does that make sense? I think that's a really good observation. I will say that the attorney general's information, which is where we would get all of this information from and just sort of make sure it's readily available, does do a really nice job of that balance of making sure. So uh I will send that document.
openpublica.com