If we're not ready in the back, let me know.

Okay.

You got it?

Call to order the meetings of the housing, health and education committee.

We'll start with the Pledge of Legions.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all.

We are Council Member McShane should be joining us momentarily.

And we will turn the um until we have a third, I guess Derek, you and I can approve the minutes.

The minutes of July 17th.

So move.

Second.

Those in favor?

Okay.

That's good.

Okay, so the first discussion is on the moderately priced dwelling unit funds utilization.

I believe we have President Nash and Stuart Campbell here to do the presentation.

I'm going to turn it over to them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we have three items that are all pretty dense in detail and in thought process.

And I want to compliment Clara.

She put together a heck of a uh memo that sort of outlines the MPDU program, the history of the program, how we've gotten to where we are.

Uh, and I'll just also draw your attention, and I appreciate Clara for you including this in the backup.

All the way, so it's a thirteen-page backup document, and at the on the thirteenth page, we have a balance sheet, and we're going to get to that.

But we always get questions about that.

So I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that it was available online.

It was also meant to provide some history and some information to them so that as we continue this conversation, we don't miss a beat.

Sort of why it exists, and Stuart certainly is the uh the expert here and can correct me, back me up, or or and certainly at his piece.

Initially, the creation of the MPDU in Lou of program, and MPD, we're gonna throw around that that's moderately price-dwelling unit.

Initially, that was part of a movement, and I want to say it was in the nineties, Stuart, but it might have been earlier, where we had sort of this revelation that we had to use zoning to be more inclusionary.

So you hear this term called inclusionary zoning.

And it was this concept that we acknowledge as a and it's not just us.

If you look around the country, this was happening all over the country.

We acknowledge that left to our own devices, governments were using zoning to be exclusionary, right?

So we were having neighborhoods over here and neighborhoods over here that you know didn't resemble each other in terms of income and needs and all that, and and even just how they looked.

And you see you see how that's evolved, right?

You see some you know, purely single family neighborhoods, you see, you know, and it's kind of been there was this sort of revelation that we needed to do more to bring everybody together.

It's a mass generalization, but that's that's really what the inclusionary zoning uh is about.

And I think that's important for the context of the conversation because there's been a lot of talk about um price appropriate housing, affordable housing, housing at all levels of uh of affordability, and the the the use is always zoning, right?

It always comes back to how as a government we're using our laws to to basically um influence the market and and to move the market and in and move that supply chain accordingly.

So the MPDU of program, or excuse me, the MPDU program looks different for many different jurisdictions, but a lot of jurisdictions have them.

And the good thing about that is it provides us with information to gather, and Clara's done an excellent job of trying to get this in the most succinct way.

It's still a 13-page document to try to explain um not just what we do as a city, but also what other jurisdictions have done, what uh and and kind of the genesis of the program.

I'll just say that there have been changes since the beginning of the creation of the program.

There have been changes, and Clara's outlined those changes with any legislative action.

You don't set it and forget it, you come back and you keep revisiting it.

I think there's universal agreement that the current MPD, well, let me back up.

I think I've heard universal agreement that the current MPDUF program deserves a look.

And I think that one of the indicators that we have, um, just like with our AD, yes, our ADU ordinance that we're gonna discuss later, our accessory dwelling ordinance, you know, we have data that suggests that we need to make changes, right?

So the the most glaring change here with the MPDU in Lua or MPDU program, excuse me, is that we aren't ever seeing construction of units.

We always see the opt to purchase.

That is a great data point to suggest that we need to make a change and what those and those changes are, I believe what uh are on the table for discussion, as well as, and I always I always try to be very front up front about this, the option to have in lieu in the first place.

That's always an option, that's always something that we should discuss as a policy matter, the benefits of having it, the benefits of taking it away, all on the table.

So with that said, um we are not, you'll see in your backup, there's not a there's not a draft ordinance of anything.

This is the first conversation we've had uh since we've changed sort of the structure and and like I said, we've certainly had many conversations.

But currently, as it is constructed, we have in and in lieu of program, we have which essentially means that when developers are purchasing and building, or excuse me, when they're building and developing uh neighborhoods, they have the option to buy out of of constructing affordable housing.

And that program has yielded a certain amount of money, and we've had a lot of discussions this term about the use of that money, getting the money out the door.

Um, and I I know Stuart's here and he'll have thoughts on that as well.

But that's that's kind of been where we've we've centered our conversations is the existence of the fund and what do we need to do, which in itself is a policy discussion.

I don't want to belittle that either, that the these are all equally relevant, important discussions to have, because I think one of the major criticisms of having the in-loup of program has been that we're not getting the money out fast enough to spur on the things that we said we were we wanted to do.

Um also a policy discussion.

What I would suggest to this committee, given the density of the memo that was uh provided, and given the sort of multiple facets of the conversation, I would suggest that it might be uh helpful to prioritize how we want to have the conversation in terms of what we want to prioritize.

Do we want to prioritize you know the getting it rid of all together conversation before we talk about what do we do with the four point you know four million dollars that we have, right?

So we we have they're different, they're different but linked conversations, and I think from a committee perspective, you may want to rank so we can have the appropriate folks in the room.

Um so that's sort of step one, I think, uh, in terms of having the conversation and making sure that we're moving forward in a deliberate way.

Um I'll stop talking.

I I don't think there's anything else.

I'm just making sure uh yes.

And before um, Clara, I'm gonna put you on the spot just for a minute.

We had asked the county for an update, just I think because it's relevant to the entire conversation.

We'd asked the county for an update regarding the housing study that the count that the city is paying for alongside the county as a partner.

Um there was email traffic.

Did we did we get an update that was substantive that you can share?

Um sorry.

I spoke to Victoria Venable.

She said that all I think your mic isn't on.

It isn't it doesn't sound like well.

Sorry.

Um Victoria Venable, um, the with the uh county executive's office said that all the updated information is available online.

There is a public forum to discuss it tonight.

Um the only additional information she could offer beyond that um was that it's expected to be completed on time.

I I I would just like to speak on that for one minute.

Um so the the city is literally paying for half of this study, and there is an event tonight happening during our regular public hearing.

Um I I feel like the city has been left out of this conversation, completely left out of this conversation in what is supposed to be a joint study.

So I'm just gonna put out there, as I so often do, that city resident tax dollars, in addition to their county resident tax dollars, are again paying for something that they are not able to um talk about as much as the rest of the county.

That's just wrong.

That's just wrong.

And we need in the future, um, when we have memorandums with the county, we either do it together or they can pay for it themselves.

That's my opinion.

Um I I am honestly I'm gonna use the word disgusted.

I'm disgusted by this because it's not the first conversation we've had on this particular study.

It's not the first request that we've made on this particular study.

And city taxpayers, you are paying for half of this study.

I think the county needs to really start paying attention to the city.

And we let we let them when we asked for this update, we did let them know that it was in the context of this meeting that we were gonna have this discussion.

So we will take those comments back and we will continue to strive to get updates.

I do realize that you're active that we had those conversations, and unfortunately the answers were in my opinion, um, completely unacceptable.

But they are the answers.

We do not run the county government, city taxpayers though, you do.

You do.

So just remember that in the future.

So just while we're in the status of providing statuses, uh, we did provide an updated uh work plan document on as part of our document as part of our backup as well.

So just so you know that you have that uh if you ever need to reference that and what we're working through.

Um Stuart, I want to turn it over to you to give you an opportunity to introduce yourself and correct me or add to whatever we whatever you want to talk about.

Sure, good morning, uh Stuart Campbell, director of the city's Department of Housing and Human Services.

Um I really don't have a lot to add.

I think we you know, certainly don't have any disagreements with your observations, and um I I think the memo that Clara did is is excellent and very thorough.

Um I do want to just uh I'm mainly here for a resource as a resource.

Happy to join the discussion and answer any questions.

I would like us to just keep in mind as we are discussing things that um there's no single bullet solution for affordable housing, the MPDU program, SROs, ADUs, they're all part of a of tools in the toolbox.

Um so uh I think they're all worth discussing.

Um but it's also important to keep in mind that not a one single strategy will not solve the problem completely.

Thank you for that.

So I want to make sure that we have time to get to the other items as well.

The MPDU program.

We have several policy questions to answer.

Right.

Uh we do have a sizable amount that's been collected.

Um we did we did have last year uh significant action getting money out the door.

Um so this is a this is something that just has to be programmed to be revisited over and over again because if the program continues to exist, uh we do have you know 4.6 roughly uh dollars available.

So those dollars are available, and we would like to probably schedule a conversation to talk about how those have been expended in the past and some options for expending them in the future.

So if you're amenable to that, we can uh does that sound good?

Okay.

So that would be the next step.

So yes, we absolutely need to have that conversation.

Um Vice President Shaffleford, I'd like us all to also to have a conversation about um so the original question is fee and loo keep or get rid of um we changed this.

I I believe you were the one who moved this forward in in the fall.

Um it's really I say fall, goodness, it's almost fall again.

Um so it's not even been in place.

The change has not even been in place for a year.

Do we know the changes?

Um what have there been huge changes and what has come in compared to the past?

And in addition to that, um moderately priced dwelling.

So I think it was at the early odds that actually we put this in place.

Um I I think we need you we keep talking about renting and all of this stuff that we get, which I think at this point is appropriate, but let's remember that moderately priced dwelling units were put in place as a purchase, right?

They were put in place for people to be able to purchase homes.

Um and we have come many different directions since then.

So I would like to have a little conversation on that before we move forward to other things.

It's one of those um, it's just it's one of those issues I think we need to figure out first, and then on to the next.

And to that end, because I'm I know we have a lot of conversation, and there's always this conversation of whether this let developers just build them and not take any fee in lieu of.

So Stuart, in your experience, and I probably should ask Claire this and I had looked at this at various places.

In your experience jurisdictions that don't just have the the units built, how does that work?

How's that working?

Have you any kind of any almost anecdotal data?

But I I haven't seen a comparison between jurisdictions that simply have an MPD program with no fee and lieu and those that do.

Um to the best of my recollection, the programs in the region all have some sort of a fee and lieu or um option.

So I'm not I'm not sure.

Um I'd have to look into that and and come up with a comparison, and I'm happy to do that.

No, I appreciate that because that's that's always the not only use the word I think I think it's a relevant conversation, but sometimes the public just says, why don't you just let developers build that way the units are there?

As opposed to collecting the fee.

But the other part about collecting the fee is it allows the city the flexibility to be to be nimble enough to help support a vast array of housing and not just and not just people put people in bond because if you you purchase a home also comes utilities, also comes water, also comes other mechanisms that come along with that.

And particularly if if the whole goal is to price appropriate housing or to keep people in our housing houses is not enough to get you into one, but you can't stay in there.

Absolutely.

Yeah, you need to be able, I mean, and that's when anyone buys a house, regardless of whether or not it's an MPDU or uh market rate, they do have to go through a credit check.

They you know they have to be uh uh uh uh approved by a bank or a lender of some sort.

Um so uh that's the best way that we know today to be able to do that, basically.

Um they verify income assets, all of those things.

And and to my colleagues um comment and question previously before it was just a base of 16.5.

So it made it made no difference in terms of the size of square footage.

It was all the same three thousand thirty-five hundred, twelve hundred, sixteen five across the board.

Well, that's changed, and I think to that to that end, yeah.

What does that look like in terms of from a financial component?

Well, I would say a couple things.

One, um uh it as Chair Krisbnchek mentioned, it's uh it's been a very brief time since that was changed, and um uh properties that were our developments that were already in the pipeline were grandfathered in.

So given that properties take uh you know multiple years to be planned before they even come to planning and all that, we've only seen two developments in the past year be uh assessed a fee.

And they they have both paid the MPDUP fee instead of of uh offering units, but I I would say that it is really too soon to know what kind of an impact the changes will ultimately have.

Um I'm gonna be sitting down uh with Gabrielle in a couple weeks to to look at all of that, look at the amounts.

We're gonna compare the um the average fee that we received under the 16.5 and compared to the very small but uh sample that we have just to start looking at that.

So we will be tracking it for sure.

And if I could also address your question about whether or not uh MPDUs are just for sale or rent under the oh I'm sorry.

No, no, I'm I that was it wasn't a question.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was here.

Uh sure uh when when the MPDU was put in place.

It was put in place for sales.

It was now whether we've changed that over the years, sure, there is a huge question, right?

Yeah.

But and so much in in lieu money has been um gathered and then spent in various ways, you know.

Certainly parts of that um from what I see, most of that is in um protecting people from being out on the streets, which absolutely we should be doing.

And there's I'm not arguing that point at all.

Not actually arguing any of this.

I'm just saying that moderately priced dwelling unit ordinance itself was put in place so that people could own a house in the middle of other houses that were maybe more expensive.

And part of the conversations that we had back then were so this house will be built, look the same as other houses in the neighborhood, but maybe you know the the things that are in it aren't maybe not top of the line, or you know, just just enough less expensive that um a person can pay, you know, they'll they'll pay less money for that home.

That's what it was put in place for, and we can go back and watch all those meetings.

I think Jim Schmerzel was part of numerous meetings having that conversation.

So I just want to be clear um that that things change through the years, and that's fine, that's all good.

We're we're trying to um cover what is a problem today, which may not have been a problem ten years ago, right?

Affordable housing here in Frederick has been a problem for years, but has not been the issue that we're talking about until about the past 10 years.

Um really in the past five or so, six or so, have made that go completely nuts.

Um having I I want to have the conversation about first conversation that was mentioned.

Fee and new, yes or no.

Second conversation, when we're using the funds, should we have a percentage that is specifically for home ownership?

And the rest of it for other types of affordable housing.

Um I I think those are important conversations to have a lot of.

And they certainly are.

I was just thinking in terms of how and looking, I know I know we we have some housing advocates in the room, and I'm sure housing advocates are gonna be watching how along with it, how we can support them.

I know we've had these various conversations throughout this um this year.

And I know we've already entered into some agreements with some with some um those persons.

Because one of the things I think is important to note, and the city should never we don't build houses, you know, should we be in the development business.

And so those advocates, those organizations who are already doing that, how can we support them?

And how can we also leverage leverage these dollars to do that to to get units to build units to build housing as quickly as we can, and particularly for those or support those who who just need some support in terms of financial financially.

Also to Council President, to your point is also in terms of I know we're gonna talk about this later, this is a zoning component as well.

I think it was is important in this conversation.

Absolutely.

In terms of how we allocate these dollars.

Yeah.

So to the point, I guess about whether the fee in lieu of Simon, I don't I'm not saying we we don't we don't have enough data right now to say this dismiss the fee and lieu of so as of right now, I would be in favor of keeping keeping the keeping the fee.

Keeping the fee in place until such as we mentioned, until we get this this a small sample size of information of the policy change that we see have occurred, and then there's no data in terms of the effectiveness of just dismissing that altogether.

So it's kind of like if we if we would do that, we're do we're not creating something brand new, but then what is the repercussions of that of us just doing it all the way all the way together?

Now I don't know, and I don't know if the other policy part of it is like a percentage, I mean I mean percentages because we didn't write a policy like that of okay, we're gonna do never never mind.

I was just thinking like we're gonna we're gonna do some some some some developers have to do it and some don't.

And I don't know how policy-wise that would even occur, if that makes sense.

You're you're talking about a d um development incentive, basically.

So if we wanted to do different considerations for different types of housing stock, if if someone was building uh senior housing, do they still need to and we haven't had that conversation?

So I can add that in terms of and and and to that end, council president uh of that having that conversation, how what would we want to center in on on that, such as you mentioned?

You didn't mention senior housing or development of a certain size.

Vice President Shockford that I I heard you that that you believe we should keep the fee and loo and that um the change, we don't have enough information yet to even have conversation about changing the change, so we need to keep moving forward.

Is that what I heard?

Well well, yes, and the repercussions such as such as we mentioned before.

If if if if we just if we just undo the undo the policy, we just go in a different direction and say, you know, we're going to drop the fee in lieu of, and we're just gonna have the you know, developers just build the you build the units, and that's the way it is.

What are the repercussions such as we mentioned before about credit checks about water, about utilities, about all the other mechanisms from financial component that enters into that equation.

And the city doesn't have any flexibility to really support that.

I know we have other funds, but now we're talking about now moving that, extracting that, and moving that all over the place.

Right now we need to have some flexibility.

I think the the question is, of course, we have not spent the money maybe with the way the I don't I don't know, and I don't want to dismiss terms of public perception or public comment.

I think they're that's important and relevant.

But at the same time, the state just can't toss money out just to toss it out for the sake of saying we're just moving money out because we have this fund.

We have to be doing it expeditionally, but I think we also have to do it wisely as well.

Yes.

I I think maybe I just wanted to be sure that I was was uh repeating what I heard so that I could either concur or disagree.

And I I believe again that um the what what you're saying is policy-wise for now, keep the fee and lie, keep what we put together not long enough ago to really know the changes, um, and move forward with conversation about the funds and how those funds get spent, correct?

Along with other policies.

Along with other yes, other policy policies possible.

I uh what I'm saying is I don't think right now just diminished the fee because that kind of cuts our hands off, so to speak.

That that that limits us in terms of any anything else to do.

And I'd rather be as flexible and nimble as possible, and that option is still on the table.

That doesn't mean that we can't require other things along with that, but if we just if we just say no fee, we're down this path.

Slowly down this path.

Right.

And again, as a policy discussion, um I agree with you.

I I think that um the fee and lieu is the appropriate way to move forward at this point.

I don't I'm I'm not ready to make a decision to remove the fee and lieu just yet.

I think the change is not old enough for us to know whether it would be best to change again.

I it's you know, I tell people government does move slowly, I understand that, but we are supposed to be very careful.

Vice President, I believe, as as as you noted, we're careful about how we spend the money.

It should not be frivolous.

So I agree with all that you said.

Um, and and so again, I'm just trying to get a consensus so that staff knows where to move forward.

Yeah, right.

So that part of it, I think we are good.

Um, Councilmember McShane, did you have anything to add to that?

You got the beginning of the meeting, and uh was able to join remotely as been uh able to listen to the conversation.

I think those are some good points.

It does bring to my mind though that the fee in blue similar to some other programs and structures that we have merit, but is only ever as valuable as the way that we those dollars, and we have spent many over the last eight years in priority to utilize those dollars and invest those dollars into our community and criticizing it times.

You mean we were not effectively getting that money out.

So money money is a great answer and a great idea to achieve your goals.

If it's not, then you might as well let people keep their money.

So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the fee and lie option, so long as it is effectively and efficiently invested into the community union projects.

We've done some good things moving forward, but I think that's really the key point for us to keep in mind, and I don't want to continue a fee-in-loo option if the city does not productly expend those offers, then we're not actually accomplishing anything.

So I think that's that's so crucial for us to move forward.

And council member, to that point, I think Stuart, this is where your experience and then from leadership in terms of a departmental component is important of us working together or some type of strategic plan around this.

To your point, Councilman McShane.

I don't think we previously before we talked about this.

We didn't necessarily have I won't use the word the information in the city expertise, direct involvement in regards to someone assigned to this.

We were we were kind of just we had this money and we were kind of just having these various conversations, but there was no resource for us to really hone in on this.

And your experience and background, I think is valuable.

I think it's important for us as a council to state our um urgency to my colleagues' point of developing a plan so that when opportunities are available for us to do so to use these dollars, as opposed to us just kind of waiting around.

And the other part about it is I don't know, council member to your saying to your comment, how much we do we facilitate what I mean by that is how much do we facilitate in terms of um asking developers or partying with developers around some of the some of the concerns around around housing, as we well know.

And I think the other part about is this interesting conundrum about housing is infrastructure, which we have a conversation about is right we all we all recognize we all recognize that there is a housing shortage, which means that units have to be built.

Right, but the other part about it is you have the public pushback of well, we're developing too fast.

And so it's an interesting, it's an interesting conundrum to have.

Like you you gotta build a units in order for us to make a make a dent in this this particular issue because older housing stock when new houses start comes older housing stock becomes more quote unquote affordable.

So there's a there's a whole cycle of conversation that happens around this, and how do we how do we convey to a to a public about everybody we all ignorance that there's a housing crisis, a housing shortage, a housing situation, and at the same time, well, Frank's growing too fast or building too much.

Stop building.

Well, there's a housing chores, but stop building.

Yeah, I I think we're certainly hearing a lot of that.

I think for for this conversation, though, um what I want to ensure that we're doing is is providing staff the information that they need to be able to move us forward with what we need.

And what I am hearing again is um we are not ready to remove the fee and lie, but we are concerned about the funds and how they're being spent, and different ones of us may be concerned in different ways, but we are absolutely concerned with those funds.

So, President Nash, to your question at the beginning.

What is the most like what order do we want to do things in?

I would for me and what I'm hearing is we have funds.

We need to have conversations on how to get them spent, on how to get them out the door, so we actually are helping the affordable housing issue in the best way that we can.

Is that do my colleagues agree with that?

It's a yes, that's what we want to do.

Yes.

And I'm if I may, madam chair, it may be also appropriate to then ask for those that we recently gave funds.

We allocated those funds to give us an update.

That was something that we're fabulous.

Thank you.

Yes, because I know that you know, when I look at where we've given funds, while this one Habitat for Humanity, the Westall Saints Project, I believe that's rentals.

Umitat for humanity projects are actually home ownership.

And so, you know, in my mind, again, that is putting the fund where it was originally supposed to go.

Well, what's all things we too much is uh home ownership on Westall St.

West I'll say that's home ownership.

It is home, yeah.

And and so you know, I'm I'm thrilled at I don't expect that the city is going to do it, but we certainly have partners that do it.

Let's help them do it in the city.

Um does that help staff know where to move next.

I mean, that's really what I'm just trying to get.

I'm trying to to direct that yes, uh uh it does.

Okay from my perspective.

Fabulous.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna say also this um this overview that we have this memo and overview.

Thank you.

This is amazing.

Uh the information that is in this is absolutely fabulous.

Um, and that's the type of information that we need as we're moving into the future.

I also love that we can get into this and literally go to those other um places to see uh, you know.

We can we can see the actual verbiage instead of just you know having something written, and because I like to look at the actual wording, because again, I might read it one way and you might read it a different way, and somebody else might read it a different way.

That's why we have judges.

So anyway, um and then the the next question I think is is going to be a generalized question about the MPDU funds, and do we want to have a conversation about percentages spent on certain things?

Or do we just want to wait until staff comes and gives us a generalized idea of how everything is being spent and what we need to look forward to?

Yeah, that probably would be appropriate to to wait.

Um have staff come forward with their the presentations by the people that we've given money to great.

Thank you.

So we're not gonna have the conversation today about the specific amount of money that will, however, be very soon in the pipeline.

Um once we have those presentations and can have that conversation.

And if I may also, we will make sure now that we have sort of a sketch of uh things that we're gonna be specifics that we're gonna be talking about.

We'll make sure that we get that information out to the development community, both the for-profit, nonprofit, we'll make sure that folks know that these conversations they can get in.

Yeah, very very important.

Thank you.

Like you want to take public comment before we um yeah, I think that we probably want the I understand we're in a a little bit of a rush.

Um so I'm council member, I'm Vice President Shackofer does need to leave for a medical issue.

So we are um I'm gonna go ahead and see if if we could if anybody has public comment just on the moderately priced dwelling unit issue.

Um again three minutes or less.

And thank you, Clara.

That's so much easier than having to move people around.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Schmersal.

Hello.

Am I on?

Thank you.

Um just one I think you're on the right track.

The the uh agenda item today was how to use the funds, but it's now uh I'm sorry, it's not coming through.

What I heard is we're on the right track.

How you use the funds is the question.

Maybe stand up.

I think you just have to be really close.

Uncomfortably close.

Okay.

Thank you.

Closer.

Okay.

There you go.

All right.

I sent uh yes, you three an email with information that Katie Barkdahl gave me, which is spreadsheets that shows where the money came from and how it's supposed to go out since inception.

And I think it's very helpful.

It kind of augments what uh Mr.

Campbell has given you in his staff report.

But it's quite interesting.

Uh the second thing is the MPDU does apply to both rental and um, you know, and you are 100% correct, uh Alderman's uncheck.

The concept is not to have them stigmatized and separated, but in a hundred-unit uh apartment complex, uh 12.5 of those 12 and 13 of those units, you know, half a unit.

13 of those units are gonna be for low people who have uh a limited income and rented at a no higher than set price.

And those shouldn't be in the fifth building over in the corner, they should be spread out throughout the thing.

Same with for sale, you know, a developer has to provide an 100-unit subdivision have to provide 13 of his units to people who are income eligible, and um and it should be forever, you know.

There should be uh a trail for that.

Yes.

As I see it, there's two ways to use the fee.

And if you want to favor uh ownership, then I think what that would the easy way, which would be for rentals, would be to just give funds to organizations, your own housing authority or have it, you know, uh for you know, community living or advocates for homeless families and say here, use this money, secure a unit and rent forever to an income eligible person.

That's rental, but it's somewhat simple.

You know, the more complex is to establish some sort of second loan program like the city used to have sold on Frederick or something like that, even set up a CDFI, which is called uh uh community uh development financial institution, and like a small lending organization that can help people buy that gives people the ability to buy a unit here, there, everywhere they want.

And that's the whole concept of getting people spread out, you know, lower income people spread out in incorporated into the community.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Mary Ellen, did you?

Again, I know that it feels like it's uncomfortably close, but that's the only way it works.

Good morning.

Um Mary Alan Mitchell, CEO of Housing Frederick.

Um, I just wanted to comment and follow up with the discussion.

There is a um entity that is not here to add their feedback.

Um since the fee and lo program has been put in place here for MPDUs, you've obviously had developers who have paid the fee instead of building our organization is heavily engaged in the affordable housing um conversations and advocacy programs going on across the county.

I would implore you to bring those folks to the table and to ask them why they are paying the fee in lieu instead of building.

Um the short answer is it's not just the cost of building the actual home.

Um you referenced earlier the the five years or so from conception of a community to people moving in, and it's all those additional carry costs.

So for those who are listening that aren't really thinking about it's not just the cost of the lumber and the piping and the roofing and the labor cost to get a house built.

It's the the five years of costs that are also built into each house.

I think you're gonna find that the developers um because of things that are going on at the federal level, uh the prices, the inflation, the things that we've seen since COVID, um, the imports that we have to do for a lot of the building products, that the margin of profit for the developers has shrunk dramatically.

Um we were recently at a uh presentation where before you even build a tiny home, which I know a lot of people think is the answer, maybe for an affordable housing option.

Before you even build a tiny home, you are paying 50,000 to prep the land and go through all the fees and all the other things that every other builder has to do.

So it may seem because it's smaller that it would be an affordable option, but there are costs that are just not told to the public.

Um I would also say the last thing as you discuss this.

We do have a plethora of thought leaders of people who have talked about the MPDU.

We have our own county here, which has taken the fee and loo funds and multiplied all of those dollars and built far more than 12.5% of affordable housing in communities by um using other using it and combining it with other funds to build um communities here.

So instead of 12.5 out of 100 homes, um they're building communities that are you know 60 homes or 50 rental units and things, so that there is some um sense in looking at those programs and how they've been working here in our area.

Thank you.

Peter Brem, a resident of district three.

Uh understanding that the Frederick Housing Coalition and other experts uh should be part of this conversation.

It's been suggested to me that perhaps we think about increasing the in LU fee so that it covers more of the cost of actually building a unit.

So again, that that may be a terrible idea, but I think it warrants investigation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, thank you.

Um thank you for being here, um, Vice President.

Good luck.

Um, so I I'm gonna agree with uh most of what has been stated by the public, those are certainly issues, certainly the cost raising the fee is always a discussion.

Um we did just raise that fee, and part of the discussion is we haven't really had time to see how that's affected things just yet.

So I think that's one of the things that we've decided to do, maybe, but a little bit later.

Um can somebody explain to me when we talk about the fee in lieu.

I I realize the the cost of building a home is not just the cost of the lumber and the brick and the all of that.

But is the fee in lieu not have we not considered the fact that there are carry costs?

Because if we haven't considered that, and that is not part of what we charge as a fee and lie, that goes to both of the the last two comments is are we really charging the right amount?

Again, something we don't just know yet, and are gonna hold off and have discussions on, but I think it's a really good point.

The cost of the carrying costs of building are part of the costs of building.

That's just real.

The the charge for lines coming into the home, the charge for development of the parcel, those are all costs of building, and I want to ensure that we are considering all costs of building, not just what a faucet costs in a house, right?

So thank you everybody for your um comments and discussion.

Are we good?

Do you all know where we're moving with this?

Okay, terrific.

Let's move then to um SROs, single room occupancy.

Um, I'm gonna I'm actually before we have the presentation, I'm I'm just gonna um have say a few words on this.

So I've been um sitting in the seat off and on for a little bit, and certainly SROs have been discussed numerous times in the past.

Um there are people who are very concerned about single room occupancies and the fact that we have a couple that aren't necessarily um legal.

Um SROs are not supposed to be permitted in the city right now.

However, um I I think as we have this conversation, I want to be very careful as to what we require for an SRO.

I live in a home with two other women.

It's a relatively, it's not a giant house, 1600 square feet.

We do just fine.

Um, you know, we're friends with it it is affordable housing for old for older women.

That's my that's my house.

I'm the I'm the oldest in the house.

So um it works great.

So I think that some concerns that we've had in the past, we certainly at one point in time, um single room occupancy discussion, actually um was a huge point in one of the elections that I've been involved in.

And I just I think that we need to have this conversation um differently than that conversation.

Um I think that we need to have it with respect and with understanding that there are certain things that are gonna be required as part of an SRO.

So I'm gonna turn it over to staff.

Thank you.

And President Nash, thank you.

Sure.

So as we proceed talking about SROs, single room occupancy, I think there's a level set in terms of what we're talking about and how it interplays with our current housing stock.

There are two ways to look at how we want to move forward.

One, we have we have the potential to create to create a you a new use in our zoning for single room occupancy at market rate.

And I think this is important because Alderman McCoy Councilmember McShane, when I get tired, I go back to Alderman.

It's kind of funny.

Um council member McShane has talked about how we'd like to move forward.

We talk about the concept of what will the development community, how will they respond to make sure that the policies that we're passing are actually yielding units.

So there is the concept of single room occupancy housing at market rate, acknowledging that even though it is at market rate, it is still less expensive than constructing a standalone apartment, a traditional garden style apartment, et cetera.

Then separately we have the concept of SROs that are used to provide a continuum of housing from homelessness with other supportive uh measures and considerations.

And I think it's important that we, you know, a lot of a lot of the considerations for how they're built will look the same in terms of you know, considerations for parking and whatnot.

But they're going to be different developer incentives.

There's going to be different discussions we want to have about services and proximity to services.

Those are those are things that we'll need to consider when we're having the conversation.

So I just wanted to start there because I think sometimes it gets it gets confusing because you know most of the recent conversation about SROs nationally has been about repurposing old buildings, old hotels to provide more permanent support of and and from our research, we see the conversations about market rate SROs has generally lived in bigger cities that can support a lot more of this of this type of housing.

And I am not I'm I'm very passionate about SROs for both for both uses, both at market rate, and I think I think it's a way forward, but I just want to make sure that when you look at sort of these test cases, it can get challenging because a lot of the a lot of the published information is only about the uh use of SRO supportive housing continuum out of homelessness.

So um, and for good right for good measure, uh, because it is such a powerful tool.

But as you mentioned, council uh madam chair, the use of SROs is currently kind of happening, right?

You see that in informal ways.

And I think it would be my opinion that we would be foolish to not consider ways to incentivize that development um and and those options available too.

I think it would it would, there's a lot of applications, especially as we look at infill, right?

So I I also would love love to see us as part of this conversation.

Let's let's not just talk about SROs as um so we know that that a single room occupancy may be more affordable as a place to stay, but that doesn't mean it's more affordable in general.

So I think we need to talk about affordability in general.

I may be able to pay the rent on an SRO, but the fact is I don't have a kitchen, and then that means that my food is not I'm gonna have to pay two and three and ten times as much to eat.

So I I just want to ensure that as we have these conversations on SROs, we're not so fixated on this is the cost of housing, but we're generalizing things as this is the affordability in general, and this is how we can help that.

Um ensuring that there are requirements in place that provide um access to things like kitchens, right?

So um I just want to be sure that we're doing that all at the same time.

Again, affordability, not just affordability of a room.

Uh I absolutely agree with that.

And um it's a consideration that I always uh include whenever I'm discussing or thinking about different solutions, and um I'm that's one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of tiny homes, because they tend to be placed uh out in you know, the outskirts, away from services, some don't have plumbing or electricity, and so um, and as Mary Ellen pointed out, they uh uh end up being almost as costly as just building a house.

So um but um I again to this morning I'm primarily here uh as a resource.

I do have a couple thoughts.

Um I I am not as familiar with SROs at market rate.

Most of my focus has always been on lower income populations, and so um uh I do agree though with uh your point, Madam Chair, that you have to consider the location, you have to consider the amenities, does it include a kitchen?

Where what's the bathroom situation?

Um and then uh proximity to services is always something that I like to think about.

And transportation is it on a bus line, things like that.

So those are my considerations when I talk about SROs.

I think again, they're part of a tool in the toolbox and certainly a valid one uh to look at, and I'm happy to and Director Cable, when you're talking about um accessibility to services or or distance from services, um I'm going to note that uh I believe services need to move with the population, right?

So we should not have services all in one area, and that brings all of the people who need services to that area, which I think that we have done incorrectly in the past, and we've learned from that.

I mean there are laws because somebody did something, right?

And it didn't work.

Um there's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, admitting you made a mistake moving forward.

There's nothing wrong with with seeing society as very different today than it was even 20 years ago, goodness.

Um, you know, so again, we need to move.

I it's not possible to move as as quickly as um information technology is moving, but we do need to move in in such a way that we can provide those services, whether it be you need to be close here, or there has to be a way to get the service to this person there, right?

So I think we I would like to be very careful when we use the word proximity that we're using it in such a way that we understand that information travels through the ether, and that's where a lot of people get their information.

Um before we move on from the concept of supportive housing, I think it's also to be very upfront and start talking about what it will take as a government, so we can change our zoning for you know, some permanent supportive housing, and we can and certainly, you know, during the Obama years, there was a lot of effort to start to move towards that model, and there was the fun and the funding streams matched it, right?

But obviously we don't have that now.

And so I think we need to talk about what does a pilot project look like and what does it cost and be very upfront about as we move forward with the zoning that we'll need to do to build that project for permanent supportive, um, asking our nonprofit partners, asking, you know, just that data collection of it's gonna take an investment from us to make that construction happen.

And what does that investment look like?

I'm not, you know, obviously not prepared to speak, not the expert on that, but I did want to raise that as an issue because um uh for this specific case, fixing the zoning will not yield a result, right?

We have to also be honest about the fact that we're gonna have to invest.

So uh yes, that's absolutely the case.

However, let's not get ourselves mired in the permanent supportive housing.

Um permanent shared housing does not necessarily have to have to be supported.

Again, I live in a home with two other women.

Right.

It's two different tracks.

And we have our own spaces and then shared space.

And um I talk to developers all the time.

I'm like, this is what you should be doing, because it provides camaraderie.

It provides there's just it's healthier, um, and it's been proven to be healthier um than for people who are just living alone and lonely.

Not saying that there aren't people who prefer to live alone because that's absolutely the case also.

But let's not get in the um trough of permanent supportive housing only.

SROs, I think can be both.

They they can provide a number of different things.

So as we're discussing them, the zoning certainly has to be a conversation.

Whether or not supportive services are needed, has to be part of the conversation.

I mean, again, we need to have a number of different conversations on this.

We have actually had um legal SROs for a very long time for our disabled community, right?

We have homes that numerous um adult disabled people live in, and they live there with people helping, which is fabulous.

It just it's it's it gives them some independence, um yet it allows the family to know that they're being looked after.

So again, services, SROs, and then services and SROs, but not just.

So a good segue there would be that in your backup, we provided, and we're not gonna go over this in detail, but I wanted to just draw attention because the there's a document that is labeled a task report, a task force report, and obviously we're not Minnesota, but this is relatively recent.

This is probably the best comprehensive document I've seen in terms of it's long, it's 32 pages, but I just wanted to draw attention and it sort of explained the rationale for why I included this, why we included this.

It provides the background information for what we you know, what is an SRO, etc.

But but more importantly, it provides a sort of roadmap to move forward and some some policy considerations.

So we've to this point we had, and it's been a it's been a minute, it was May that we had the conversation, the initial conversation about policy considerations and all the different things that we needed to think about.

If you look at that document, it provides additional information about um questions that ultimately we could put in like an RFI to the community, to the development community, to the nonprofit community that would say, you know, these are the considerations that the committee is making.

What what are your thoughts sort of things?

Um things like that.

And to your point, madam chair, it's it's really this the document is very heavily focused on moving people out of homelessness.

That was their that was their goal.

But there's a lot of overlap in terms of how do we use this as a housing tool.

So just wanted to draw attention to explain the rationale for why that was included.

Um we haven't let go of the conversation about zoning.

We're in the queue for staff, and this was a way to bridge the conversation while we were waiting for for staff to get back to us uh in terms of they they're working on the and we're gonna talk about that on the agenda as well, but the ADU uh rewrite, and so they asked that they put this behind that, and I said, okay, we will continue the conversation because as you know, we don't direct staff, so we're doing what we what we can with the resources we have.

Um I did, I I heard the eye roll from from down here.

So um, but in the meantime, I did uh with the assistance of chat GPT put together uh a draft.

And obviously, you know, before Clara and and Iris and uh our city attorney fall out of their chair in disgust at me for calling this a draft.

Um obviously it is not robust, but it is the the goal here is to start talking about the structure of what uh the the policy considerations that you need to make and uh how we're gonna move forward.

Um the zoning will ultimately be a text amendment.

We haven't we haven't read that across the record as an introduction yet, so I just wanted to also make sure you I was clear about where we were in that process.

But just very briefly, I'm gonna skip over the purpose that we don't need to go through the definitions, we don't need to go through um the the big questions that will be the most contentious will be where uh it's always where and it's always what we're gonna partner up.

So in terms or what we're going to include in terms of the elements of an SRO property.

And you you started that conversation in May.

Uh you started to talk about parking, you started talking about things like that.

But but that is gonna be that's gonna be the meat and potatoes of the controversy, and it will be if you read anything about SROs, they are controversial.

I don't want to at all downplay that.

Um I'll just say, you know, for the record, I live in Tasker's Chance in District One.

We uh the first thing one of the first things I did when I got elected for this term was I sent a letter to the Motel 8 asking them if they were gonna sell so that we can have something like this and very near so when I it's a very not my backyard thing that happens when we start talking about these, but like I would love to have it in my backyard.

So I'll I'll just say like um the the super eight or the motel, it would be a a great re repurpose of that property, but they weren't willing to sell to me at that point using using taxpayer dollars, of course.

Um but that's the kind of that that's the kind of conversation it's gonna be it's it's not going to be without its, and so we just want to make sure that we're making sure the public knows uh about what we're talking about and how we're talking about it, etc.

etc.

Um, and I don't want to downplay that, but um there are in the draft ordinance.

We tried, I tried to include, you know, we're gonna need to have the conversation.

Do we want are there by right?

Are there areas of the city where we think you know these um SRO communities should be uh be able to be built by right and that the zoning is included?

So you know, an institutional zoning might be inappropriate.

Um if the county wants to repurpose that uh Oak Street, whatever they're calling that now, um, if they wanted to repurpose that as a bunch of SROs, like do we want to let them just have that right?

And that's a conversation, right?

It's not I don't want to we have not had that conversation.

Um are there areas where we want to prohibit them?

That's another conversation.

So that might be the next sort of phase of this conversation about to be able to give staff some direction as far as the zoning and the applicability of where uh where SROs live.

Um obviously there's gonna be a lot of discussion about development standards, and that goes to your point about making sure like you know what how many bathrooms, except you know, like that's sort of what goes into and what how's how prescriptive we want to be?

Um my council member on the screen probably has a very different view than um how prescriptive we want to be versus not prescriptive at all.

So that's gonna be a really healthy debate that we're gonna need to have.

Um and probably we would need our development community in the room giving us some guidance there as well, right?

And then and I'll I'll promise I'll stop talking, but I just want to make sure I included all the relevant policy summaries here.

Um, you know, do we want them to be licensed using the rental license programming?

Do we want to have them be licensed at all?

Do we want to have them have a separate license?

That conversation needs to occur.

We haven't had that.

Uh are there inspections?

What what what would need to happen with an inspection?

So we need to have that discussion, not a simple one at all, and who does the inspections, right?

And do they need to exist at all?

And then of course, what incentives uh do we want to talk about?

And are there different levels of incentives for different attributes?

Uh affordability, of course, being one, but also location, etc.

Uh, could be all on the table.

So a lot of work, but we didn't want to I'll say this with love wait on staff to bring back just the zoning before we can start to have those policy conversations while we're waiting uh for those for that uh uh support.

So um we can take it in that order that I listed, or we can in not today, but you know, in subsequent we'll schedule those committee meetings if you'd like, or we can go a different direction.

But I didn't want to not uh one of the meetings we had, I promised a draft, and so uh I didn't want to not honor that draft that that promise, but certainly um do not want to presuppose that we've had the conversation because we have yeah.

Thank you.

Um council member McShane.

Thank you, colleagues, and I'm very excited to move forward with this.

I think it is wise to address each of the various components and policy considerations related to SROs.

It is a zoning change, but as uh council president Nash noted there's lots of other decisions that need to be made.

I think we should move forward with with those sorts of decisions in in conversation and uh reach consensus on this committee to be prepared uh for exactly what we're proposing to do to the benefit of our community.

I also hope for us to aspire toward the best policies to support people and families in our communities, and that's what we move forward with.

I hope for us to resist preemptively hedging against a yet unverbalized resistance.

I think we need to introduce the best policies for our community as we do on every issue.

If there are members of the community that want to come forward and push back on a housing model that would really provide great benefit to other people that live here, then they can come forward and they can push back on that and they can try to make that argument.

But I don't want us to make the argument in advance that no one's actually come to the room yet and said out loud.

So let's get it done for the best of our best interest of all of our people and and do something great.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member.

I I 100% agree with you.

I I my purpose at the at the beginning was merely to note what happened in the past, not to say that that was the best thing.

Um I also I guess there's a piece of me that um is a little confused, and and that has to do with um two people, four people can purchase a home with one bathroom and two bedrooms if they want to.

How's that really any different?

I I just don't know that it is.

Um permanent, it's different than permanent supportive housing, but is it really different than an SRO itself?

So again, I think there's a number of conversations that we need to have and and understand that these are happening, they have they happen all the time, and until um a property causes problems, nobody really cares about about SROs until and but that is true.

Like if you live next to a property that is, I don't know, forever throwing their compost into their backyard and therefore has rats and raccoons and stuff like that, you're gonna complain about that too, as well as you should, right?

I we don't need that stuff in the city.

So again, I um I tend to agree with councilmember McShane.

Um move forward with what's in the best interest of the city, and if there are people who want to argue against it, then we have that conversation when it comes forward.

Understood, and I will proceed with the sort of just we'll just start scheduling listing out where we where we're moving forward.

I'll just say, Madam Chair, that I think um if you lived the dream of Ben McShane and you were you took the postal service site that's on Patrick Street, and you created like an apartment style type where it was SROs, that's where it's different, right?

So you're absolutely right, right?

So absolutely and by the way, there is no active proposal for that.

Everybody calm down.

But I just wanted to say as an example, uh, that would be and how do we all the considerations of how do we and maybe we don't want to?

That's a consideration too.

But if we did want to, how would we incentivize that development?

Like what what considerations need to happen?

So sure.

Um, that's all on the on the table.

Did you want to take public comment before?

I do.

Yep.

Yes, please.

So is there any public comment on single room occupancy?

Yes, thank you.

Thanks, Clara.

Thank you.

Um again, my name is Jim Smursall.

I did send you an e-comment on this, and my first point is that there is already single room occupancy in the zone in the LMC in the definitions, but then it's not carry forward up into the matrix or anywhere else to give you guidance of you know where it's allowed or under what conditions allowed, special exception permitted by right.

I definitely think it should be in the zoning ordinance once you work this all through, but not a standalone ordinance.

Like the MPD is a standalone ordinance, not in the zoning ordinance or the LMC.

It's a standalone ordinance, and I think uh SRO should be within the zoning order.

Um I keep saying zoning ordinance and C LMC.

The second thing is I did think to myself, well, can you do this already?

Kind of like anyway, through just working with definitions as they are in the in the zoning ordinance, uh rooming house.

There's a thing called a tourist home.

But it was basically it it really blurred the distinction between use of a house as a residence and the use of a house for commercial lodging, you know.

And I I didn't send it to you, but I could, or you could look it up, but it's it's groundbreaking.

It it basically says almost any house in the city can be used as a motel room.

That this what it says, you know, because you have as um you have short-term lets that are sometimes underoccupied, many times just you know, you get the key through a passcode on your phone.

You don't even have to go place to pick up your key.

So it is uh it's a touchy subject.

I haven't personally heard any outcry about the the opening up of uh what were uh traditional residential neighborhoods to potentially commercial type activities through uh short-term lets, but there is a linkage there.

I think Gabrielle ought to be part of this discussion.

Uh and we should probably go through the zoning orders of the fine-tune comb and look at have we've correctly defined a rooming house.

I personally think rooming houses you gotta go through a special accept uh conditional use and you gotta limit yourself to two people, and that could be restrictive.

I mean, lots of people my parents talk about living in a rooming house during after the war and stuff like that.

So it is a a way to have affordable housing.

Maybe that's too restrictive.

So that could be another way of looking at uh another page to this whole book.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes.

Of course.

Hi, my name is Heather Goddard.

Um I live in Frederick City.

Um I just wanted to share a few thoughts of as this committee meeting has progressed, uh, from a personal standpoint throughout our lives.

We might be able to benefit and take advantage of the um savings, cost savings of having an SRO living option, college students, um, people who are single, uh, people who work a lot, people who don't like to cook.

There are lots of advantages to a SR living environment that I think it's important to make it an option and make it legal.

Um, yes, it does um exist and is already occurring.

Uh there's a benefit to legalizing a housing structure that does currently exist for people who fly under the the legal radar um to invite boarders into their homes for income.

Um, they might be afraid to call 911 for help if their living situation is exposed and they're afraid they're gonna get in trouble.

Um you just I think it's important to um keep in mind that when we make uh something that exists legal, you make people more um ex make it more uh possible for people to take advantage of uh help and services if they're not doing anything illegal.

So um as far as inspections, I know that when we have in certain inspections, uh photographs are acceptable.

So and then also if you have an in-house owner or resident house manager that does in my experience make for a more peaceful living situation and reduce the numbers of complaints.

Um you have some that person who is the homeowner um on the premises living on the premises, if you make that required, or at least make it uh possible for them to submit uh photos or some other uh documentation um in lieu of in an in physical in-person expect um inspection, it can save costs and just just something to think about as you think about the administration piece of how we're gonna regulate this this living situation.

Um and then also just an opportunity for um income and um to secure generational wealth.

If you build a source of income for, for example, anybody, but I'm thinking of women or people who stay at home who have kids in school who need a flexible schedule for their job, you know, this works, this situation works for them.

Um they can prepare meals for the their SRO occupants, can increase, like you say, social interaction, um, provide like that mental health um and then just support for uh group meals so that not everybody, every individual um resident of your city is making their own meal.

It just uh it allows people to kind of pull their resources, it makes makes things more efficient.

So I mean, I do think that although it seems like there seem to be a lot of barriers to and government stepping in to regulate something that is kind of informally already occurring and does occur, it also appears to me that there is a benefit to making this sort of change.

So thanks.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna go back to staff um and council president.

Do you have what you need to move forward with this?

Superb.

Okay.

We're gonna go to the um review of the accessory dwelling unit ordinance.

It's all you so Clara put together a fantastic document that's a summary document that provides where we've been, uh, sort of a summary of our current regulations, just to I think uh, and I also wanted to provide an update.

So we did read into the record that we were going to be submitting a text amendment that we were gonna be prepared preparing uh an application to that effect to go before the planning commission.

Uh we have a meeting upcoming with staff to work through the specifics of that.

Obviously, we have not there's sort of a cart horse situation, which is because we haven't as a council done that yet in terms of submitting our own text amendments, just as a reminder too that once the text amendment goes through the planning commission, it comes back to us, and then it will go through the land use committee.

So if if it seems like you know, we've got multiple committees touching, we do we have a lot of discussion about these text amendments.

Um so uh when the text amendment is prepared, the draft is prepared uh with Gabrielle's help, we will be back here to have the red line discussion of what we want to actually move forward.

So I don't want you know, there's no um there's still work to do.

Just I'll say it that way.

That being said, I think Claire did a great job of bullet point, I think the bullet points of the ADU ordinance and what is required.

I think does a really good job of highlighting what I would say are some of the considerations for this committee to continue if you want to continue that in the ADU ordinance or if you want it to change.

Um I'll say that we have heard if you recall in this committee we heard testimony from someone who wanted to um change the parking requirement.

That was something that came up, right?

And I would I also wrote down the consideration of home occupations in the ADUs.

Obviously, there's been conversation about home occupations.

Is that and I'm not supposing or one way or the other, but that might be something that we want to have a discussion about.

Um and then I'll just say I think the other conversation is do we as a city want to encourage the uh use of this ordinance and uh the encourage homeowners to use their properties for this purpose.

I think that's a policy discussion because and this is my own editorializing, but from what I can tell as a city, we permitted it, like we we passed the ordinance.

But how much work did we do to actually encourage homeowners to participate, right?

And so if I am a home, as we we do, we were blessed to be able to own a home.

I don't know that I would inherently know that this even exists, and I don't know that I would I would feel like when I read that I need to record a covenant uh to make sure that my ADU is following future regulations, that would be very intimidating to me, right?

It it doesn't need to be, but it if I didn't know anything about the process and I didn't know that would be a barrier for me to participate, I wouldn't I'd be like, uh I don't know if I want to do that.

That seems like a lot of work.

So I think that's another conversation we need to have as well.

Is as a city, do we want to uh encourage and if we are going to encourage, what does encouraging look like?

Um so that's what I've sketched out for us to kind of re-emerge ourselves in this conversation.

Um the conversations with Gabrielle and getting the uh text amendment ready will continue, but as those conversations are continuing, I want to be able to move forward with specifics that we've talked about in this committee about how to move forward.

So it's sort of like we're we're we're we're not letting our resources dictate our conversations.

How about that?

Is that a fair way to say that?

So that's where we're at.

More than fair way to say that, I believe.

Um I I'm going to let council member McShane um speak in just a second, but I want to note I have some serious concerns with parts of this conversation today.

Those concerns have to do with as we've discussed the fact that um we do not direct staff.

The council does not.

We have no ability whatsoever to direct staff.

And I um too often seeing things get held up in the planning department.

Um that's a problem for me.

I want to be very clear about that.

Um that's a problem.

And somehow as this group and the next group move forward, like something has to happen.

Something has be because so much of what the city council looks at and makes decisions on are in the land use um code, right?

And so the land management code really we affect that tremendously.

And for us not to have staff that is able to take a look at that and um work with us through it, you know.

You can only put legislation in place that is good when you have experts to speak to on what we have and what can be.

So um I'm I'm just gonna leave it at I'm very concerned about some of the comments that have been made today about planning staff and the ability or inability for them to move forward, especially considering we we did.

I mean we didn't choose to, but the mayor certainly chose to add yet another person to that staff this year, and we're the legislators.

We need to be able to um get some help with stuff, and I I feel like we're being um massively held back.

So I'm I'm just gonna be flat out as clear as I can possibly be, um, as I tend to be anyway.

So um councilmember McShane.

Do you have any comments on this?

Yes, another um another priority that I'm excited to move forward.

I think we took great steps a few years ago in creating this option for for ADUs uh across our city, you know.

We haven't seen a lot of a lot of action on this front.

We haven't seen many people moving forward.

I think you know, some of that is a lack of awareness.

Um, some of that is that as I always suspected, there's not really that many people that are inclined to do this, even if given the option.

It was never going to be something that swept across the city with dozens and dozens of homes in every neighborhood.

No.

Um I do think that some of the possible updates that need to be made to the to the ordinance, it's not that complicated.

And I think we can move forward if we need to make a little adjustment on parking, if we need to make a little adjustment on something else.

Pretty straightforward, and I think we can we can keep moving moving this one along.

Um I don't know that there's a lot we need to wait for.

Thank you, council member.

Um the parking conversation, I do think we need to have a a little bit of conversation uh about that.

Certainly, parking has been part of the discussion at all um types of development, right?

Uh parking is an issue.

We are still in a car-centric society.

We are trying to move toward more public transportation.

The city has hit the size definitely that we need to um we need to get out there and ensure that we have more public transportation than we have today.

So that's something that I would like to see us move for all of these issues, not just for the ADU, but but um since Councilmember McShane, you know, did note the the parking um, I would like for us to kind of keep that in the top of our heads also that as we are um in some cases permitting, but in other cases making legal stuff that's happening already.

Um that we keep that in our minds.

Um I do know people who are who live by themselves completely alone who have two or three cars.

I know people who there are three four people in the household and they have one car.

Um I honestly don't know very many people who have no cars, but um so it you know it it it goes back and forth uh a great deal as to how many um cars a person has and um if we are expecting to remove parking, then we need to provide better access to public transit, and that's on us.

So I just want to be sure that that's part of the conversation as we move forward.

Uh it also strikes me that it so the way that it's written is beyond the you know beyond the provided or excuse me, the minimum uh for the primary residents, and it it does strike me that in the conversation, and I wasn't here for the conversation, so but I will say there's so much street parking.

Yeah, I don't know how we how do we consider that, right?

And so I I'm happy to we can work on maybe a query to the parking department in terms of like I'm sure there is some sort of metric or or some sort of consideration for um you know suburban suburban suburban uh spra like where I live, right?

In Taskers Chance, like we have tons of street parking, um, even though that's not necessarily ideal.

But I it just it strikes me that this notion of having to have the dedicated space is probably the the way that this is getting tripped up, right?

Because if you live on Magnolia Avenue, you're not gonna you're not gonna pave your grass, and I don't know that we even want that.

Do we want people paving their grass to create parking spaces, right?

So it's uh I can see where that you know the homes that have been established, why why this has been uh a no-go point, right?

It makes sense.

So but that doesn't mean we should throw it throw it on either.

But absolutely, and there are different requirements in the LMC for parking.

So, you know, for for downtown, I'm I don't think there is a requirement for parking.

So um we need to acknowledge, and again, if as part of what we are doing, it is it is our job to facilitate what we're looking at.

So it is our job to help expand public and rapid and all different types of of transportation in various areas.

Um it's one of the things that I think that we do the least well, as you know, we we're constantly saying that's the county's job, that's the county's job.

Well we we had a little bit of money at the end of last year, maybe we can use some of that.

So I think the next step then would be to uh I think I'm gonna brainstorm with Clara about the best way to gather the most appropriate information for this parking conversation.

I'll have to go back and watch what we did back in the day and figure out how to best so that when we get to this point, we can just make a decision one way or the other, right?

Um so I don't want to promise it would be the next committee meeting.

It might take it might take a minute, but I think I think we probably pull that together relatively looking at her, she's such a sweetheart, she'll be like, sure, council president, and you know, she knows I'm asking for the world here.

But um is that the only issue that you'd like to look at or it and I should just say like what else what else would you like to break down in terms of so we can move the ordinance forward?

So I'm I I think we've we've looked at much of this stuff already before we moved forward with the original um ordinance, but um, I would like us to have a a conversation on permeable like permeable space on a property and non-permeable um while we need to be very careful um uh uh about how much of any lot we're covering with non-permeable spaces, whether that be a driveway or a house, um I think one of the other things that we need to pay attention to also is there's a difference between having a front lawn and having trees, and there's a difference in the amount that can uh amount of precipitation that that can be absorbed, right?

And so I I would really like us to um kind of keep that in our brains as we're moving forward with this and other um ordinances that affect what can be built on a site, because um, again, it's one of those things that I think that we've just as a person who just had an ugly tree removed from the front of the house.

Um, but you know, the promises to plant two more in the fall, right?

Well, once the heat's gone anyway.

Um, so uh we keep talking about trees, and yet we don't have that as part of our ordinance of if you build an extra dwelling space, do you have to put an extra tree in?

Do you have to?

So I think landscaping has something to do with that also.

I mean, so build an extra house and put a pollinator garden outside, just as good probably as as putting a tree in, but let's have some of those conversations too while we're at it.

Um, excuse me, I just would like to point out that on for this committee on October 16th, currently there is scheduled a conversation about water quality and stormwater management.

So I'd probably have deal with that.

Thank you.

Uh thought on the parking requirement for the accessory dwelling units.

Uh I am supportive of removing the parking requirement for an ADU.

I don't feel that it's helpful.

I think it is unnecessary and is the primary deterrent that we've heard to even a small number of property owners pursuing the ADU option.

I have zero concern that ADUs are going to spread like wildfire across our city.

That's just not gonna happen, even if we fix this.

So this scenario of neighborhoods getting overwhelmed with additional cars is never going to happen.

But the requirement to add a parking spot is making the addition of an accessory dwelling unit impossible in in many properties where there is nowhere to put it.

There's tons of places people could park their car, but the property owner can't and shouldn't you know pave over their front lawn, and there's no other place to put another parking spot, which really they don't even need.

So I don't think that this is necessary or helpful.

I think we should remove it.

And a different scenario in which we try to identify which neighborhoods or which blocks or which parts of the city should need an extra spot, but other ones shouldn't sound like a nightmare.

And very difficult to manage.

I also think it's important for us to keep in mind that largely we don't regulate as older woman as council member because I'm checked, noted, largely we do not regulate how many cars a home can have to begin with.

So if a homeowner in a neighborhood chooses to purchase a second vehicle, there that's their right to do so.

And they park it in their driveway or they park it on the street.

If they have an adolescent child who reaches driving age and they acquire another car for that dependent child, that's just a decision that they make.

If if a new person moves into their home, if if their sister or their cousin or their friend moves to stay with them and brings a car, no one says anything about this.

There's no policy, there's nothing they have to apply for, they don't have to add a parking spot.

I think the ADU and its parking requirement needs to be treated like any other home, and adding the parking requirement is is a major deterrent and is not helpful for for the policy, and it's not really something that we have to safeguard against in the interest of their other neighbors.

So hopefully we can move forward without that policy and see a few more of these appear, limited numbers, but a few more appear in the coming years I I agree to have the conversation.

I don't necessarily know that I agree with the assessment, but can we have that conversation?

Absolutely.

I think people are I think people are afraid of things that they don't understand or that they've not seen.

And I think that their parking is an issue in certain neighborhoods, and um even in my neighborhood in the summertime parking is an issue.

It's just is people park across my driveway all the time.

It's it's crazy.

Um, so I'm willing to have the conversation though.

Another policy area you could take with that is you could and I don't mean to I don't want to complicate it, but you could put caps on things and what which would requ necessitate a revisit.

So if we we happen to hit 25 or 50 or whatever the number the council decided, then you could come back and say, okay, maybe we need to take another look at this.

But but that's we can discuss all that.

What I what I would say is we could bring the ordinance as is back to this council.

We've we've highlighted the issues that we think are the most, you know, parking is always gonna be the and have the conversation with full council and or with the with the committee and see see where we land.

How about that?

So I think we gotta move forward.

A great plan.

Okay, absolutely a great plan.

Um keep moving forward.

Yep.

Okay.

Are we ready for public comment on this?

We are okay.

Hello again.

My name is Jim Smersall.

Um you obviously are tweaking something that you've had for years and other communities have.

One of the things you generally do is you compare yourself to others.

Um maybe do a survey of some other similar size municipalities and just get a basic view of how they handle things and maybe talk to their people and see if they have a problem.

Obviously, your planning department's got their plate full.

But the Maryland Municipal League does have a research department.

I used to use them all the time.

They will look into some of this stuff for you.

They can't call the other people and say, hey, is this a good thing or bad thing?

But they can give you maybe a summary of the five, six similar size cities in Maryland that have these and how they handle them.

You know, parking, no parking, that kind of thing.

So it's just a suggestion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Heather?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Um, President Nash and staff, do you have um a good idea of how we're moving forward with all of this?

I want to make sure that you have what you need.

Also um offer my assistance at any point in time if if um you would like for me to be part of any of these conversations, I would be happy to do that.

Again, I've been here as president calls it.

I've been here a minute, so um I do kind of know some background on on a lot of this stuff.

So I think what will happen is that what is currently on the agenda is gonna stay on the agenda for the next foreseeable future, and we'll have other things too.

But I could just say that I think we're gonna we'll just gonna keep it moving.

Every two weeks, we're just gonna keep bringing things forward and you can decide, you know, we don't have enough information or we don't.

But I think I think the conversation today was to bring us back from the summer, bring us back to the sort of baseline.

The the housing work plan, the uh conversations about using the rental licensing funds will come back before you.

We're working through those uh MOUs.

The staff is working through that.

So that will also be coming.

And honestly, this work is gonna take us, I think, to the end of certainly to the end of the term.

So I think we're in a good place where we know what we're working on, we're gonna keep working through it.

So um, yeah, just from the public's perspective, I think we have a we have a plan in terms of how we're moving forward.

So exceptional.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Campbell, for um all of the work and and the help.

We certainly appreciate it.

Um with nothing else in front of us.

Um council member McChain, anything to end the anything for us to end the day.

Well, no, thank you, but thanks everyone for your time today.

Thank you.

Um thank you, everybody, for all of the work.

Um meeting adjourned.