Housing, Health, and Education Committee Meeting - August 21, 2025
Housing, Health, and Education Committee Meeting - August 21, 2025
The Housing, Health, and Education Committee met on August 21, 2025, at 10:00 AM to discuss three major housing policy items: the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) fund utilization, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) ordinances, and updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance. The committee reviewed staff memos, heard public testimony, and set priorities for moving forward.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the July 17, 2025 meeting were approved by unanimous consent.
Public Comments & Testimony
-
On MPDU Funds:
- Jim Schmersal (resident): Provided spreadsheets showing MPDU fund sources and expenditures since inception. He suggested two uses: giving funds to organizations for rental assistance, or establishing a second mortgage program (e.g., a Community Development Financial Institution) to support homeownership.
- Mary Ellen Mitchell (CEO, Housing Frederick): Urged the committee to ask developers why they pay the fee-in-lieu instead of building units, noting that carrying costs (land prep, fees, inflation) have shrunk profit margins. She highlighted that Frederick County has used fee-in-lieu funds to multiply affordable housing units beyond the 12.5% requirement.
- Peter Brem (District 3 resident): Suggested investigating whether the fee-in-lieu amount should be increased to better cover actual building costs.
-
On SRO Ordinances:
- Jim Schmersal: Noted that SRO is defined in the Land Management Code (LMC) but not carried into the use matrix. He advocated for putting SRO regulations in the zoning ordinance rather than as a standalone ordinance, and suggested reviewing existing definitions for rooming houses and tourist homes.
- Heather Goddard (city resident): Expressed support for legalizing SROs, noting benefits for students, singles, and those seeking cost savings. She emphasized that legalizing informal SRO arrangements would make residents more comfortable calling for emergency services. She suggested requiring an on-site owner/manager and allowing photo documentation for inspections.
-
On ADU Ordinance:
- Jim Schmersal: Recommended the committee survey similar-sized municipalities through the Maryland Municipal League to compare parking requirements and other ADU regulations.
Discussion Items
-
Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Fund Utilization:
- President Nash and Director Stuart Campbell presented a detailed memo outlining the history and current state of the MPDU program. The committee discussed whether to keep the fee-in-lieu option or require developers to build units. Vice President Shaffleford and Chair Krisbnchek expressed support for retaining the fee-in-lieu, noting that the policy change from a flat 16.5% fee to a graduated fee has only been in effect for a short time and data is insufficient to assess its impact. Councilmember McShane agreed, stressing that the fee-in-lieu is only valuable if the funds are effectively spent. The committee consensus was to keep the fee-in-lieu for now and focus on expediting the expenditure of the approximately $4.6 million fund. They requested staff to bring forward presentations from recent fund recipients (e.g., Habitat for Humanity, Westall Saints project) to provide updates and inform future allocation decisions.
-
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Ordinances:
- President Nash presented a draft policy framework and referenced a Minnesota task force report as a resource. He distinguished between market-rate SROs and supportive housing SROs for those experiencing homelessness. Chair Krisbnchek emphasized the importance of ensuring SROs include amenities like kitchens and are located near services or have mobile service delivery. Councilmember McShane urged the committee to move forward with best-policy proposals without preemptively hedging against opposition. The committee agreed to continue policy discussions at future meetings, focusing on zoning (by-right vs. conditional use), development standards (parking, bathrooms), licensing, inspections, and incentives.
-
Review of Current ADU Ordinance:
- Chair Krisbnchek summarized the current ADU requirements, noting that a text amendment is in preparation. Councilmember McShane advocated for removing the parking requirement, arguing it is a primary deterrent and that ADUs will not overwhelm neighborhoods. Chair Krisbnchek urged a broader conversation considering public transit, permeable surfaces, and landscaping. President Nash suggested moving forward with the ordinance as-is for council discussion while continuing to gather data on parking issues. The committee agreed to bring the ADU text amendment back for review.
Key Outcomes
- MPDU Program: The committee will keep the fee-in-lieu option and schedule a future meeting to hear from organizations that received MPDU funds, aiming to develop a strategic plan for faster fund expenditure.
- SRO Ordinances: Staff will schedule subsequent committee meetings to address specific policy questions (zoning, development standards, licensing, incentives) and will consider issuing an RFI to the development and nonprofit communities.
- ADU Ordinance: The committee will continue working with planning staff on a text amendment; the parking requirement will be a key point of discussion. A future meeting will focus on parking data and potential alternatives.
- General: The committee committed to maintaining a regular meeting cadence to advance the Housing Policy Work Plan through the end of the current term.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com