Um, so Councilmember Shacklford, I think, just came in and walked upstairs, but we're gonna go ahead and get started and get through the Pledge of Allegiance and stuff, and by the time we're ready to start, he should be down here.

Or that's the hope anyway.

We ready?

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And two, three pop up for which it's one.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

Um Councilmember Shackelford has just walked in.

Um Councilmember, our first um item is the approval of the August twenty-first minutes.

So move.

I'll second that.

Those in favor.

That's two.

And um Councilmember McShane not present.

Okay, so the first item on our workshop today is the housing solutions task force presentation.

Um, I believe is the person who's doing doing this presentation.

Thank you very much, Ian Ryan.

Come on up and you can get started.

I'm gonna note that um for anybody who is doing presentations for council or for other people.

If you might just take a look at them on an iPad or a computer or something ahead of time, sometimes um they're very difficult to read with certain backgrounds in them.

So again, this is just a general, if you don't mind doing that, it would make it so much easier for all of us.

Thank you.

Anne, you have the floor.

Good morning.

Um, I'm Ann Ryan.

I'm with the Frederick Housing Solutions Task Force, which is partnering with Coalition for a Healthier Frederick to bring attention and light to the desperate need for housing for those who have the least resources.

And so thank you for uh allowing us to come today to kind of show what we've been up to, what we're trying to do.

Um, I'm honored to have Pastor Shannon Sullivan with us here next to me.

She's the pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church and has been a great partner in envisioning what her role and her church role and the larger faith community role could be in creating housing on House of Worship property.

So um, thank you for being here.

We wanted to uh go through this um presentation to just uh kind of shine some light on the need and shine some light on what we think we could um create as possible solutions and what structure we're using to do that.

Frederick, a home for everyone.

That's our goal.

So we worry that housing is out of reach for too many, that unless you're making over 25,000 as an individual, you cannot afford a single unit in Frederick, uh family of four under 50,000.

What can we do to create more options?

That's what we're after.

Um the housing Frederick Housing Solutions Task Force was formed a few years ago to help build momentum in Frederick to fill the gap in housing that is available to those whose incomes cannot reach current market rent or mortgages.

We've built a strong team of those passionate about finding real tangible solutions to deeply affordable housing.

We have joined forces with Coalition for Healthier Frederick and serve as their local health improvement plan work group addressing affordable housing as a social determinant of health.

Sharon Stromberg of the task force now sits on the board of the coalition.

We very much appreciate the partnership with Healthier Frederick and Marcy Correa is here today as part of our team.

The county did a um open house the other day uh recently showing some of the progress there that's being made on that city-county housing assessment.

This was one of the documents that came out of that.

And if you look at the seniors receiving social security benefits, any housing type with an annual with their annual income on Social Security 237 has zero percent housing options, and we we worry about that group and all the others on this chart that have very little hope to find any housing.

And so we're here today to just say, as you know and you believe, and you're talking about all the time that the need is urgent, there's a housing crisis.

This illustrates it, but we see it every day as well.

Could you stay on that for just a second?

So when you're looking at the difference in the rental options versus the for sale options, are you are you talking only monthly payment, or are you talking the for sale options are not possible because they don't have the money to get into the home to begin with, plus the monthly payment.

Right.

You know, I'll have to ask the consultants that put the homeownership information together, but it's but for our group, especially 30% AMI and under, um it's not having enough income to do anything.

So it's you you simply put both for rental options and for for sale options.

You you just kind of went with the monthly payment.

Right.

And then the um the price range of that.

That's right.

Yeah, yep, you answered the question.

Thank you.

Thanks.

So in our structure, we've developed um a system of uh committees, development, community engagement, policy and policy and advocacy supportive services, landlord engagement, and locator assistance.

We believe that if we could build momentum in each of these, we would accomplish our goals of creating housing with services for those who can least afford it.

The development committee is led by Jody Ostrich, who's here today.

Um we are working with Houses of Worship to create housing on underused land.

We've got a couple pilot projects in mind.

We've had enterprise community partners come and we've talked with them several times about what their role might be.

Um we're looking at a range of housing types from tiny homes to town homes.

We're prioritizing the needs of vulnerable seniors for some of our first projects.

We have met several times with enterprise.

We plan to demonstrate innovative housing solutions that could be replicated across Frederick.

We are constructing a lookbook of sorts that shows each type of housing, the cost, the zoning requirements and options, and other unique considerations for each project.

Jody, um, Danny from the Builders Association, Bruce Savos architect, um, are all part of our team to say, what if we could figure this out?

What would it look like?

And how do we open that door?

What is our role to opening that door?

The community engagement subcommittee is led by Neil Donley of On Our Own.

The group is working to highlight the need for deeply affordable housing here in Frederick, as well as invite those most in need of such housing to help shape those solutions.

They are tasked with developing presentations such as this one and creating promotional or outreach materials as well as updating our website.

The policy and advocacy subcommittee identifies a range of policies that could invite a wider range of affordable housing options in Frederick.

These include the recent discussion about SRO ordinance, the affordable housing overlay, housing by right on faith partner property.

It also highlights various funding sources that could help support demonstration projects as we develop small prototype housing initiatives that could be replicated across our city and county.

Supportive services is led by Melanie Cox, who is here and is working to ensure that housing is designed with the needs of the residents in mind.

This is especially important for seniors.

We want to make sure that high quality services are ensured through essential partnerships with experienced service providers.

Landlord engagement and locator assistance led by Nancy Wilson, who is here.

This is a new initiative that we're we're hoping to launch.

It's exploring the best practices in expanding the pool of landlords who might work directly with a housing locator who is developing an inventory of most affordable units when vacancies occur, offering a subsidy and a service provider connection to help address the ongoing bottleneck of those who can't afford market rent and who will never get a voucher.

Last slide is task force goals, which we can read on here.

So this is this is where we are at the moment.

It's evolving and growing as we go, but demonstration projects on church land, and Pastor Shannon is here as one of our major partners in moving in that direction.

Advocate for changing zoning to allow for a variety of housing types to be built.

Advocate for public funds, including MPDU and rental licensing fees to be used for demonstration projects to show how rents or mortgages might be made within reach of those earning under 30% AMI, which HUD says is under 34,000 for an individual and under 50 for a family of four.

So those are our that's what we're doing, that's what we're aiming for.

We have a task force that meets this coming Wednesday at Frederick Health Hospital or Frederick Health, and we'll also have it hybrid.

It's um if you want to check out our website, we'd love to have anybody interested to join us.

Um I'd also like to ask any of the task force members to stand and recognize that you're part of this solution, you guys.

Thank you.

Thank you, all of you.

We are here together to help bring attention to the urgency of our housing shortage and offer our help in shaping solutions.

Pastor Shannon, did you want to say a few things about your role?

So I know I've talked to some of you before multiple times and at various meetings, not just here.

Um, but Trinity has two pieces of land where we had an office, um, and still the building is there.

And we've just been trying to figure out how we can be better stewards of the space that we have.

Um we don't need an office there, we moved it into the church, and ever since I started, I'm in my fifth year at Trinity.

Um people just walk into the office and say, hey, do you know anybody who is renting out a room?

Um we have people in our congregation now who are in need of housing and uh living with family members and spaces that are too small, and we want to be part of the solution.

Um I'm also a United Methodist, so we have I have a lot of connections with other United Methodists in the conference in the Frederick area, and I've always been interested in how we can better use our spaces to serve our communities, and we think that using especially excess land for those of us who have it or reusing our property in imaginative ways could be ways that we can serve the community.

And we think that um using especially excess land for those of us who have it or reusing our property in imaginative ways could be ways that we can serve the community.

Thank you, Pastor Shannon.

And thank you, Count Council members, for being interested in what we're trying to create and partnering with us to make that happen.

We look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Um, yes, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you for your work and advocacy, and I know this is a large effort for all of us.

Um, Pastor Shannon, I'm very familiar with the property.

Just I I don't know if you've done any type of evaluation tool, but for instance, what how many units could you possibly put on that property?

Well, that's one of the questions that we have, because currently the residential zone is underneath the institutional zone, and I forget, is it R4?

Did we look it up?

I don't know.

Um we have point six acres there.

Um but this is part of our question coming to you guys looking at if we could do a different kind of zoning overlay.

That was the last time I was here um to help us with trying to figure that out.

Um yeah.

Yeah, we've looked at a number of different ways.

Um our impediment is again zoning.

So that's why we're very strongly pushing the affordable housing overlay zone as a way to move forward on this.

I've worked in other counties where they do have that, and they also have it by right.

We did a project in Montgomery County where we partnered with St.

Anne's uh off of 27, and we were able to do about 87 senior housing units, light tech, low-income housing tax credit uh funded project, and it was done by right.

So it could move forward very much.

Sorry, Bruce, when you say done by right, are you talking about done by right on institutional land?

This is uncharged by the right on the on the on their land by it it was allowed by zoning.

We didn't have to do jump in through any hurdles.

It was already in sort of like our land management code.

Absolutely so it yeah, so it we we it we it was probably typically two years from when we made the initial kind of conceptuals to ribbon cutting.

So it's actually pretty quick.

Yeah, um, because again, the zoning is there.

But I think one of our asks too as a group is to partner with the city with any excess land that you guys have identified.

There you go, and see how we can build tiny home villages.

We've visited that and has been around the country looking at tiny homes, which is another again part of our continuum of housing.

We had identified the Trinity School site as a potential because it is so well located.

There are some hurdles there, of course, and I know that there have been talk about it being sort of already determined what was gonna go there, but these things can also be moved.

So there's a potential to do something like that.

Um when we talk about affordable housing, and this is where I think a lot of people get confused, because in our community, and we talk about average mean income.

We are connected to Montgomery County and DC, and and most people know that.

So that's 150,900, and it goes up every year for a family of four.

So when you look at 60 percent or 80 percent, now you're talking about market rate rents.

I mean, to be on the so what Ann came and started this movement is 30 percent and less.

So to do a 30 percent and less, you need a a stack of funding to make that work.

So that's I think with the MPDU money.

There's a potential of helping in that stack of money to get to a 30 percent type deal.

And we were talking with Pastor Shannon, that would be one of the goals maybe on her property.

So there's a lot of moving parts, but it's gonna take the city and the will of our legislators to get this done.

Everybody right now, and I'm gonna, you know, talk a little bit about everybody's running on affordable housing.

Everything that I read in the city and the county.

Well, now's the time to actually step up and do something.

We've got MPDU money.

Let's use it for something like we're talking about.

Let's use it to help do a 30% deal on Pastor Shannon's land.

I mean, it's it works very well when you if they give us uh a land lease for 99 years, whatever, there's not a big upfront cost.

Then those type of numbers, the pro forma start working.

That's good, Bruce.

You you pastored with Pastor Shannon there.

Um, I appreciate that, and you're you're in your right in terms of the creative ways, and I know we have housing overlay um when our conversation is then coming up is in the future um presentation is about city excess land, which we have on our agenda.

So and some of what you're saying is it's it's incumbent upon us to be creative as in front of our finance and also in terms of our zoning, also in terms of our our land, because we all know that there's not a one solution to this, it's gonna take a multi-pong approaches.

Um from the development aspect, with all things being considered, and the development community, of course.

How how is that?

And I don't know, Judy, if you can talk kind of get into that.

I know habitat has some opportunities, but for other developers in terms of because the other part of it is developers have to make some money.

And so, how is that in terms of this conversation in terms of building these types of homes that may not be cost effective for them?

So, yeah, can you speak to that?

Well, well, and now Pastor Sherman, to the extent that's that's one mechanism.

And what we and and uh and and that is not all houses of warship, maybe maybe on board with that, so we're gonna have to also find some other means means to to do that as well.

I mean, as we know, the low-income housing tax credit, you need 50 or 60 units minimum to make that work.

At least, and typically you're not gonna get at least on Pastor Shannon's uh property, it's gonna be difficult to get.

So, yes, you're gonna be looking at a funding stack that is not going to include LITEC because again, just not enough units to make that work.

But what we did talk about is doing a scattered site, and we've done that in the past, where if we can get 20 or 40 units on her site, then on another potential uh church site, we can get another 20 or 30.

Right, you can put those together and then do a lie tech.

Yeah, Jody Ostech, president and CEO of Interfaith Housing Alliance.

Um tech itself presents a challenge, honestly, for financing.

So it's fantastic, as Bruce said, if you can get 50 and up on the numbers and scattered site, I've personally never done that, but Bruce has.

So hey, you know, that's why we're here together.

But um, with the goals of this particular task force trying to target people 30 percent and under, and let me be super clear.

LITEC doesn't target those people.

LITEC targets 40 to 60 percent, mostly now you can bring other partners in to help lower the cost of some of those units and get some units down to 30 percent.

And that's the unit mix that we don't really have yet for Shannon's property.

So we're talking about can we do things that are super creative that get maybe a very generous benefactor in the community that will be willing to underwrite some of these units so that we can rent them at 500 or less.

Can we also include potentially units that are 40 to 60 percent?

So all of these units working together to help pay for the cost.

Um of the things that Bruce didn't say about um funding uh rental licensing money as well.

I guess I could throw that out there, um, potentially as a source of gap funding for some of the projects, but um, no doubt it's a challenge.

Uh the land development cost, the permitting fees, all of those things are hugely expensive.

And I think I just saw something from Danny, that all those things are going up.

And some of those things are going up, they're doubling some of those.

Um so you're talking about time, you're talking about cost, you know.

So there's a lot of ways that this kind of development work presents a challenge.

Um, because what you're planning on to do today, two years later, the numbers have shifted, right?

And it's gonna take a period of time to get in there.

So anything that the council can do to speed the time and help with gap financing is gonna help us tremendously.

So I want to be clear that this group is simply talking about 30% AMI and under, right?

Yes.

So there and LINTEC is at 40-60.

40 to 60 percent.

40 60 percent.

Yes, ma'am.

So we still have a gap.

Oh yes.

100% we have a gap.

I don't know.

I mean, even with without y'all doing stuff with you all doing stuff, we we still have well, there's a number of gaps.

So I I don't want to get I don't want us to get too far in the weeds in um stuff that you all are literally in process of working on because we can hear bits and pieces of this, and that's great.

We need to know as you're moving forward, but until you have something to present to us, I think we need to kind of stay up at up at this level, right?

Um I am thrilled with the the committees that you've set.

I think they're very appropriate for um what you need to do, and I'm certainly happy to have that policy and advocacy committee separated out of the other committees.

It it does need to be.

Um so I'm I'm pleased with where you're coming from so far.

I'm gonna tell you, I mean, I've been clear about this.

I'm not a tiny home fan.

I think that the cost of it compared to what you get out of it isn't effective.

But if you can show me differently, I am certainly happy to look at it.

We'd be happy to do that.

Yeah.

So um anyway.

Well, you know, one of the things that the city can do to help in this effort.

When we were doing uh West All Saints with Habitat that's still going on, our permit fees were about 325,000, if I'm right, Eric.

Something like that.

It's right here.

Yes, well, there it is.

Thank you.

We asked for the city to waive those fees, and the city said no, we can't waive those fees, it's gonna set precedent.

We can't do that.

But the reality is set precedent.

When a project like that comes to the city and asks for a waiver or an abatement, then let's have a public discussion about it because that would have allowed us to build one more unit or reduce the cost of the units that are there.

The other thing that I've always uh put forth is an ombudsman for affordable or projects like these that can shepherd the project quickly through the permitting process, because with the light tech deals, the quicker you get to closing, the better for everybody, because that's typically when you close, you get the money.

So, you know, there's things that the city can do, and I know about pressure.

But instead of a precedent of of waiving fees, we also have um a number of um funds that we could help pay the process.

Yeah, you know, we and I was on this conversation that we were having around this.

We met several times with city staff, and one of the things we were talking about was using possibly using MPU money to kind of not pay ourselves back.

But in essence, weigh the fees, and we've still had the we still have the money to do that.

And so along with that, and I know you mentioned about data, and I know we're doing the city county housing study, part of this MPDU legislation that we just presented was so that we could have our own data so that we wouldn't be in that Montgomery County Washington DC court or with raising that that amount.

And so now that we this has been implemented for a couple of years, and I know we have Stewart here today.

Hopefully, because I think we was like a three-year time frame that we could have got some data so that we can have our own data points that we could draw from instead of using others, which were very very high, of course, in this in this area in which we we're currently in.

Oh, could that money then PDU money be used retroactively for the habitat project?

No, boost down so let's let's be clear that we uh this group of people can do just about anything as we move forward.

Decisions on making things retroactive has certainly happened in the past, will happen in the future.

So does that possibility exist?

It's a decision that this group of people will need to make.

Um and I wouldn't necessarily call it a I mean it was a precedent, but I think this is uh another way that's consistent in the future as well.

So not necessarily you know I mean a precedent in terms of this maybe this project, but also in terms for others who come forward with these type of projects would already know to help get through the process in terms of quicker, but also in terms of financially um supporting these projects also.

Yes, I I agree.

I think that we can do both.

I also um I think we need to be very careful as we're moving forward because the fact is two terms from now, people will be looking back and saying, what the heck did they do there and why, right?

Um and so I think that we need to be careful about how we do it and make sure that it is uh properly documented, that it was the the reasoning behind everything's properly, and that does not happen as much as you think it does.

Well, you know, I think one other thing to consider too on the 30% side is if you give developers incentives to do that, increase their density, let them do more 80%, which is basically market rate, then they can offset the loss of income on the 30% side.

And I know the every unit that you can get above what your pro forma says is important.

So that's something else again with this overlay zone that we've talked about.

Maybe there's a potential there again to incentivize developers through an increased density provision in there, and but the caveat is they have to do X percentage of 30%.

So we're gonna go back with Devil in the details, right?

So when we're talking about an overlay zone, or we're talking about an overlay zone on an overlay zone.

So we already have an overlay zone on a church, and then you're talking about putting an overlay zone on part of the overlay zone, etc.

So again, let's let's not pretend this is a tomorrow thing.

Um this is the there's a reason that you all are in this room.

Um, and we certainly appreciate everything that you've done.

That background work and information is work that we can use to make our decisions in the future.

So, again, thank you so much for all of the work that all of you have done.

We really do appreciate it.

Just one quick question.

I think we all can definitely agree that these things do not happen overnight.

Right.

Can we agree that there's urgency of need?

Oh my goodness, yeah.

I think this group of people has already agreed that there's urgency.

Okay, we're not we're not planning.

I I let's be honest.

So this group of people is in office until December.

I do I undersee some movement before then?

Yes, yes, I do.

So I'm y'all are welcome to come back at every meeting and tell tell us we're ready.

Thank you.

Right?

Got it.

Yeah.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And do you have any final thank you for the time?

Thank you for all you've done already to uh create a pathway to affordable housing for those who are needing it the most.

We appreciate your work.

Okay, if you could stay there.

President Nash, our next steps.

So I hate to say this, but I think we should have the conversations we're about to have, and then I think the group may have additional feedback for us.

Yes.

Uh, and then we can talk about next step.

So if you all can hang out a little bit longer.

If if you don't mind that the next couple of items on our agenda, really we're talking about housing all day today.

So um again, thank you.

Any public comment on this specific item?

Okay.

We're gonna move on to the affordable housing overlay.

Um, I believe this is President Nash, or um, is this Director Campbell?

Hit someone.

That's me.

If you're good, you go with me just right here.

That way we can free up.

Okay.

So can everybody see me and hear me okay?

Okay, great.

Because I know the six in here, kind of.

All right, so just I'm gonna I'm gonna start back from you've heard us talk about the affordable housing work plan, and the reason that that exists is so that we don't leave behind any levels of affordability.

So this group specifically is formed, and Ann will nod yes or no, that I'm recapping everything correctly, but this group is specifically formed to make sure that the group that is has traditionally been left behind is not being left behind.

It's put put very simple, um, encapsulating a lot of work.

When we talk about the affordable housing overlay concept, I think it's important that we continue to remember what Bruce said, which is there are going to be different solutions for those different types of affordability.

And that's why we have the work plan, and that's why we're working through.

Um I'm gonna get a little ranty just for a second, though, and just say that these solutions, if they were easy, we would have already done them.

And they do get complicated in the sense of when we start to talk about text amendments that we need to submit before the planning commission for approval to change our land management code, they are multi-step processes.

Um they're actually even multi-step processes for us because once we as a policy committee here have the conversation, we then work with staff to formulate those text amendments, and then those text amendments move forward to the planning commission, and then the planning commission comes back and they actually go back before our own land use committee.

So, and then they go for a vote.

Um, but we're doing this methodically so that we don't we don't have what we've always had, which I think is as Bruce mentioned, we have an election cycle, all of us talk about it, we get overwhelmed because there's a lot of crap that we do that people don't see.

And and this is someone who you know is only on our first term, so I have a little bit of leeway here, but we do a lot of things, and then and then because of the complicated nature of what we're doing, things just get lost.

And so to the best of our ability, we're trying to mic, you know, micro step this, which means, and I heard the urgency question, it does take time.

Um it takes time because there's also a lot of stakeholders, right?

And so the development community, I'm glad to see Danny here.

That we we're gonna need their feedback as we move forward.

And so if it seems like you know, every two weeks we're kind of moving these the the ball forward very, very you know, sort of up the hill very slowly.

Um we are, and just be you know, I'll be honest with that.

So the things that we're gonna talk about today are the overlay, the MPDU fund, uh, and the third thing is the M the rewrite of the ADU ordinance.

Right.

And I've just I've sort of taken little tiny bits of those discussions, trying to get some um conversations forward and specifics that we can then provide to staff as we draft the text amendments.

I want to repeat also that it's important that I think the public know that we do not direct staff.

We we we do our best, we pass laws and we we do our best, but we do rely on staff expertise to tell us this might work, this doesn't work legally, um, here's another option.

Um and so there's a lot of conversations behind the scenes with our experts who say, you know, these are the things that we need to move forward, and that's on top of their existing responsibilities, none of which we manage.

So what happens in practice, just so everybody knows, um, is that we take these conversations, we then go and meet with the mayor and we say these are the conversations we're having, and we would like to continue to work with staff to make them forward, and we've had we've had no friction there, but it is part of the process that we have to take our work, communicate it, and then basically make room in the in the in the sauce to be able to move things forward.

Um the only option or the only solution for that is that the taxpayers of the city of Frederick fund a heck of a lot more positions for the legislative branch, and we begin to have a lot more people that and we're not there yet.

I mean, we've just created a legislative branch in January.

So I just wanted the level set as to why we why we do it the way we're doing it and why it moves so slowly.

Um if you know me, you know I am not someone who likes to move slowly, but I also have a lot of experience in the legislative field and passing new laws is hard.

So is that not right, Clara?

Okay.

So, President, before you go forward, um all of those things are true.

Um and and you are absolutely 100% about the fact that we do not direct staff um in in any way.

Um I would hope, not that it's happened yet because I haven't seen it, but if the um legislative branch gets if a supermajority of the legislative branch gets too frustrated with the space with the the pace of what's going on that uh both staff and uh the mayor would recognize that and move a little quicker.

And now I mean I I think part of this is in our conversations as well as uh about our priorities in terms of if this I mean I'm not saying this is not a high priority, but if we deem this as a high priority, then it's a high priority in terms of this for this body.

And so if that's conveyed, and the hope is there is the continued urgency as we talked about would then be um a part of that.

And I also want to say, I think President Nash to that point.

I think now and I want to highlight Stuart because I think his background, his experience is very beneficial to what we're trying to do.

He because he has an understanding and depth of knowledge that we may not have previously have had.

I'll just say that.

So thank you.

Something I was saying to Stuart just last night.

So completely agree.

Um and and all that to say, I I that might not sound like it, but I'm incredibly optimistic about the way that we're moving forward because I think that what we're gonna yield is so much more work product than we've seen given this new structure and the way that we can move forward and and keep moving things forward.

So sorry for the detour there, but I just felt like it was important.

We have so many um folks in the space who have been working for such a long time, and I I know that it can get it gets overwhelming very quickly, and I think that's part of the goal too is to not get overwhelmed by the problem uh and to keep keep the faith.

Um so affordable housing overlay.

One of the things that uh specifically I want to draw your attention to, there's a lot, there's a couple documents in your backup, and that's one of the reasons you're gonna see these items sort of continue to pop up on your agenda because we want to have the ability to talk about some of the research that's been done.

President, excuse me, can we is it possible we can get these up?

So our everyone can see where we're yeah, absolutely.

Um and Clara, I'm referring to your research paper.

Yep.

That one way everyone can so for us it's listed as the last backup item.

And it's the where I'm looking is um Clara has already laid out the important considerations.

Um let me just say while Claire is bringing that up that it has been absolutely critical and a godsend to have Clara help continue to I think Claire's been with the city, we've had Claire what, two years?

Is it been two?

Yeah.

And so before that, we didn't the the Board of Alderman did not have research staff.

We didn't have committees, we we didn't have any of this.

So this is all sort of brand new to so to have somebody who can be a brilliant policy mind as Clara is and create information for us in a way that's digestible and that we can refer uh is an absolute game changer in the space.

So um if you could go down, Clara, to the um policy considerations that need to be answered.

Yeah, there you go.

So what she's done here is she's created a list of things that we need to answer as we create a text amendment to uh move an overlay uh zone forward.

Um the biggest thing that I want to get consensus on today is the geographic scope of applicability.

It's the very first question that she answered.

When we talk about an overlay or a floating zone, um, and by the way, we're still we're still debating whether or not you know what we you know what we want.

But I think one of the key policy questions to answer is do you want it to um do just and as it's written here, do you want it to apply to the entire city?

Do you want um the overlay and there are pluses and negatives, right?

Do you want the overlay to be limited in a in a way?

So for an example of that limitation could be that we have transit considerations and it needs to be you know, X amount of um miles or what you know, proximity to a transit center.

So transit-oriented development's pretty common, and you know, we we do it here.

Um maybe not as well, um we do it here.

I'll just stop that.

Uh and so you know, that's a consideration.

Or are there levels of incentives that you'd like to look at in terms of having the having affordable housing?

Um, and then of course, um you heard the conversation here with Pastor Shannon.

You know, are there special considerations for affordable housing?

Um, and again, acknowledging that as a committee, we've already, when I say you know, price appropriate housing, affordable housing, we as a committee are already chunking that by AMI.

So, you know there are special considerations we'll need to consider for um the group that Pastor Shannon's looking at.

And of course, like I'll be honest with you that knowing that excuse me, knowing that um Ann already has a group looking at this, I'm like, whatever that that's how I work in my in my in my head.

I'm like, okay, whatever their recommendations are gives us so much better of a product than you know, Clara and I sitting in a room trying to figure it out.

So um, which we try our best, but that's it's great to have so many minds working together.

Um and so those are sort of the I think the crux uh items that in terms of giving d direction to staff.

Um staff is scheduled uh and Gabrielle's in the room.

I don't want to talk about her when she's not here, but they do need direction from us to be able to prepare for uh an October meeting uh to really put drafts forward that we can then say yes, no.

Um and so today we could focus on do you feel that you need more information?

And if you do, that's that's an okay answer.

Um but we just want to make sure we are having the conversation about geographic applicability uh with respect to the overlay zone.

I mean, excuse me, Gabriel, I know you're in the room, so I'm I'm just thinking about this now.

I'm familiar with particular transit options.

And then thinking about having a conversation about special considerations in the other part about it, should it be citywide?

Because now it's kind of difficult to think about what should be included and what should be excluded.

So if it's just citywide, then that takes that out the equation.

If it's citywide, it's not an overlay zone.

Yeah.

And the original proposal that Ben and uh uh Councilmember McShane and I brought forth was just citywide.

Yeah.

Um and we just and and again, I don't want to this is not adjudicated yet.

We have not had this debate, so I want to make sure I'm clear.

When we started the conversation, we've we just said the whole city just is one big zone.

So that's not we have not had that policy debate yet.

But that's the discussion.

That's where we need to go.

Is it essentially do we want to limit what are the benefits of limiting?

We haven't had that policy discussion yet.

Yeah, that's and that's what I was raising because it's sort of like if you do a housing overlay zone just in a transit near transit or just do housing awardship.

What are you excluding or I mean, what are you excluding?

I mean that's the I I do have to do that.

I'm not saying I'm just in terms of a policy question.

I'm not saying that I agree either way or understood.

I guess my concern right now, and and maybe it's just you know, having done this a couple of times.

Um when we talk about overlay zones or floating zones or or whatever the the underlying zone does matter.

Um again, if you're talking about permitting something citywide, you're not talking about an overlay zone.

You aren't whether you're whether you do it citywide or not, it's it's still a policy, it's a policy issue any way you look at it.

So maybe that is the first conversation that we do need to have, and it's listed what is the geographic scope.

But again, it talks about um President Nash, you were talking about the possibility of having transit oriented.

Well, the fact is um we as a city can provide funding and change transit in certain ways, or maybe put our own type of of um transit in either um the usually when you have a floating or an overlay zone, either one of those, you just take this whatever it's shaped like, and you plop it down over a piece of property.

I think that would be very difficult to do.

I mean, either you're talking citywide or you're to me, either you're talking citywide or you're talking specific property.

I I don't understand the well, let's transit orient the can I would you before you before and I'll let Gabrielle jump in, but but I think I didn't choose my words correctly, or I didn't frame it maybe the best way.

So when Bruce talks about buy right, I think the policy discussion is where do you think affordable housing should be able to be constructed and at what level?

Is it all levels of AMI or is it limited, or how do we want to and where and what and maybe we don't at all?

That's a whole that's a policy discussion too.

Like what but the I think sometimes I think to me, I think buy right is a is a more clear like way to think about it.

Um, because for us as policymakers, it and Gabrielle will be the best ex uh explainer of this, but as policymakers, it changes the levels of involvement of different bodies, right?

So planning commission, city council, who so that's and it's it's I mean it's hard, but one of the reasons, and I'm gonna speak for the development community.

I think they like it so much, is it it does provide for them a certain level of predictability and less steps they have to take so that they can act more urgently, and it's it's a balance.

Um, and it's balanced that we have to figure out where we where we are.

But um that's yeah, yeah, again, I think that it goes back to the devil being in the details.

I I've been clear from day one.

I think affordable housing should be mixed into every single neighborhood in the entire city.

That's I I don't think that I've ever said anything that has negated.

I believe that affordable housing should not be stuck in a corner or just stuck in one area, and uh it should be now.

Are there different types of affordable housing for different places in the city?

Absolutely.

So if it's helpful, um I Gabrielle, the claim department, I can talk just distinguish um the floating zone overlay kind of concepts on council member because I'm talking absolutely correct, in that when we apply an overlay, the base zone stays in effect.

There are principles of that base zone we want to keep.

So examples of overlays that we have in the city are the highway noise impact overlay.

So that's a buffer along our major highways that run through the city.

And if you're in that buffer area, that overlay, you have uh R16 residential zoning district that is prescribing the types of units you can build, the densities you can build them at the heights, those sorts of things.

In the case of the highway noise impact overlay, it's uh a need to protect from adverse impacts of noise, right, on the on the residents.

So the the bonus layer of regulations that gets added uh relate to acoustical um compliance, right?

Make sure that the inside of a of the unit meets a certain decibel level, the outside a certain decibel level and so forth.

So you want to use an overlay when there is a characteristic of an area that you want to address specifically, airport overlay, things around the airport.

We want we want to still allow all the things that are in the base zones within that overlay, M1, well light industrial, commercial, whatever, you still want those zones to prescribe the use of the property generally and the heights and the building characteristics, but then you say, well, you're in the airport overlay.

We want to make sure that nothing will penetrate the vertical um you know limitations of flight and all that good stuff.

So overlay, I think is easiest to think about as I know people love it when I say it, but bonus regulations, right?

These are specifically um targeted to address a certain need around that kind of geographic area, historic preservation overlay.

The floating zone is going to replace the base zone in its entirety.

So all of the characteristics of what that property was previously zoned are basically gone.

The only reason the base zone even matters anymore is that if someone places a floating zone and then the use leaves and they want to take it off, it reverts back to the base zone unless a different zone is requested.

So floating zone, the the basics of it are completely changed with the new parameters of the floating zone.

You can prescribe how you want a floating zone to be applied.

So you can say we want this floating zone only to be able to be applied in certain areas, certain zones, right?

We only want to apply the MXC, for example, which is our mixed employment zone to things that are zoned to M1 or M2, right?

We don't want to apply that in R4 area.

So in the legislation, you can dictate parameters how that floating zone may be applied throughout the city.

Um the the by-right concept, so keep in mind though, the floating zone is going to require the council, this body to make a decision about whether it's appropriate to place it there.

And when we place floating zones, we talk about the parameters specific for that floating zone.

So you would craft new parameters for an affordable housing floating zone.

You would define the AMI, the affordability standards, and then you would apply the design standards, the density, whatever bundle of rights you wanted to go with that.

You would define that in the floating zone.

And then when the councils brought forward a request to apply a floating zone, you're also thinking more generally about whether it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, whether it's compatible with the surrounding land uses, and the council does have the advantage of applying conditions to the rezoning that they believe are necessary to protect the property or surrounding properties to from preventing any adverse impacts.

But that once again is a council level decision.

Goes through planning mission, they make a recommendation, um, and then it comes to the council.

The kind of by right concept that we've discussed is developing kind of performance-based or incentive zoning that would be provisions that are baked into the code, so we would agree on all of these terms as a community, once again establishing what the affordability level is, what the the bundle of rights, what do you get in exchange?

Are you getting waivers on parking?

Are you getting waivers on fees?

Are you um getting twice the density, whatever those parameters we want?

And then provided that someone came in and met all of those parameters, they would be able to go straight through the regular development process, which um you know, in all likelihood is probably gonna require a site plan, maybe a subdivision plan that would go through the planning commission.

So the benefits I see of that are predictability, um, predictability both for the applicant.

They know if I do these things, I get these things, um, and it takes out the the uncertainty maybe of a of a more um elaborate public process and a more um you know, uh a little more discretion because we do think about compatibility and comprehensive plan consistency and those sorts of things, so there's more discretion in that rezoning effort.

Um I think to a certain extent, predictability on behalf of the public as well.

Um, if I'm a resident and I buy a house next to a lot that's zoned R8.

I know this isn't a perfect world because as a home buyer, I know that I didn't look at everything I probably should have looked at before I bought my home.

Um, but in a perfect world, if I'm buying a house in an R8 zoning district and I look at the codes and I go, oh, the the city has a provision that allows an RA property to be developed like an R16 property if there are certain affordability standards.

That is a known kind of commodity, right?

That that's something that I understand you know, our our systems are complicated and sometimes not always people.

So you're just talking about you're talking about floating, not in this, so that what I was just mumbling about was uh about incentive zoning.

Um so that would be more that buy right concept that you define in your legislation requirements and allowances, right?

You define required performance standards they have to meet, you have to provide X AMI.

Example.

Example of performance in this case, we're talking about this.

So give me the example.

So I think the the big one, and then this is the would be um the what do we mean by affordable?

Um, and and there are experts in the room who know this this area of of the industry much better than I do.

But do all the units need to meet a certain percentage of the AMI, do only enough percentage of the units need to?

What what do we mean by that?

Um, I think that that's probably your biggest performance indicator meeting defined affordability standards.

Um then the other part of defining is defining what what do you get if you do that?

Um but but it seems to me that you're still you're talking citywide.

I'm sorry.

It seems to me that you're talking citywide.

Yes, that would be citywide.

So you could define and how you would define how you wanted this to be applied.

You could say in the R4 district, R8 district, you could define kind of think about it almost like a table, right?

In the R4 district, maybe you're able to have twice the density and be able to incorporate townhouses and multifamily if you meet this performance standard.

So you could define how you want it applied.

Um I heard uh places of worship, institutional zoning.

If you met affordability standards in the IST zone, you could be allowed additional uses like residential and at what density.

Okay, so uh I I'm gonna maybe put a kink in this, but in my mind, make this a little bit um I think could be easier.

Um so we as a group have talked about form-based zoning now and really tried to have the planning department come forward with this again and again, and it's not working for us.

Um what if we put uh an overlay zone that forced form-based zoning on any um affordable units?

Don't answer whether you want to, because that's not the question I'm asking.

I'm asking whether it's possible to place an overlay on I'm sorry.

So let's let's let's just pretend for a minute that it's the that it's the um, I'm just gonna go with the Trinity property, right?

And the part of the Trinity property that could be used for affordable housing.

Can could we say, okay, we're gonna put this overlay zone on this part of the property that is overlaying and over an overlay, but nonetheless, put this overlaid and and that now becomes hey, you can build a ton of units here, but form-based zoning now counts.

Like you need to keep this kind of looking like the rest of the neighborhood.

So you have an affordable, I'm sorry, I'm I'm catching up with you, I promise.

Um, you have an affordable housing project that you want to apply a form-based overlay.

I have I have affordable housing that I want to put, let's take take the word project away, please.

Okay, you're okay.

I have for affordable housing.

I somehow want to fit affordable housing on this piece of property, which we know we do, right?

The issue is going to be does it fit in with the rest of the neighborhood?

Form-based zoning is a way to ensure that it fits in with the rest of the neighborhood, whether that be it gets built in um units that kind of look like houses, but maybe have two or three in there, or I you know other people understand how form-based zoning works better than I do, but certainly that's my it it kind of looks the same as the rest of the neighborhood.

It doesn't work the same as the rest of the neighborhood.

Is that a possibility?

And again, is it a possibility?

Not do you want to do it?

Most things are are possibilities unless they're unconstitutional, I would think Rachel would say.

Um, but um I so form-based code involves a lot more than a visual appearance, right?

Um the form the concept of a form-based code, and we're gonna talk about it in the coming months, I hope, um, is to essentially kind of master plan an area to a certain extent to define how different segments of the area are going to look and act.

So you you E Street Quarter, you're looking at a area, you've decided this is the infrastructure system almost like a master plan, right?

You're looking, you're deciding where we need more infrastructure, where we need parks, and then you're developing flexible design standards to implement that overall kind of master plan.

If you're looking to ensure design compatibility of a development project on a piece of land that maybe is being allowed densities or uses that aren't necessarily consistent with the surrounding community, I don't think a form-based code would be the approach we would want to take.

I think that one, it's not the question I asked you.

Not the question I asked you.

So let's just not go there.

I I I think you can you can do a lot of things, but I would just reinforce that the form-based code is much more than a design overlay.

Um it certainly can be, but a form-based, you can overlay a property with form-based code and actually have them do the um the property and surrounding area, I'm sure developer would be perfectly happy to do that to their property only if they can get affordable housing out of it.

They do their own little small area plan.

I it was just a question of whether it would work, and the answer is possibly.

So okay, keep going.

Sorry, where are we?

So it sounds like we've answered the question of I so I think the Gabrielle's submission of information regarding the floating zones and the incentive zoning.

I think probably at a place to take public comment on those concepts.

Sure.

Maybe what might be a best speaker.

Yeah.

Is there any public comment on those ideas?

Okay.

There is not.

So I I am going to say that uh again, I I have been clear about this in the past.

Um my mind has not changed at all.

I believe that affordable housing belongs in all parts of the city.

Now, how to do that is always interesting.

Because while I believe it belongs in all parts of the city, that does not mean that I believe that in um this subdivision of just single family homes, all of a sudden we should have a high-rise apartment building.

That's not what I believe, right?

Um, but could we in a space like that maybe put two homes that are actually town homes that look more like what's in the other area?

Yeah, I think we could do it that way.

So I I think there is a way to do this throughout the city, being careful how we do it in every part of the city, being, you know, um cognizant that different parts of the city look different.

And actually, that's uh one of the reasons people love to come here because different parts of the city look different.

So what it how do how do you feel about um us, uh Clara and I answering the question, how do we maintain communicate community character and design standards while incentivizing affordable housing at different levels?

What if we took that question and came prepared with an answer in two weeks?

How does that sound?

Yes.

We'd be thrilled.

Great, awesome.

Okay, well, we will.

And I I heard the I think the consensus is that we want a solution for the entire city and not okay, great.

Correct.

Okay.

We can move on to the next item if you'd like.

Do you want us to answer the tiered incentives or designated percentas, or we're not ready for that yet?

So just let me tell you where I am on this, right?

I I again different parts of the city are different, and it's going to be much harder to put um, you know, when you have an entire development full of giant homes, it's gonna be a lot harder to put uh 30 percent than it would be to put a 60 percent in there.

And so um I think that you have to I think that has to be based on the where it is also um you know what is in that neighborhood again.

I'm gonna I'm going back to we've been crying screaming actually for form-based zone since we've been in office.

And um I'd like to see us move as far toward that as we can while we're doing this without stopping the process or slowing it down to the point that it's scrawling again.

Um do you have thoughts on this?

No.

Okay.

So does that help or hurt I think it helps.

I think it might also be helpful to find examples in other communities that have um moved price appropriate housing below this the I'm gonna say below 60 because in our community we've been pretty focused on that just because of the way that it breaks down.

Um so maybe some examples in two weeks to provide, and if we if we just can't, we can't, I'll tell you we can't, you know.

But I think I think that would be also helpful to be able to understand how do other communities incentivize this type of development um because it all comes down to and if and what community incentives um because and I'll just show my cards.

I think for me, we need to start thinking about our upcoming budget cycle because the market does not support you know the the level of which Anne's group is talking about.

Um we can have development partners, but there's gonna have to be some give for us.

Um that could be what the vice president said about you know our own public land, and but we need to that's marching towards December, that's what we need to be doing.

Okay, great.

All right, absolutely.

Okay.

Uh so when we go to the next item, which is the if you're ready, um Adam Chair, the next item is the moderately priced dwelling unit housing fund.

And just as a recap from our meeting two weeks ago, we talked about the prioritization of talking about how this fund had been used, and we're not ignoring the policy, the other policy discussions related to the fund existing, but we wanted to provide additional, get additional information about how we've used it in the past, how it could be used.

And so for the purposes of today, um Clara has reached out to our what we said we would do two weeks ago.

We said we would reach out to recent uh recipients and request updates from them.

That work has happened, that information is coming back.

Um for the purpose of today, I thought we could focus on the discussion of the uses of the fund.

And so if you in your in your backup, I'm sorry, I just toggled away from it.

So give me just a second.

That's the second one.

I think it's the research is it?

I'm sorry, go ahead.

I think it's 3.2.

There you go.

3.2.

Yep, you got it.

And so Clara put this together, which provides that, and I wanted to just for the purpose of today's conversation, um elevate that conver elevate that work that Clara did, which was to provide those those bullet points of ways that the MPDU fund has been used, because I think some of the criticism has been used that if we have the fund, we're not using it.

We've we've had we've all had these conversations.

Um and so just to review, and that if it if the public is looking, that's that's attachment 3.2 in the backup, and it's right on the the page where um Clara put together basically it's the housing fund utilization examples, and it's the authorization for the city council to use the funds for the following purposes.

And there's a there's a wide array.

Oh, yeah.

And I would suggest that some of the criticism may be that, and I think there's a there's a there's a always a push-pull to everything that having so many uses might dilute the impact, but I'm not prepared today to make any recommendations about removing any of these, but I wanted to just elevate that as something to consider.

Um I think it also, and Stuart's here, and I'll I'll let him speak for his department.

But in in the past, before Stuart was able, was was um part of our team, I would submit that we had several proposals that were very broad and kind of came out of for lack of a better word, left field.

And so I think that sort of stumbled the conversation a little bit because staff had come forward, not Stuart and his team, but staff had come forward.

And to be fair, I think having such a broad authorization invites that sort of dreamscaping, shall I say.

So I just I I'm just submitting it to this committee that that might be something that you want to have a conversation about.

Not only very broad, but also from an implementation standpoint, I'm sure it's probably challenging as well.

I mean, looking at looking at all these from an implementation standpoint is also challenging as well.

Yes, absolutely.

And I you know, I I actually agree with the president.

Um I did notice as well that um while we have spent half of the available funds over the years, um there hasn't been uh a theme or you know, a specific process for requesting applications or you know, developing uh any sort of parameters around them.

So um what I've been doing a lot of thinking about is what that would look like.

Um I was having a conversation, in fact, with uh other colleagues with within this the city hall about the the need to sit down, talk with you all, talk with um other stakeholders about what the most uh impactful way that we can utilize these funds.

Um we currently have about 4.54.6 million.

That sounds like a lot.

It isn't when you're talking about affordable housing and developing uh multifamily units or any any sort of you know, yes, if that's what you're talking about, you're correct.

It's not a lot.

However, let's I I I want to be clear and go back to the origin of MPD use, right?

MPDU money comes from new development, building houses to be purchased.

And and the deal was they were either supposed to build, and I you know, I hate to use the word low lower quality, but but really like maybe with houses without all the bells and whistles that would lower the prices of those homes staying within that community, and that's the difference that we have between and the and and so the fee in lieu is is actually the the difference between building a home like that and building a home with all the bells and whistles, so everybody wants to buy it in that community, right?

So it's a purchase program.

These homes, this money comes from funds that were meant um for homes to purchase.

And we have taken this fund and thrown it all over everything else, and I think completely removed the whole um purchasing part of it.

I have difficulty with that.

Um I am certainly willing, and my my colleagues may feel completely differently uh then than me about this, but I'm willing to have maybe go half and half, but at least half of this money, and in my mind more than that, should be spent on helping people purchase homes.

That's where it came from was new homes to be purchased.

That was and that was the intent, and then of course, when people could pay their way out without taking the easy way out, sort of speak, because it is the easy way out.

The fee was so low and there was no there was no incentive for for one to do that.

I mean, if you if you say I could just I could just pay this loaf fee and lieu off to get out of it, I think the legislation we have now is a little bit different because I think it does offer some incentive, but at the same time, to your to your point now that the on the other end of the spectrum, if one chooses to do that, it's not the same as Malina's paying for 3,000 square foot home and a 1,200 square foot home.

I'm 1200 square.

Correct.

They were the same.

And now that's vastly different here in this, but it also allows the city to use that to leverage.

Right.

And before we had would be, we we really didn't have any leverage because we just accumulate these and it took over took us so much time to accumulate this.

And then how to use these resources now developers, if they choose to do that option, they're going to have to pay pay.

And I think that's there's there's a unique difference to that.

And now it's up to us in terms of that using those using those funds in the proper way that we can instead of now waiting so long previously before.

But 4.6 million dollars, while it it's it's it's not a ton of money when you're talking about this.

It's also not a small amount of money when you're talking about.

And I look at that because I'm I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm go ahead.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

No, no, no.

I was gonna say but three million of this is in one year, if I'm looking at this also correctly.

I'm sorry?

Three million of this is if I see three million is just in one year.

That was my understanding as well.

Yes.

That it there was um about three point change million.

Yeah, and if you're jumping in to say something like that, please don't excuse yourself.

You're fine.

Okay.

No, I think you're right.

I mean, we we have yet to see the full impact of the the changed fee.

I think there's you know, it could go in two different directions.

It could, you know, actually bring in more funds into the the fund if they if the developers continue to decide that paying it is more effective, or it could actually start increasing more uh affordable housing, you know, MPDUs being developed.

Um and we just don't know yet.

Um I I'm hoping that's the same.

We're happy with either way.

Yeah, I'm happy for a mix, you know, because I think the funds are valuable for us to have.

They are a tool just like any other of the other tools.

Um the question about uh or the the point about um helping homeowners, um I I wasn't here for the original, so I don't know the history.

I can only look at the statute and all the allowable uses.

And the so if the pounds are I I'm sorry, I I I apologize for that.

I I'm talking about where the money is coming from.

And you can see that just as easily as anybody else, right?

It's coming from developers who are building homes for people to buy.

It's actually both.

Okay.

Um so uh uh I think a lot of the history of it has been, and Gabrielle knows this much better than I do because her department collects the fees.

Um but I think LITEC multifamily units is where the bulk of the money is coming from.

But I I don't know.

Has come from?

No.

Yeah, she can answer that much more clearly.

Like where we've used it, that's where we've spent it, but it's not where it's come from.

The MPDU fee is um so the only projects that have provided MPDUs are the LITAC projects.

So the only place where we have people actually constructing units that meet the affordability standards under our MPDU ordinance are LITEC projects, right?

Right.

We're not pulling money in from them.

They're actually building and rate projects.

And we've actually given money to them.

Right.

That's my understanding.

Right.

The um market rate projects are um providing the fee in lieu of.

Right.

The market rate properties are providing the fees.

Correct.

We've had um, so but are they I'm sorry, are they rental or purchase?

Uh uh the combination.

Combination.

Yeah.

Um so we have you know units that are are being built in market rate projects that are rental or a homeowner.

Um we have not had any market rate projects um provide affordable units dispersed in the project.

And and you're right, I I misspoke when I said most of them are the fees are coming from LikeTech properties, because that doesn't make sense.

And I realized they said, no, but you you were just getting mixed up with where we spent the money and where we got the money.

Can you tell me um the So you you you're telling me that some of the things built are rentals and some of the things are home ownership.

Do we have a percentage like where we're getting the money from?

Um Market rate projects have built homeowner units and rental units, but they're there are market rate rentals, so a lot of them are probably not really affordable anymore.

Um right.

So do we have a percentage of multifamily and homeowner occupied in projects that have provided the fee?

Yes.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean it's information we could, I don't have to be.

Sure.

We can think extract out.

Um the multifamily we would not necessarily know if the multifamily in a market rate project are condos, however.

I don't understand.

So if um if if a multifamily building in a project that paid the MPDU fund is a rental versus uh a homeownership uh condo that's owned.

We could find that out very easily, I would think.

I mean, every unit is with STAT as in the person's name.

So are I mean, really, is it that hard to find out?

It's not a data point we collect easily.

Um so you'd have to um you'd have to go out and collect that data.

How hard would that be?

As hard as that's hard as just checking.

I mean, you could confirm through the ask that I I think I can do it in an hour.

Yeah, it it may be several hours of work, right, to make sure you're pulling all the multifamily from all the projects that have paid the MPDU fee.

Exactly.

And then searching that's what I I'm interested in knowing the difference between homeownership and rental.

I'm I don't care if it's a multifamily, if it's a condo, it's home ownership.

Right.

Okay.

Right, right.

Okay.

So in my mind, um and and I I think Vice President Shafford, you put it perfectly when you said, eh, we did the easiest thing, right?

Sometimes sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing.

But but now we need to move to the next level on this.

And and some of that will be rental, and some of that needs to be home ownership, and we do not.

Um correct me if I'm wrong, staff.

What home ownership programs do we have in the city?

We have the um sold on Frederick.

Sold on Frederick, yes, correct.

And so that is a fund that we um we manage.

We have uh a dedicated staff person who uh administers that program.

I don't have the numbers off the top of my head in terms of uh it's it's like ten thousand dollars toward or something, it's not massive.

It's not also utilized uh uh well because it is um it is income-based, it's targeted, and it's very hard for people to afford a home and then we need to figure out how to fix that correctly.

Right.

The um the thing that the parameters that we have to work with under sold on Frederick or any other mortgage assistance program is what lenders are willing to do.

So you know, we can we can see how low we could get a credit score, we can work with them on um uh you know the the amount of the down payment uh that they'll take, but they also as you know, sell mortgages on a secondary market and has to have certain elements and those are things that we can't control.

And so um, but we uh I I have already talked to that member of my staff who runs that program and told her I I'm really interested in seeing how we can make this pro that program in particular more effective.

And and and honestly, I'm I'm assuming that they do other things also because that can't possibly be a full-time staff.

Like that program in and of itself can't possibly be all that full-time staff person does.

Uh she's actually part-time, so you're right.

It is not a full-time job.

Yes.

Yeah, she has many years of experience and comes from that field, so she's perfect for it, but you're right.

It is not a full-time job.

Yeah, but part-time, I think if we get it to work, that's fabulous.

Great.

So yeah, absolutely.

Okay, so President, did you have um other what questions do you want answered?

So the current list of the current list of those uses is in my opinion, and this is purely my opinion, actually skewed towards ownership, I think.

And you can tell me you think I'm wrong, but uh are there any of those uses that you see that we can either remove or do you think that we want to keep the current list as is so personally?

Um I the list as is I I don't think is necessarily um geared toward home ownership.

I think that it allows for both.

I think that we have geared toward rental, but that's a choice that we've made.

Um I am not comfortable pulling anything out of there.

What I'm interested in doing is making it work better.

So just because maybe we have 25 people that we help in a year, and maybe one of those or two of those people are addressing the health and life safety hazards in owner-occupied housing, which can I just note is much higher than that.

We do that regularly.

Address the health and safety hazards in owner-occupied housing.

So maybe I'm I picked the wrong one.

But just because there's only a couple that it helps, I don't think we need to remove it from the equation.

I think I'm more interested in seeing us say what we want this pushed toward is this.

That doesn't remove the rest of the things.

It just as we are continually told by planning and others, it's just another tool in the toolbox, right?

Am I and Vice President maybe first and then Well, I'm looking at these, and one of the things I'm looking at is purchasing, reselling, or renting MPD units.

What's the information on that one?

Because that's listed on there.

And if we have any questions, I'm sorry, which one are you?

Purchasing, reselling, or renting MPD units.

Right.

There's funding for that, but how much do we have, how much that happens.

We can look at and see um so we have supported LITEC properties, which are essentially MPDUs.

I mean, they're that's they are low.

But that's that's financing low-income housing tax credits and that's the same.

And that's what I'm saying.

I'm trying to I'm trying to draw in terms of like building um uh uh you know uh housing units, um or re you know, or buying not but building buying units and turning them over and creating I mean I don't know how often we've we've done a couple, remember the one in um I think we've done one or two if I'm if I'm not mistaken.

But purchase but nothing to the Yeah, not very low not very much.

And what's the status of that as well?

I mean uh is it the status of what in particular?

I'm sorry.

The status and I know we purchased a couple of properties previously.

I think I don't know off the top of my head.

We can look into that.

Yes.

I I mean I think um and uh I don't know, Council President and Councilmember looking at this, and I don't know it may be a challenge is to prioritize this list.

If I can jump in there, I would I would recommend a number of these things um are redundant actually.

There are state or federal programs that do the same thing.

So I would um if if it were uh to wait, I'm sorry, which two are you saying are the same thing?

So um the uh uh modifying uh MPDUs for accessibility, energy geofficiency or conservation, issuing emergency loans to MPDU buyers to prevent mortgage default.

Um that that one actually was a COVID program.

So um Addressing health and safety.

So the state has a couple programs that do almost those exact things.

Either the weatherization program, there's a special loans program, there's uh which they're trying to create grants for.

So there are some programs on here that I what I would do is I would say um if for some reason someone is not eligible for that program, then this would be a secondary use that we could explore for that individual, but it wouldn't be like a primary use of this.

And that's what I was gonna ask.

I mean, on what priorities like what are the stuff that's redundant on here?

Some some of what you just mentioned in regards to already already existing, and then we just we have this but there are programs that are existing.

So for me, I guess for us correctly, but what are prioritizing in terms of this list?

Yeah, we can certainly do that.

I believe that's our job.

No, uh no, I'm I'm I'm I said for us.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, I think the director just said yes, we can do that.

I think that's our job is to prioritize your job is to be able to do that.

Well, I think you need to be included in this conversation.

I think this is also up to us, but I think your input is valuable because I think the other part of it is we can talk about this particular.

Also to which to Council President's um point about the our conversation about this um we don't direct staff, is also implementation.

There's also implementation piece that needs to be taken in consideration as well.

Implementing in terms of like making it effective, making a difference.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, that would be something that's what I'm saying.

You tell us what you want to make it happen.

No, I'm saying that this is an overall vulnerable conversation.

I I know, yeah, I'm not going to implement this.

No.

No, I no, I I understand that.

But I just think in terms of our conversation, we have to prioritize this.

I would prefer us to prioritize this list.

Uh hearing from you is about what's what's the programs or are redundant.

Yeah, I uh we can certainly provide that.

Um I want to look at this more closely off the top of my head.

I can see three or four that are available elsewhere.

I mean that we actually operate ourselves already that but we get funding for from the state for the you and you would meet the need as well, correct?

Pardon me?

You meet the need as well, correct.

And what this with the funding that you receive, you meet the need in terms of these.

Yeah, yeah, providing home buyer education, delinquency prevention, and default counseling.

We do that through the Maryland Housing Counseling Program.

We receive funds that PMSF to do exactly that.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's an example.

And we've always done that.

I'm really not.

Like I'm looking at this, and I know I was part of putting it together, but it's not making sense to me right now.

Yeah, that's yeah, that's a program that has been around for since I think 2012.

Okay, well, so that's long this has been before this was before that.

So I thought that no, it's it was earlier than that, I believe.

So parts of it.

Home buyer education delinquency.

I don't know about all of it, but we've been providing home counseling since before 2000.

We have with FCA when it was FCAA.

Okay.

So, President I'm sorry, we keep coming back to the No, it's okay.

What do you want from us?

So I think I think what you've provided is some direction is turn in terms of the MPD ordinance and we're gonna come back.

Um staff is gonna provide recommendations for ways that maybe at program origin there weren't these other avenues for funding, but now there are, so we're gonna do that review.

And then I think we already will have at some point the conversations with the recipients.

I think it's important that we um we can if we haven't already, we'll query the development community because I think it's important that as we're looking at there's this conversation about the LITEC program that I think we're missing in the conversation as to why it's so essential that there be some sort of gap financing for those projects.

And it I think the conversation then will more should it come from the MPDU program.

I think what we've sort of seen historically is we've used this fund for those purposes because we didn't have you know the rental licensing program didn't exist.

We didn't have a budget action for LITEC projects.

Right.

It is entirely within the purview of this body to say we only want to use MPDU in lieu of funds for this purpose, but we also think there should be this funding mechanism or we should yeah, so that's I think that's where we're we're going.

Uh but I think you need more information to be able to to call to make that call.

So I think I think I think I have enough to keep us busy for a moment, but if you're um Claire, I'm just you never stop being busy, do you?

So um if you want to take public comment, we haven't done that yet, but can we move on to 80s?

You bet.

Thank you very much, Directors.

I appreciate it.

Uh any public comment on this.

Yes.

Peter, you have three minutes.

Uh my name is Peter Brehm.

I live in District Three.

Uh, a couple things.

Uh one is I wonder if there would be value in learning about and documenting the advantages and limitations of not allowing the fee in lieu, or increasing the fee in lieu to better reflect the cost of actually building housing.

I understand that the building association, the realtors, the housing experts that we have in the city should weigh in on that.

I just think it would be a useful discussion to have.

Uh the second is, and maybe a plan exists already for the 4.6 million dollars.

And I would recommend that uh, at least on a path forward basis that the uh Department of Health and Human Services develop a a budget or a plan for how anticipated revenue should be spent.

Understanding the list is going to be trimmed down and redundancies taken out.

And it's a budget.

So if if we spend if we anticipate spending $500,000 on rental assistance or or on uh counseling for how to avoid default, that's okay.

Those funds could be shifted around by council, but at least there's an a plan and an understanding of how much revenue we expect and how we anticipate we want to spend that revenue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anne, you have three minutes.

Hi, and Ryan again.

Um I love that in this list of possibilities, there's supporting lowering income individuals who do not qualify for the MPDU program.

And I wonder if we might think about investing in some kind of demonstration project in the city of Frederick that shows how it could work.

What would it look like?

There's a church downtown that wants to renovate, that wants to make it into SROs for seniors who have low incomes.

What could we do to help that pastor?

Could we could we use some of the MPDU money to invest in a demonstration project?

Um as we build out, of course, other other layers of funding.

But it would be it would be good to use this as kind of a showcase of what's possible if we could invest some of that in that.

Thank you.

Kevin, three minutes.

Thank you.

Kevin Sellner East Fifth Street.

Um I'm speaking for Citizens for Responsible Growth.

Um we believe that the MPDU money should go solely for construction of housing, and that the marvelous very needed social programs that are in this list actually become part of the CIP as something we commit to for all our residents.

So right now we know from just Rand's and everybody else's presentation, we don't have the housing we need.

One or two houses, it's a nice infantile start.

I'm sorry to say it that way.

It is.

I know it's a tax increase in the property tax, and that's very unacceptable to most people.

But .7305 versus 0.7306, you know, per 100, use that fraction of a cent to solely go for the social programs, something like that.

But we need housing.

So CRG strongly, strongly encourages use of the MPDU monies at a higher level, as uh Mr.

Brown brought up for construction.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

Okay, we don't generally um reply back to um public comment.

I'm gonna say that at least two of you have mentioned things that I think are things that we're regularly moving forward on.

Um I'm just gonna request a conversation, and if you and I could talk after, I want to have a conversation about this church and pilot program thing.

It's very interesting to me.

Okay.

All right, so ADUs, the rewrite, we're gonna we're working through that.

Uh in order to have guidance to prepare the tax amendment, they're just a couple things.

So if you refer to the backup and you click on the 4.3, I just want to draw your attention to you.

This is the building permit application that someone who is constructing an ADU, and I'll just I'll just draw your attention.

Um Bruce brought this up, and this is something that comes up pretty frequently, the impact fees that are involved with constructing an ADU.

And I just want to just sort of drop the mic on that.

That might be something that you want to look at.

Um, and I'm not, you know, I I don't think that's a conversation necessarily for today, but I'm happy to have the conversation today, but I just wanted to bring that up in the context of you know, we've been talking about barriers and reasons why people aren't building them, and it could be that the impact fee structure we have is a barrier.

I think that's a reasonable toss there.

You kind of tipped your hand there.

So I I would ask in terms of our in light of our conversation today, particularly around funding.

Do you have any suggestions or I mean you have to share at this time um of how of how this could so uh honestly I do not because we didn't bring this up in the if you recall from our last meeting we were talking about parking, and that was it was in our backup.

Um and so I didn't want to I'm not putting you on the spot on this, but if if it's your direction, we can prepare some information about how these fees fit within okay.

Yes.

Um but I just uh it when I saw it, I was like, oh, because I had never I'd never pulled that document before to be completely frank with you.

So um with your approval, we will put that information together and you can you can have that conversation.

Uh I think sorry, go ahead.

So can you can correct me if I'm wrong?

I'm I'm looking at all of the the fees.

And um other than the water connection, and I don't I don't know what that is.

Um we're talking about right around $15,000 per unit.

Yes, yeah, 15,000.

So I'll just again I'm sorry for all the editorializing today, but I will say when I was looking for a home for my grandfather to, you know, he lived with us, right?

You know, we were one of the options was it was hard to find somewhere, we did end up finding somewhere that was because it was a split level he could walk out of his level.

But we we did look at you know properties on the I'll just use like where you live, council member, that you know, you could the single the traditional single families that maybe have a little bit smaller footprint you but you could maybe put an additional on because of the lot size or an ADU, right?

Realistically to have a homeowner have $15,000 in cash in addition to constructing the ADU when those fees and and I I have not ever sought financing, so I don't I can't speak to that with any intelligence, but I just think we need to be realistic that and that's what what I saw it, I was like, there's no way that we would have had another an extra in the process of buying a home, and maybe that and that's a policy decision.

I don't want to, but I'm just being I'm just tossing it out.

So these AD, so these fees, that 15,000 is actually added to another unit built on the same property.

I why would there be another school impact fee added?

Why would there I get it now?

I I misunderstood.

I I I got you now.

You got it.

I mean, so there are certain certain ones that make sense and other ones that don't make sense.

Okay.

But um again, the way this is written, it is if it's less than or equal to 800 square feet, then like the school impact fee is exempt.

So you know 800 square feet is not tiny.

No, I totally agree with you.

And if you're building something larger than 800 square feet, I think that's and I think that's the origin, right?

I think that makes a lot of sense.

Like we we didn't want to incentivize big, and maybe that's another policy discussion you want to have, but I I that made a lot of sense to me why you put a limit on it.

I want to have every policy discussion there possibly is so um I I I think that the the incentive for this is to make that ADU smaller.

And that way you won't have 10 people living in it, probably.

Right.

And um, you know, go from there, which you know, that's nine thousand dollars off right there, which is a pretty massive amount.

Um so let's not let's just not forget that we we have already done parts of that.

So you want us to take a closer look at these at the fees?

I'm raising it today because we hadn't talked about it before.

I don't think you need to make a decision today, but it was in your backup, so I didn't want to not right.

What we what we said we were gonna talk about today was your um the requirement for parking uh with respect to the and I think the question just put very simply is whether or not you would like to continue or what additional information you need to make decisions about the continuation it it because this this um requirement to have separate parking for the ADU seems to be it's it's what we've heard about, if that's if that's a fair summary.

Um and so I just wanted to that's kind of the sticking point that we've been on.

So I understand that it's what we hear about.

It does anybody know, I mean, has there been somebody who actually was going to build an ADU and did not because of the parking requirement?

Because so often what we hear about are these oh well what if what if well you know but they're not real I I thought about this the last conversation that we had because to my knowledge, no, we don't have any data on this, and this might actually, and I I know you're gonna you're gonna cringe, but we might want to consider some sort of survey option because it's interesting to me, you know.

What you know, I know for us we're HOA, we're very for what where we live, we're very limited, but for the properties like where you live, council member, that you don't have the HOAs.

I honestly I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know if it's even something people know that they can do, right?

So and so and and I live, you know, I I live on a relatively narrow street.

I I have um neighbors across the street who have two families living in their home.

And so the street tends to be parked up sometimes.

That's just a reality.

That there's not an ADU there.

They just have multi-generational, a multi-generational household.

They're lovely.

Like, yeah.

You you can't, you know, we've had that conversation.

So I've I've got kids, and all of a sudden my kid turns 16, and oh, there's another car out front because my kid turns 16, and I really don't want to drive them to school anymore.

Um so I'm I'm certainly willing to have the conversation.

I do think that there are places in this city where parking is so um minimal.

Minimal, okay, we'll use that word.

That works.

That it matters.

Like, so not requiring extra parking in a place that already has parking issues, I think would be a disservice to the people who live there.

In my neighborhood, so I have to walk half a block.

It's not a big deal, right?

Um I don't know that we can do it that way.

I would it be helpful to talk to the communications department about how we could potentially I didn't even cringe when you said that.

Did you notice that?

I know you did a good job.

And I didn't that time because I think in this particular case, it's very appropriate.

Yeah.

All right, fair enough.

If you agree, I'll we'll we'll seek to get that that going and try to get some more information about why people aren't.

I have a feeling people might not even know they exist.

So yeah, yeah.

All right.

That's it for me then.

Is that enough for today?

Wow.

Okay.

Any public comment on let's um accessory dwelling units.

We let's go ahead and if if you have anything to say about either the fees or the parking, both of those will take that.

Thank you.

Peter Brim, District 3.

First on parking.

Uh an ADU essentially doubles the zoning from an R4 to an R8 if everybody, and I understand not everybody will do that, puts an ADU on their property.

And for that reason, I would strongly encourage us to keep parking as a requirement.

The second is, and this may already be the case.

Are ADUs required to be licensed as with rental properties?

They're permitted, yes.

They're permitted to be able to do that.

Great.

And I mentioned that I'm sorry.

Permitted is different than licensed.

So in 10 years, will we know who has an ADU on their property?

If they're renting it out, they darn well better license it.

All right.

I I would strongly encourage us to make sure that every ADU is registered with the city, whether or not there's a fee attached to it is a city council decision, but every ADU should be registered because in the world of unintended consequences, today's ADU for grandpa ends up being tomorrow's bed and breakfast or or short-term rental ADU.

And I'm hearing complaints from people about parking and noise and trash from bed and breakfast.

So this is a way for the city to keep track of what's going on.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

No.

Okay.

Well, um, again, thank you all for being here.

President Nash, is there anything else that you have for us?

No, I will just note um, Madam Chair, that we've we've been focused on housing pretty exclusively because of the workload.

Um, you can think about it and let us know if you want to take a you know take a hiatus at some point and dive into some of the other items that you have that you could have in front of your committee.

But we'll just keep every two weeks we'll keep talking about housing.

I just wanted to make sure I said that as a programming note.

We kind of just keep rolling, and there's certainly enough to talk about.

But very much appreciate that.

Um, if there maybe we could take a look at some of the other things that could also I I don't want to talk about housing um and just skip all of the other things that we need to have conversations on.

So if we could pull in some other things also, but housing is terribly important.

So um I I appreciate the fact that we are, and as you say, it's it's a it's a process, but if we take a hiatus on that process, it pushes everything back so far that I just I really don't care to do that.

But thank you.

Vice President, do you have any?

No, thank you.

Okay, okay.

Well, again, thank you everybody for being here.

Certainly appreciate all of the work that you all have put in.

Um staff again, everybody appreciate it.

Uh this meeting is adjourned.