Okay, we're gonna get started.

I call to order the October second housing, health and education committee meeting.

We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Let's go forward.

So first of all, just a reminder of what the CEAP is.

It is a joint city county plan for the Frederick community.

This includes everyone in the community.

So it's not just government operations, which we've already we've already done, both the city and the county have each done their own government operations plans.

This builds on the efforts of the climate emergency mobilization work group, the hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan, the city climate action plan for government operations, Livable Frederick, and lots of other other plans.

Now one thing I will note is that throughout the plan, you'll see some things that are, you know, specific to the city, and um then they'll see some things that are specific to the county.

So um just pointing that particular part out.

The this is to meet our standards within the region.

So the local plan needs to meet the standards to be included in those regional plans.

The greenhouse gas emissions are must be calculated by sector, and there needs to be a climate risk and vulnerability assessment, which is included, and there must be a resilience component.

I'm gonna ask you.

I I never do this, but if you could move back from the microphone just a tiny bit.

I know exactly.

Yeah, you're it's just all that better.

Okay, thank you.

So it also has to include a resilience component, and then the uh Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's uh climate action plan was the first regional plan to meet the Paris Agreement, and even though the federal government is not a part of that any longer, the state and region are still part of the Paris Agreement, so we are still complying with that.

Uh so continued the city and county goals our city and county goals are to meet 50% greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2030 and 100% by 2050.

And this was a resolution that was passed by both city and county separately.

Um you can see that to the right there.

Our CEAP aligns with the goals of Maryland's climate pathway, and it builds on community wide and jurisdictional efforts uh to align with our state, regional, and international standards.

And you might recall the climate report that the um work group released several years ago.

So this definitely builds on those actions, and we're just putting data to that and um moving forward with providing those, we're continuing to provide those actions in here, but we're putting some data behind it.

So uh to give you a little bit of background about how we got the community involved.

We had 18 in-person public engagement sessions all throughout the city and county.

There was a real quick what was what was that over the course of time frame?

Time frame.

What was that over the course of?

Uh, I think we had three months.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh, and then we had six technical working group sessions made up of citizens, industry experts, and staff.

We, if folks couldn't attend any of our um sessions, they could do a survey, and we had over 650 responses for that.

And we also had 40 responses during our public input once the um draft report was released.

So we're that's what we're still we're incorporating all those public responses right now.

So here are the CEAP goals.

Um so beyond greenhouse gas emissions, that's you know, kind of what we're looking at.

The climate action, of course, means creating healthier communities, and we want to create those communities for everybody for people who are walking, biking, even if you're driving a car, um, you know, taking bus and train riders.

We want to make a healthy community for everybody.

We want to cultivate new and existing green spaces, so taking those parks that we have and sort of making them even better, and then as new parks come into the system, um, looking at those spaces to continue to provide those benefits.

And of course, tackling cost and other barriers.

That's the one of the major things we see is that cost is is one of the biggest barriers to you know adopting some of these practices.

So trying to figure out ways that that folks can do it, uh finding them grant funds, the little few grant funds that are available right now, trying to to sort of work on those, as well as being good community partners, expanding our technical uh resources of technical advice.

Um, that's why we're partnering with the county as we pull together all of our partners, um, we can we have a bigger group of people to pull from to help other folks out, and also it's things like planning to protect against the impacts of heat and flood flood risks.

I'll get into that in a little bit, and of course, preparing for population increases.

We know we're growing pretty at a pretty fast clip.

So here are some climate risks and vulnerabilities that we found.

These are the four main ones, and um extreme heat, heavy precipitation, drought, and winter storms were the four that we identified as being the most problematic in our region, and really for Frederick.

And of course, this past year you can see drought was a big issue as well as last year.

So you know, we're really need to be cautious about water supplies and things like that.

But extreme heat, we also had some pretty hot temperatures this summer.

Um, so keeping those things in mind, it's very likely that those will increase those those um number of days will increase during the summers.

Here's some highlighted mitigation strategies.

I just want to sort of go over how the you know the report is organized so that uh folks can understand it a little bit better.

Oops.

So the mitigation strategies, I just selected a couple of actions so you could kind of see what what it looks like.

So under buildings, our strategy is you know, accelerate deep building energy efficiency and electrification in new buildings and retrofits for existing buildings, and then you have actions underneath that.

So encourage energy audits.

We already do that to a certain extent through our um HHS and uh provide some funding for that and weatherization and things like that, and then provide training and education for current and incoming contractors.

This is something I don't think we do right now, but we are looking to do in the future so that they are well equipped to install and maintain clean technology so they know what's what and how to recommend certain things.

Like trying to put solar panels on city buildings and for city uses at any point we can.

Are you I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Sure.

Does that include um solar panels on and for city uses whenever possible?

It could.

Um we you know, some of our our buildings aren't really um able to hold solar panels.

Um ground mount is the cheapest.

Uh the the solar that we put at the you know um police department, that's actually the most expensive kind of solar you can put is over a parking lot.

Buildings are a great way to go.

Our rooftop space really just isn't there to support the needs for the building underneath it.

And in addition to that, you have um HVAC and other things sort of in the way a lot of times on these building rooftops.

Now, when you have a larger building, um like say a warehouse or something, you have a lot more space to deal with, and that would be a great um opportunity for solar.

So you have to kind of look way the um the cost benefit for it and then see if there's other technologies you could put in for energy efficiency rather than putting on solar.

So you may be able to achieve some other goals that that will get reduce those greenhouse gas emissions in other ways.

So yeah.

When you're talking about pricing for solar, whether it be like so my brain's going on top of DPW, for instance.

I know that there's a lot that you have to do weight-wise, yeah, etc.

Um, but the cost of it are are we comparing those costs lifetime or just short term?

Yeah, it would be a a lifetime and in basically when you look at solar panels, the typical life expectancy, typical, is about 20 years, and then your efficiency uh degrades to the point where you should probably think about replacing them because you're not you know, you're the benefits, you know, but at that point you own the panels typically.

So it's sort of this trade-off.

But um at the same time, you need to look at uh how much electricity that building is using and potentially what you could put on the roof.

Is it enough to support all the uses that the building is using and the surrounding buildings are using?

Um or uh would it be better to ground mount it somewhere because you could get a bigger um facility.

Sure.

So that's kind of what you have to look at is um the the sighting options.

Um and so rooftop may not be the best answer, it could be a ground mount somewhere.

Yeah.

But when we're doing those comparisons, the the price comparisons, we are using that 20-year.

Yeah, it's typical now.

Um as we solar um becomes better, you know, more efficient and we get better technologies, it may increase.

But for right now, it's typically 20 years.

Um and some, you know, depending on what kind of panels you get, you could get bifacial panels, which are typically used in the north when you have snow, it reflects off the bottom of them.

Um you can get the ones that track, or you can get stationary ones.

There's some that you know are more appropriate for ground mount versus rooftop, depending on what your needs are, there's different types of solar panels available.

And when we're using those those prices, the pricing, are we also considering the environmental protection?

Do we have a do we put a price in for that?

I I mean it's are you talking about like in our purchasing policy?

Like if if uh we do there is um, you know, we we have an environmentally preferred product um statement in our purchasing policy if that's what you mean.

Not really, although that's good to remind me of, but no, I'm thinking more of the okay.

So we're comparing um will it lose money over 20 years, right?

Yep.

How much of the money that we're considering has um uh sustainability price to it, like it protects the environment, so there should be a cost in there.

Sure.

That's included.

Yeah, that's where your greenhouse gas emissions come in, where you're um that would be sort of like the direct offset.

If you're gonna directly offset the building, um then you could count that towards your greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Um yes, it is considered in certain installations, yeah.

I I still think we're talking about two different things.

So yes, that's important to do.

That's one of the ways that we measure um value in this realm.

It's very difficult because it's you know it's an intangible and it's also difficult to see.

So uh we we do measure greenhouse gas emissions, and that's one of the ways we can do it.

Of course, you I mean, there are lots of other benefits.

You're taking you're not using coal burning um fuel, you're you're using a different technology that would remove you from the current um electricity stream if it's directly offset, if it's installed on site and used for that facility.

It's a very complex sort of thing.

No, no, no, it's it it should be very complex.

Uh and I don't I just wondered if when we're doing the comparisons, if there's a specific price that we put in there, like you know, the comparison we're saving this much in electricity, we're saving this much, but we're also protecting the environment.

How much is that worth?

Right.

That's a difficult thing to measure.

Uh so is economic development and and the amount that it puts into the local economy, but we find a way to do it.

Yeah, and usually, like I said, usually it's it's emissions that we use because that is the thing that will affect us, uh health-wise.

Um, you know, that that's typically the thing that we we can use.

Uh there's probably health department numbers we might be able to get um, you know, for if we offset this amount, uh how you know how much is it likely to reduce uh impacts for you know on health.

Yeah.

Sure.

Yeah, yes, exactly.

That's the type of stuff we're gonna do.

Right, right.

But I don't know that currently we have that information from our health department.

We can work on it.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um so the other mitigation strategies, uh, of course we have some for power, transportation, waste, and natural and working lands.

The natural and working lands, uh, many of those will actually be um in the negative category because we're we're taking things out uh instead of putting things on.

We're not you know, it's not an emission, it's more of a reduction.

And when we're talking um power and um things like electric cars, let's just go to that for a minute.

Um are we having conversations with the electric company about the power grid and what it can support and if there are ways that we in the city can help um support it better?

Yes.

Uh we've had ongoing discussions about that.

Um we know that our grid is aging.

Um it's not something that we can really control, but it's certainly something that we're concerned about.

Um why is it not something we can control?

Because the utility owns the lines.

We don't the one thing that we can do is you know, um ask the PSC for the public service commission to step in, but uh thus I mean it they're a private company.

So sure, and and again, we support private companies all the time.

Like we as a city provide funding to private companies all the time for something so important as the electrical grid.

One would think we would be working toward that immediately.

In our conversations, they have said they will be okay.

We haven't gotten much more out of them other than that.

Have they said okay to a certain point, or they just say they're gonna be okay?

That's what we get.

Okay.

Good to know.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um to go through the uh resilience strategies.

Um these are the three main categories are infrastructure and built environment, health and well-being.

So this is where this comes in for you.

Um uh measuring things, so our strategy is ensuring the public has adequate and equitable access to cooling facilities and services during extreme heat events.

Um one of the actions is to identify opportunities to increase mobility and access to parks, open spaces, cooling centers, and emergency shelters, and then create new opportunities for those spaces as well.

We know that in the future we're going to need those spaces and to um make sure that the spaces that we currently have are kept up and maintained such that they can support those activities.

And then the third one is emergency management and resilience.

So here's what we got from the public.

Their priorities, uh we we had all of those meetings and we distilled all that information down to uh the main categories, and the the top five were to improve efficiency in homes, businesses, and public buildings, to transition to clean energy, to improve infrastructure for climate resilience, improve air and water quality, and then reduce urban heat.

Um there were a lot of other topics that were brought up, um, but these were the top five that really stuck out as far as what folks were concerned about.

That these didn't come from us, these came from our public.

This was what they uh said they were concerned about, which is why the plan is organized with the action items that it is.

And that's it.

I'll take any questions you have.

I anticipate the uh we're we're still incorporating comments, and um I I'm hoping that we can get a completed plan done by end of October.

Um, but it will be determined once we get to that point.

So sorry.

Thank you.

So um I have a couple of questions if you want to go back one.

Oh uh one thank you.

Yes.

This one, okay.

So um here we have improved air and water quality and reduce urban heat.

I've seen that in a number of places around the world, they're allowing um building or um supporting building that has things like uh moss and other plants on literally growing on buildings.

Um I always am concerned the roots will get in and like trash the building, right?

And so have we looked at stuff like that and and do we know how well that's working?

There is a demo rooftop garden at the new police headquarters.

Yes, um, so that's a small one.

The building has to be built to uh support the weight of something like that.

So not only if you're growing it on a rooftop, it's got to be able to support the weight up there, but you also need to be able to support it if you're gonna grow it up the sides, and usually they have a framework, so it's not growing up the side of the building, it's growing on a framework that's attached to the building.

So instead of growing up the facade, it's actually it looks like it is, but it's usually on a on a metal framework or some other type of framework so that it can be repaired if needed, but it doesn't actually grow into the brick or anything like that.

That's good to know.

Yeah, and it does cool and it provides a lot of ecosystem benefits because it's you know it will make everything feel cooler around it.

It cools the building, you use less energy um to heat and cool the the building.

Um as far as the green roof, that's uh a lot of times those are used for stormwater management rather than cooling features, but uh that's what the one at the police headquarters is for.

It's a stormwater facility.

So depending on what you put up there and how much soil you have, it sort of depends on the the size of the roof that you are using, and then um how much water how much water is diverted to it, and then how much water you can treat with it.

So there's a lot of factors that go into it.

Sure.

So do we have anything in our um land management code that stops somebody from doing this?

Do we have anything that we might have to change that that is to allow something?

Great question for Gabrielle.

Okay, except for you're the sustainability person, so you're the person who should be asking Gabrielle that question, right?

Yes, so I can ask her.

I am not aware of anything that prohibits or permits.

There could be something in there, but I don't know.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

So that would be really interesting to know.

Um, and if there's a a way that we or the upcoming um city council can um support people who are trying to do such type of building.

I think that would be terrific.

Yeah.

As far as I know, there's nothing that prohibits it.

Um as long as it's supported, though it's engineered to to support that.

I don't I don't think that there's any prohibition.

Okay.

Okay.

Councilmember.

Thank you.

Um COVID questions.

This the water quality um actually welcome our members, and I probably should have answered this question before.

We we made some significant investments in our wastewater treatment plan.

How much have they had conversation with you in regards to this in regards to this being a priority but also ensuring that these significant investments that we've made in our wastewater treatment plan?

The wastewater treatment plant folks, yes.

Um they're required they you know they're actually legally obligated to do those sorts of things.

Um it would be more water quality sort of upstream to make sure that those um you know that our streams are well taken care of, that we have um adequate buffers, stream buffers, um, that we are um helping people to understand the impacts that they have.

So an educational, you know, which we do, we definitely have an educational component attached to it.

But as far as wastewater treatment, um we don't we aren't able to really dictate to them anything, and they're at the end stream or the end, you know, and not necessarily dictate in terms of conversation.

Oh, yeah, yeah, that's one that's one mass not that you got that assistant.

Yeah, they're very well aware of water quality and they are doing everything they they can over there at the treatment plant.

Um they also have the co-generation facility, which generates electricity on site, so it's a direct offset for that facility.

Um so yeah, it's that's a great you know, addition over there.

Okay.

Yeah.

And you said this plan would be finalized in October.

I hope so.

I can't guarantee anything because we're still consolidating all the the comments and everything.

And the reason why I asked that because uh really in terms of particularly for next budget, the whatever we need in terms of dollars would be uh well well the action items won't likely won't change.

It's more you know, like the verbiage and everything else, but um so if there are action items that I feel like we could do in the immediate term, I will definitely bring them forward for consideration in the uh the next budget cycle.

Okay, okay.

I have no other further questions, thank you.

Thank you, council member.

Um of the other things that you had mentioned, probably back a couple slides, but it doesn't matter.

Um, create new opportunities for cooling in the summer.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

Um, what are our plans there?

So that would be um trying to look at our current facilities.

So evaluating what current facilities we have that can take folks in and then expanding on those operations.

So it would be um getting a team together with our emergency management folks, our parks folks, and then also HHS.

So it it sounds like we haven't actually done this, but I could swear that we've had people talking about this for a while now.

Yeah, uh we have we just don't have we aren't further along, so it would be since it's a goal in here, we will definitely be having those discussions in the near future about oh I mean we saw this summer how hot it was.

So definitely trying to have those conversations, and I know Nathan Um has been working really hard on um some responses looking at the heat and and releasing those uh daily um sort of notices when we're gonna reach a threshold and where to go to get resources and things like that.

Sure, yeah, and and I think that we've done a much better job of that than we had in the past.

Yeah.

But again, this is another one of those things that um it's hard sitting on this side and hearing things like we're working on that.

We're working on that.

I heard a year from a go, we're working on that.

I want some time frames.

I want some actual this is planned for and understood that you can't always say in exact, you know, we think this is happening in October, it may take a little more time.

Sure, that's fine.

Right.

But at what point in time are these groups getting together and having that conversation?

And who is the person who is um adding that up?

Uh I think it could be any one of our group.

I so nobody at this point.

Not anybody at this point, but I will do it.

It's yeah.

I mean, it's if it's in the CEAP, that's gonna be my responsibility.

So once this gets approved or adopted, then it's on me to do it.

Um to get a crew together to to look at that.

I can't guarantee that we would be building any new centers right away, but I think that we can identify we already have identified a lot of the the current sites that could um be coolings be used as cooling centers.

It's a matter of what else can we do?

Um what other things can we offer folks?

One of the things we identified with this was that um the transit will provide us with air conditioned buses if needed as a cooling center.

So that was one thing that came out of this when we we did have the discussion.

Um so that's an opportunity that we didn't know existed.

And they've agreed to do that.

Yeah, it's exceptional.

Yeah, so thanks working together.

That's already um in you know, in the works.

It's a matter for as far as new centers though, that would be a much bigger discussion.

But we did identify some of the locations in here.

Yeah.

That's excellent.

And and actually, I think I I think we don't hear about the things that you've already done, right?

And that's another thing that maybe as part of you know, when when you're giving uh presentations, you can let us know.

Hey, we're we're working on this, we're not there, but here's something new that you know that's being provided because we don't necessarily know it, the public doesn't necessarily know it, and this is a good way to get it out there.

Yep.

Thank you.

Councilmember?

Okay.

I'm good.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Uh any member of the public like to speak on this.

Kevin Sellnerisa Street as a writer and editor of the report in 2021 that you all adopted in the resolution.

Um I want to compliment Jen and and the county for including the new data from uh COG.

That's very good.

Unfortunately, what I see, and I said this to Jen, so it's no big surprise to her, it's yet another report.

And I would hope that maybe before this council ends, it's deliberations for the year that you would consider putting into the executive summary a one of the lines that says right now you say something like NAC uh access or you identify all these sign-ons in your executive summary.

I would suggest that you put one in that says climate implications, so that every single policy that the council or the planning commission uh considers has Jen or the department heads weighing in on will this meet the emission standards that Jen was just talking about?

Will it meet uh mitigation strategies that are in the C plan?

Um and so without doing that each time, it kind you know the climate becomes invisible.

So when you brought up will the public hear about it, you know, they could if it was in that executive summary, even if they don't come to all the meetings.

So that would be the first thing.

Um so the next thing is probably for the new council and and government, but is actual implementation.

Make sure that we start moving these things forward.

Um Jen may be trying very hard to you know work on it to engage, etc.

But we laid out 40 recommendations in our earlier uh report.

We provided all the funding sources that are out there, uh local, state, and federal, and obviously federals off off the table now, but um what I would like to see is that the new council uh and uh new mayor actually make climate a priority because bringing up just the things that Jen was talking about in terms of um heat.

You can make um all of the shelters have cooling uh gardens on the top.

So it's pretty strict easy and straightforward.

Last point the CIP should embed climate in its in its plans.

CIP should have climate as one of its priority areas.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We really appreciate the the report and um the comments.

should embed climate in its in its plans CIP should have climate as one of its priority areas so thank you very much thank you anybody else okay thank you very much we really appreciate the the report and um the comments okay we're gonna go to number two housing overlay mpd you program a to review as a comment from developers okay because that's like technology overlay most like I I apologize I I did say developer space I missed it okay good morning uh vice president shackled and council member Kazumchak thank you for inviting me today I appreciate the topics let me I can use this so these are the three things that I was invited to speak on today I could have a full workshop on each one of them so please let me know my recommendation is always to have a focus group that can take a deeper dive into something that's important to you so the topic of development incentives related to zoning so that's the first one the second one is known as MPDUs moderately priced dwelling units and then looking at ADUs accessory dwelling units so thinking about developer incentives um my take on it it has to start from the top down always so anything that I share with you is keeping in mind it's very difficult to have the political uh coverage that you need as legislators as leaders to try to move through things that are not popular to grow housing in general so the first one is having a continuum of housing needs assessment we're fortunate that the county will be wrapping up its 10 year study with a strategic plan in December that's when it's tentatively scheduled to be delivered hopefully to the public but definitely to the council members and the staff what happens in those type of needs assessments I say continuum because when you subsidize or support housing you don't want to deter somebody from moving into home ownership which starts wealth it creates a middle class um it gives an opportunity whatever your goals are if you want to be in rental that might be in a different location but still in your same community you don't want to have to leave because that next stepping stone takes you out because you can't afford it.

Action plan you just mentioned uh council member Kazumchek having dates having timelines even if they're not perfect you still have to have an action timeline for us building takes five 10 20 30 years and that's unacceptable when we're talking about people without shelter or people leaving our community and taking their tax dollars with them dedicated staff this is a budgetary item you have to have staff that not just oversee but that are the boots on the ground to make sure that there is clarity transparency and that you're meeting your action timeline but the staff also partner with the experts and your community nonprofits your community organizations that can help lean in on what they do to be part of it having MOUs having expectations set out in the beginning it's a recommendation.

Raising all boats there's not a silver bullet so while I talk to you about MPDUs and ADUs there are tons of housing types and financing options but one won't get you to where you want to go so my recommendation is look at everything and how we can touch on all opportunities.

Some may take longer some may be low hanging fruit but don't just think that one is going to get us there.

That's my recommendation so DRRAs these are the developer rights and responsibility agreements the only thing that breaks a DRRA is if somebody can determine that there's a health and safety concern to the public so DRRAs a lot of folks are like well it ties up a developer from having to pay updated fees.

It does only because what happens is you decide when you sign that agreement that there's predictability the developer can finish that project that they're not gonna have something come in the pathway that might move in another five 10 15 years and then you cycle out of your term limit of certain responsibilities as a builder or a developer.

So I encourage take a look at it it's not it's four letters but it's not a four letter word so I do encourage you to take a look at that as a tool in the toolbox again just one of many so what are some of the things that I feel like from the developer and builder perspective overturning zoning rules such as your minimum lot size looking at parking requirements.

Look at more uh ADUs, certainly.

Um, look at missing middle housing, micro apartments with Murphy beds.

We laugh, we think of like how when did that exist?

You know, back in the day.

But those can be for young adults.

Those young adults are losing, you know, we lose the economic um impact when they leave Frederick County and they can be incentivized to go to Baltimore because they can afford to live in an apartment there.

Why don't we have a variety of housing types that can address opportunities?

Also, I think that uh residential development and prioritizing in areas that we hadn't thought of.

I know I'm fortunate enough to sit on a number of work groups for the county where they're looking at the master plan and they're deciding will a new town be created at some point.

You know, what does that look like?

I know you guys hear a lot about annexation into the city of Frederick, but at some point does it make sense because we look at 40, 50 years into the future of land use, that that could be a possibility.

So the second thing is alleviating permitting roadblocks.

And here's my take on permitting roadblocks.

Time is money.

So when you're looking at something where we call it the green tape instead of the red tape, the green tape says here are all the predictable measures in place, you're not gonna do anything unique or customized, we're very clear on what the plan is, then let's get out of the way.

Let's give the opportunity to say you're gonna get the fees, but if you can save time, you're gonna save a considerable amount of money.

Developers and builders are more than happy to pay fee increases.

We understand that translates into staffing costs typically.

So there's never an issue there, but it's the timelines.

That can be the biggest game changer.

And what happens is it turns off people who do want to develop or investors willing to come into our community.

The Builders Association looks at both commercial residential mixed use, all of the products, anything that builds a community.

So if you're going to turn somebody away because they realize the timeline, they'll just move to another location to invest their dogs.

Real quick, give me an example of like time.

You talk about you mentioned about paying fees.

Yeah.

So that would be like permitting in terms of time laws, is that what you're speaking of?

Yes, so sometimes there's things.

I'll give you an example, something fairly new.

Um, there's some inspections around certain changes in codes.

We adopted, I'm I'm apologize if I get into the weeds here.

The 2021 codes had certain adoptions for insulation.

Nobody disagrees with them.

But the challenge is that the timeline to get an inspection, and if there's one thing that was uh not correct, you have to wait weeks for an inspector to come back out.

That's a staffing challenge.

But it's also if there were components in place of predictability, then everybody's working towards the same goal, if that makes sense.

What happens in the permitting process?

We have had kind of a perfect storm over the last three to four years where we're trying to be more automated.

That's great.

But the challenge is that things are looked at sometimes like this instead of this way, where you could have things going in concert at the same time that you're getting some of your process completed.

Um, it's not due to incomplete packages or anything like that.

It's just hiccups in the process when you look at something, you used to be able to go in and talk to face-to-face, lay out everything.

Great, here's your seal.

Now it has to go from one step to the next step to the next step and the next step.

I'm not saying that that's wrong.

I'm just saying there's opportunities to try to look at how can we shave off a week, a month in the process.

I will commend the city on a number of um progresses that it's made.

I know under Gabrielle coming on board, and again, staffing has a big part to play in being able to take a deeper dive into some of these hiccup areas or pinch points.

So that's just over the last 12 months, and we've seen improvements there.

Yeah, but thank you for asking.

Yep.

Um, so the other thing I put in here reform for federal laws.

So the Builders Association, we do lobby at every level with the Trump administration, with Governor Moore's administration, and certainly at the local level, and I really find that when we're able to engage in that whole picture, Maryland has its own set of laws.

And if we do not look, if if we compare ourselves, for example, and we're like, oh, this is a great idea out in Colorado.

We're not Colorado, and we're not going to be.

So at the end of the day, if we don't know our rules of engagement here, we'll play checkers instead of chess.

And so I have been very uh fortunate to be able to work with our federal elected officials by proximity.

Um so I highly encourage if there is an advocacy.

I know that the city, they go to Annapolis when they look at their legislative priorities.

I feel like that is one of the greatest things that we can do as a community is get behind uh that layering of elected officials and make sure the priorities line up.

Um and then lastly is adoption of reasonable cost-effective building codes for all uh the 2020 uh 21 building codes added as much as uh 35 to 40,000 dollars for each uh build, um and that's tough because multifamily is exceptionally expensive, but we don't want to keep building single family dwellings as an answer to supply.

So I think it's really important not only for the home buyer who has to absorb all the costs, but so do landlords.

And I know that there's a strong appetite to say, well, what about the rent?

I I look at everything, but when landlords have to pay that additional cost, they're not gonna be incentivized to buy apartments and and buildings with multi-family in order to be able to deal with those costs that are involved.

So I really feel like when we look at codes of 2024 codes should come out by 2027, they will correct some of the overreach and the challenges that the 2021 codes imposed.

Um, a little bit more common sense approach with a few things, but um, we're talking two years probably with that.

And then builders in general.

Um, builders, as you know, um, I know it's not popular, but they don't absorb all the costs.

Um I will tell you uh just a little anecdotally, we had a problem with transformers because of supply chain issues.

We have production builders who absorbed the rate locks so that the buyers didn't leave.

We had them put them up in hotels because they already sold their home, and they couldn't close a community because they had no control over two other countries that produced the tiny part that would go into the transformer, and that was unforeseen.

So the buyer should absorb that, and the builder knew that it was the best business decision, but that's production builders.

Your custom builders typically aren't or your mid-sized, they can't absorb those things.

So all right, and PDUs.

So moderately priced dwelling units can be rented or owned.

The idea is that they're gonna be below market rate.

The program currently in the city of Frederick is a fee and lieu option, and you have to have a zoning ordinance mandates around when you have an MPDU.

Um I can talk to you about the fee and lieu just briefly.

I know you're very well aware of what it can do.

Um my take on it is understanding back to that continuum plan, having a target of what housing needs you need to have in our community, is can those fees pay for more units in another capacity, like light tech properties.

When you collect these fees in LU, you can pay for the design and the upfront costs for LITEC.

LITTEC is very comprehensive, and you got to have somebody who's fully aware of everything that's involved with it, or it won't go well.

So those fees are the upfront costs that can enable you instead of having we'll say if you have a hundred unit MPDU build, you're gonna have 12 and a half percent of them dedicated to below market rate.

If you have light tech, you have a hundred percent that can be dedicated.

So if that hundred unit build could be a hundred percent, what is our end game?

Is our end game volume, or is our end game just trying to diversify?

And I'll tell you why we might come back to the end game should be volume.

So, administration, the thing is really important is you have to dedicate administration.

People have to be able to qualify buyers.

Um, some of the production builders in Montgomery County are involved with that process too.

But I will tell you, it's only 90 days, and in 90 days, if somebody isn't qualified or they don't want it, because sometimes they're like, that's not the unit I want.

I want the one with different types of amenities in it, I'm gonna pass and look for something else.

90 days it can go to market rate and it's open to the public.

The caveat is that the um the jurisdiction can purchase that unit, but then you gotta administrate it.

Then you become the landlord.

It could happen, it could work, but again, you're going back to 12 and a half units versus having a hundred units that you have a third party that can administrate all of that.

Um the challenges is you face every single year's budget.

Can you afford the budget to administrate this?

You can see in Montgomery County, they have dedicated um the HIV, by the way, or excuse me, HIV, HIF, um over almost 60 million dollars.

Those are the fees in lieu in Montgomery County because they built less units as a whole project.

So if they only built like 19 units, you're not subject to MPDU requirements and mandates.

So you collect a fee instead.

You don't get off free, but you have that money go back into this program to administrate it.

But they work with 121 million dollars.

Like we don't have that kind of money today, maybe tomorrow, but today we don't.

So as a community, we have to really understand would the you know, would our residents get behind that if we had a collect on that and can the developers pay their portion?

Like, how do we get to those administrative costs to have a whole department?

I know it would go under this gentleman here.

Um, so I know he knows more about it than I do.

Um, inclusionary zoning.

Um, the idea of this is you put that property in not perpetuity, but into a time frame where it's considered um exclusive to affordable housing.

So if I own the unit, I go to sell the unit, I'm not gonna get the full equity out of it, I'll get some of it, which is helping me move to my next stepping stone housing.

But the city or the county gets those funds predominantly, and for 30 years is what we have kind of an average.

Frederick County is 15 years for resales and 35 years for rentals, but Montgomery County is 30 and 99 for rentals.

So it almost feels like it's in a land trust when you have something that's gonna stay as a rental affordable unit.

Okay, so the community challenges production.

Um, and why do I say production will decrease?

Well, in Montgomery County in a 10-year period, they looked at, I just got this from Hugh Gordon this week.

Um, over 10-year period, they had less than 400 resales.

This is a problem.

Resales contribute to housing supply.

You know that better than anybody else.

And so we should be worried today.

We have approximately 190 units that are under 300,000.

We can put some financing products towards that.

We can do a number of things to make sure that they're occupied, but we need to make sure there's always a market of resales because there's an affordability component that's attached to that.

Um, so I just want to point that out.

Um, the affordability and preservation piece of it, again, the challenges is annual and qualifying.

If you're a renter, you have to have a form every single year that says, yes, I still qualify for this discounted or subsidized housing.

And the challenge is do I deincentivize them to get a higher paying wage?

The Builders Association, one of our uh highest pillars is workforce development, especially in the skilled trades where you can have a lucrative income.

I do not want anybody to feel like, oh my goodness, I don't qualify.

Now where do I move to?

Where's that stepping step?

So that has that's a challenge.

And that's especially when we're missing that middle.

Yes.

Yes.

If if we don't have that, so then you you come out of here, yeah, and then we miss that, and then you go, and they've moved somewhere else that's a middle.

Yes, absolutely.

And I before here, I came to a round table at Frederick Health talking about populations.

We have to support and feed our middle class.

Frederick County has predominantly been middle class for the last, you know, since World War II.

And I feel like if we start pinching them out, we end up having a higher cost to bear as a community, as a government to try to help support that that gap.

So just sharing that.

Um, so program administration, now you're dealing with the cost of living.

If you own that unit, we're having some of the owners say, take it back.

I can't afford the HOAs.

I can't afford the insurance.

I can't afford all the costs to just live here.

Electric bills are exceeding.

We're doing some studies at the national level that they're exceeding gas.

And what's happening is people are being priced out now of just the cost of living because of the compounding, these things just go up.

HOAs aren't going to go down.

And then just maintenance in general, home ownership and maintaining something.

Um, housing demands.

If you have a growing family, an MPDU might not need that.

They might be structured where they were only one or two bedrooms.

And if you have a growing family, it might be difficult to stay in that unit.

So that's always a bit of a challenge too.

Okay, the developer challenges.

So land use regulations, again, going back to minimum size lots.

A lot of people are like, why don't you take the density bonuses?

And we're like, we can't meet them with setbacks.

We can't meet them with parking.

We can't meet them because in Frederick, and I think I'm gonna jump down just to the example.

If you go to the second one that has master plan zoning and form-based code in Montgomery County, you can go to 25 stories.

We can't do that in Frederick.

We can go to five to six stories, depending upon if you have like parking underneath uh the first floor.

So I don't think we want to, but at the end of the day, there's a sweet spot between once you go from the fourth floor and you build the sixth, seventh, and eighth, it's not going to realize the cost.

You need to go almost 10 and higher.

And we're looking at those costs now.

Some of it goes back to permitting, it goes back to timelines, it goes by supply chains, kitchen cabinets just went up yesterday.

That's a big issue.

There's 25% tariffs on kitchen cabinets that are prefabed.

That's a problem.

That's gonna cost us that small little thing that people aren't so worried about.

Lumber went up 10% again.

And in January, cabinets are supposed to go up 50% in tariffs.

Now, while I understand it's supposed to incentivize build a home, custom cabinets are expensive.

So real problem for affordable housing.

So I just point that out because thinking about form-based code and maybe recognizing what it can do so that we don't have to worry about some again the lot sizes and setbacks and things that nature that we can get more density and incentivize developer.

Uh complex regulations.

So the coordination efforts between agencies to build MPDUs is considerable.

You need to be proficient in this space.

Your production builders typically are, but your mid-site builder builders are not.

Some of your nonprofits are not.

So having those partnerships in the community that can help take that piece on, council work, partner to get it through to the finish line is really important.

Um logistics and administration again.

Builders do not want inventory.

I can tell you we've got a downturn next year.

We've seen the lack of confidence in building multifamily because of the costs and the timelines that they're starting to see some layoffs.

And if we start to see them holding on to inventory because they can't sell it, that's gonna be more individuals not employed at that company because that's your highest cost is your FTE.

Uh cash flow issues, uh loans, things of that nature, um those are always uh kind of a domino effect, too.

Okay.

Um, did you want to ask me anything?

Or I I can okay.

So ADUs, accessory dwelling units.

Here's kind of a sense it from an image perspective.

All of these are ADUs.

You've got the detached, you can have it with the property.

You can even have a little bit of a breezeway between the property that physically attaches it.

Um, having a third floor or second floor to a house, a basement, uh building over a garage, or again, directly connecting the garage or converting the connected garage.

These are all qualifying accessory dwelling units.

So, what are the benefits?

Folks can age in place, your caregiver is in proximity to you.

Um, you can have entry-level housing again, going back to the young adult or the senior or an individual.

You could have somebody who, if somebody's going through a divorce and they have to find a place to live, and the family majority might be staying in the primary.

Where does that other person live to that can be possibly not in the same house?

Okay, we're not gonna have the divorce rate.

Let me clear that they have to go to their other family uh to live there.

But my point being is that you could have a variety of people, students in there, um, just folks that uh it could be a stepping stone, or it could be where they uh have permanent housing until they pass.

Um, they also have the idea is you can get income.

Um, some of the restrictions of the ADUs is that you can't have something under three months as a rental because they want to make sure people aren't doing uh vacation rental by owner kind of type of setups.

They want to ensure that it's long term and folks are gonna be uh it's predictable who's living there.

Okay, challenges, uh NIMBYism.

I don't need to go over that.

Uh regulatory, uh, the challenges is knowing that with the permissible locations, um, the restrictive.

So in the city of Frederick, um, it's ideal to be attached.

Um, I'll give you an example.

There's a gentleman that uh I know, and uh what was supposed to take about two months is he's about seven months now, and he made the decision to make it attached because if it was detached, he can't go over 800 square feet, or you hit impact fees, and I'll show you those here in a minute.

So the permissible locations if you're new construction, for instance, you got to be in the back of the property, you can't be to the side.

There's like again, you got to fit it into a game piece, but um trying to look at some of those regulations maybe as a plan of action where it might make sense.

Procedural.

Um if you don't do it for a living.

So the gentleman I worked with, I was like, did your remodeler do these before?

And he's like, well, he said he knew about them, and I was like, mm-mm.

If you don't know how to work the process, I think he could have saved himself at least two months.

So I'm not gonna blame permitting or anything for that.

I'm gonna blame it to ignorance, but um the problem is time is money, and so thinking about that.

The last is financial.

The average is 180,000 nationwide, and that is pretty typical in Frederick.

So the cost involved with planning and design, you could save money if you had some pre-fab designs, looking at all those different types of outlays.

Um modular build is not a bad word.

Um, yeah, it's it's something that we have a lot of modular homes in Frederick that have stood the test of time.

My parents still live in one off the golden mile, and I can tell you there's it's sound, it's probably stronger than my house.

Um, but I would say that the cost, this isn't necessarily affordable to everyone, it's affordable to the person who's gonna live in it.

So to get it built, you have to keep in mind that it is going to be an investment.

And then the fees, um, whether it's attached or detached, you have to decide early on because if you go over 800, I know in the county we're having challenges that unlivable space is being counted in the square footage.

You shouldn't count porches, you shouldn't count the the sidewalk, you shouldn't count any of that.

It should be where they can actually inhabit the space, and if there is a slab with a crawl, they're counting that that's not livable space.

So we're working on legislation right now to get clarity.

The city hasn't done that, so thank you very much.

So within the city, that non-usable space is not counted.

It's not counted.

I didn't think so.

No, you're gonna be the mom.

I was careful about that, I think.

I'm gonna ask you to come give testimony though with me.

Okay.

All right.

So what are the challenges?

Um, I'm just gonna go over here's a snapshot.

You guys have a great resource online for anybody, a mom and pop situation that if they want to kind of get the 411, it's very clear to understand, but they should have their remodeler um or their builder help understand this uh and kind of interview that process.

So density, you can only do one per lot.

The buyer right, these are all the zonings.

The zonings, I think are fairly appropriate, but you have to look at the form-based code on it.

Uh, parking, here's the challenge.

One space beyond the existing primary residence.

I guess we could armrest a little bit over that, but the idea is that the accessory dwelling unit is going to be there.

Um, and if somebody no longer needs to drive at some point, or you're near multimodal, maybe there's other considerations if they're on transit lines or something that you could waive that.

Um, occupancy, uh, the owner must live on the present premises.

So they have to live in the main house, or they can live in the accessory dwelling unit if maybe their children are gonna be buying the house from them, or at least living in there.

Again, back to the timeline, you can't rent it for under 90 days.

Um, and you can't have it as a business.

So you can't just build an accessory dwelling unit, say that's gonna be my office, and then get all of I guess follow the same requirements.

There's unique um business requirements for that.

Um, unit size, so 35% or less of the actual footprint of the uh property.

So it's really important that that's adhered to.

You don't want the accessory dwelling unit to be bigger than the home, for instance.

I think that that's why it's uh in there.

But I would encourage again going back to setbacks and lot sizes and those requirements.

If there's nothing that inhibits the safety and welfare of the community or the people who own the lot, I think it should be a consideration to revisit that.

And things like utilities and everything else, because those are things that you don't see to take in consideration.

New construction got to be in the rear.

The height of it is typically um I you know, most people haven't complained about that because the idea is you're developing a smaller um property, you're not trying to create a two-story home.

Um, but the detached part of it, um, I would uh consider revisiting a thousand square feet or more and take a look at some of the studies for accessory dwelling units.

If you have more than, like, say you have mom and dad living in the accessory dwelling unit together as opposed to a single individual, you might want to just look at the capacity capabilities of how they have their living space and if it's a need for that or not.

Again, uh depend upon the occupants for it.

Because there is no occupant limit that I'm aware of unless it's based upon bedroom count.

So I think that's how we came up with that 800 square feet.

I mean, my housemate and I lived in a 950 square foot house was perfectly fine.

We we wanted something that gave us each our yes, you know, personal rooms with bathrooms, so we added on.

But the fact is a 950 square foot house with two bathrooms is plenty, an 800 uh 800 square foot house.

For an example, there could be more than one level, like you could have a loft, and then you have your livable space.

So say you have somebody who lives in there with a single child, a mom and a child, because it's not always for the the aging population of people that might have mobility issues.

The idea is like it should be um accessible to different age groups for different purposes.

So if you do have a loft or you have a separate space that's upstairs, that can be more private space from the downstairs.

It's just considerations because then you put yourself at 400 square feet on each level, possibly.

But it's always again I can't.

I mean, that's just I do have some experience in this, and and you know, that 800 square feet is higher than I wanted to go at the beginning.

Um, so I understand what you're saying.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um this it's very tiny to see.

I try to highlight a few things.

If you go over 800 square feet for your accessory dwelling unit that is detached, you're gonna be paying impact fees.

These will only go up.

So you're about $9,000.

Um, so it's something to consider uh if there's a challenge where they cannot attach it, and again, going back to size, it could be completely adequate at 800, but I I do feel like we should try to promote as much as possible is attaching it to the primary residence um to avoid these impact fees as much as possible.

So that's the affordability kind of side of it too, especially if you're helping uh family.

So again, it was just a little dip in the water kind of information, but um I will share with you that the builders are working on a housing symposium that we want to look objectively at um property types, financing types to be educational workshops um for the community.

Um in 2026, we'll start to see that in national homeownership month, uh, where we'll be able to have some modules that are open to the community, they can come and learn more.

Um so I will keep you posted though on um some upcoming opportunities.

Exceptional, thank you.

Okay, okay.

I have a couple of questions.

Okay, so when we were talking about well, you mentioned zoning, um the lot sizes and the parking were two of the things that you talked about, which I think we've talked about up here a number of times also, and that missing middle piece.

Um I've talked many, many times about um generational wealth.

Yes, right?

Generational wealth is is what we have lost in that missing middle piece.

Um, so you know, I'm not gonna be sitting here much longer, but I will be sitting out there talking to the people sitting here.

Um, and I'm gonna push and push and push that because that missing middle generational wealth, I think, is what we have lost in Frederick County.

Um I agree.

How many homes, and I just saw this in one of my um flyers or you know, one of my newsletters that I got in Frederick County, 400,000, anything under 400,000 that sold, I want to say there were like half a dozen.

It's a ridiculously small number.

Um and so 400,000 is not middle.

It's not middle, and the average is over 500,000.

And the challenges is when our regulatory fees for a town home are at about 93,000.

That's before you buy the lot, before you get the materials, you pay the attorney.

That's before the developer actually comes in.

And then you deal with these supply chain challenges and the cost.

So if we can get to green tape on some things, you might see some of that dial back a little bit.

But I'm also a proponent in increasing wage opportunities, skill trade jobs and businesses, because it's not just gonna be the housing costs, it's once they get in there, the replacement costs, their taxes, their insurance, all of that.

It's once they get in there, the replacement costs, their taxes, their insurance, all of that.

So yeah, I I think it's consistent.

Yes, but but most of those fees that we start out with for new homes, yes, facts are those fees are to keep um existing homeowners from paying for new homeowners.

Yes.

You and I both know, I think we all know, it doesn't actually work completely that way, right?

Because people who are living here may buy that new house and and then you know, somebody new make moving in might be the one who's actually paying that, right?

Yeah, but as we add housing, I I hesitate personally to remove any of the fees that actually um stop existing homeowners from paying for new builds.

That's just unfair.

Absolutely, and the impact to the community again.

I don't think that um we cannot expect that those are just gonna keep coming from taxes.

Right.

So there's a balance to be had.

But if we don't have a consistent continuum of housing plan, you're just gonna have the pendulum swing.

And the pendulum swing, the problem is is that the cost doesn't come down to the homeowner of living when those pendulums swing.

So I I agree with you 100%.

Yeah, I think we we need to find uh again, if we can just find a way to help get that missing middle back in place, I think that we can stop the whole pendulum swinging, which it does in politics, it does in life pendulum swing.

That's just the way that it is.

Okay, so um I have some issues, and and again, this is something that I'll I will continue to um bring forward.

Light tech projects are great.

I that they're wonderful.

However, I have talked since the day I took office, 28 years ago, that um we put subsidized housing all together, and then it's a concentration of poverty.

Yes, and a concentration of poverty is not what we want.

We're we are looking to incentivize people to live within other developments.

So I I would love to uh work with the building community to figure out how that works because what I'm seeing, what I've seen for the last couple of years, especially that fee and loo, that fee and loo always gets paid.

The giant houses always get built in the same place, and then you know, it's this group of giant houses, and there's there is no affordable housing in that area, and again, we are then separating the well-to-do and those who have very little.

Understood, and we need that middle in all grounds, we need that middle.

And I think what we've done and what we've pushed has pushed that middle away in many, so it's uh government and a building issue.

Absolutely, and that's in the that's I think a lot to do with the livable Frederick Master Plan is creating that health balance.

When you look at Brunswick, Brunswick was kind of at a perfect pinnacle where it needed economic development, need housing, it needed supportive housing, and they could kind of do it at the same time, even though it's taken about 10 to 12 years to get to where we are today, we have a ways to go uh for that jurisdiction, but you you can see that the quality of life has improved because people who already live there who were like don't bring this here are buying the new construction, they're freeing up their home that can somebody else can buy that can move up.

So you're right, it does work if you work it.

Absolutely.

Yes, yes.

So um, yeah, I I couldn't agree more on the prefab designs.

I it's seriously.

We have we have neighborhoods that all look the same anyway, and and they've been stick-built.

So I I don't see it, yeah.

I I won't even, but I certainly am um in support of that.

Can you talk to me about the difference between um an attached ADU and just an extension to the house?

So an extension meaning like, oh, I want to expand the bedroom over the garage, so you know, I'm growing my family.

So I'm just gonna use I'm just gonna use my house as as an example, right?

Started out at 950 square feet.

Um my housemate and I are both widows, right?

And so and a little bit older.

So we're used to having, I'm used to having my bedroom with my bathroom and my closet all right there, right?

And you don't want to share a bathroom with somebody else, right?

And so we we made the decision a 950 square foot house, three bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms.

So really it's you know, I I mean, uh families, other houses in the area are the same as my house used to be, and I know a family of of about six lives in one of them.

So it's not, you know, we're we're just a little spoiled, that's all, right?

And so we decided to put it's about a 700 square foot addition onto the house, right?

Yeah, so still we're below that ADU threshold.

But what it made was um we now have uh four bedroom, three full baths, um laundry on the same area, gigantic living dining area.

I mean gigantic, and we have this extra room that really it used to be the living room.

What are you gonna do with it, right?

Right.

So I just so what's the difference?

What's the difference between that and and calling it an ADU?

Yeah, good question.

So when you think of it this way, the attributes of an accessory dwelling unit are bedroom, bathroom, self-sufficiency.

It's it's a it's a no, I understand what the difference is.

I'm sorry, I should have said that.

But you mean like a permitting and yes, why why is that different than somebody putting that amount on, and all they'd really have to do is add a kitchenette and their kitchen area in there, and it would be an ADU.

That's a really good question.

Because if you are adding an extra kitchen, an extra bathroom, a bedroom, you don't have to have the kitchen, but it's typical when you have it, whether you're building it over the garage is their own space, they have their entrance and exit.

So if they can enter separately from the house, yes, that could be one attribute that is clearly different, so that they can come and go.

They could still do that.

So they can still they got their own door, and you put that.

I'll find out for you.

Okay.

I mean, it's a shared kitchen area and shared, well, it doesn't matter.

But but I I look at my addition, which was done back in 2020, yeah, like or 19, I guess, right before the pandemic, right?

And so I look at that and I think it's easily a person could easily live in just that area without any trouble.

Yeah, I would say if they can independently why it's not marked differently, you know what I'll do is I'll look behind the scenes to say, is there a cost differential?

It could be just a terminology that they're saying that because if it has an independent um access to the unit.

I mean, it it's the it's not a unit.

I mean, it it's joined with the rest of the house.

Of course.

But it could easily, you know, you could put easily put a wall there, right?

I mean, it's no different than you just put a wall between the two of them and then Yeah, so you can build like the extra floor up top.

That's called an interior upper level accessory dwelling unit.

I mean, yours might not physically look like that, but that kind of sounds like it has those attributes.

Yeah, I would say it's the attached, but yes, the general idea, only the attached is almost the size as the as the original.

So ADUs is the new punk rock, I guess.

I don't know.

It's like it's like the new disruptor, like it would what is it?

Is it just another you know, addition to a home, right?

Because it sounds like the attribute, but I'll find out, I'll get the answer for you.

I I mean it was just meant as an addition to a home, and it's you know, again, worked very well.

But um I'm just trying to I'm sitting here and I'm listening to this and I'm like, why would that doesn't make any sense?

Okay, but the attached actually does not cost the extra um so you're not actually paying any of those extra fees anyway.

Not the impact fees, you're paying fees, but you're not paying anything that has to deal with the impact to schools or you're paying fees that would not be paid if you were just adding on to your home.

So if you go to this last one, they go through um, and again, I'll I'll send you a link to this online so you can see it clear, but they go through all the different things and fees involved if it's detached versus attached, and then if it's detached above 800 square feet, so there's like two different nuanced pieces there, attached, yes or no, and then the size of it.

So there's like two different nuanced pieces there.

Attached, yes or no, and then the size of it.

Okay.

Okay.

Because it shows you're exempt from a school impact fee at the bottom.

It says ADUs less than or equal to 800 square feet, but again, that's detached.

If you're a patch, you don't have to pay it.

I'm just trying to find it in my backup.

That's all.

Okay.

I'll send you a link there too.

No, you're looking there also.

Okay.

Yeah, that would be that would be great.

Um when I originally did you have any questions?

Um so uh when I originally saw this, um I looked at it as the it's it's listed as moderately twice moderately priced dwelling unit housing fund review review and prioritization of use.

No, that's next.

Okay, we're good.

Okay.

I'm good.

I'm looking at the next thing on my agenda.

I'm sorry.

No, this was great, very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Did you have any other questions?

Oh, yes, actually, yes.

Can you go back to the zoning slide, please?

To the it was mentioned uh oh the no, that's not it.

Keep I should have marked it.

Keep going.

There was it zoning you said, yeah, was it it was a maybe up here in developer over the we were talking about particular zoning in reference to um transit parking?

Uh multimodal so go ahead.

No, go ahead.

I was gonna say, so I don't have anything on here, but just to share with you um a lot of what we do looking at like the governor's housing priorities.

And if you're within uh a proximity of three quarters of a mile to transit, now in Frederick, we have to define transit as the marked train as we got.

Um we are doing studies right now to look at you know how many millions of people do you have to have in order to have like a metro, but can we quantify either buses or a train, marked train as transit?

So we're working on that as a local jurisdiction with the governor's plan to see if we can qualify for some of those because the community would get the incentives through you to deploy those funds.

Yes, that's what I was gonna ask.

Um, because you mentioned trains, particularly routes, and I'm like, we got marked train, that's it.

But transit bus routes are also uh it's not been specified, but we're gonna try to ask the the spirit of the governor's uh plan.

Now he just put out an executive order in September.

We're very we're in favor of it, but we're unpacking that too.

It does not specify all transportation.

So our goal is to be able to make sure that that maybe is open for interpretation and we can quantify that to ensure that bus routes wouldn't change.

Okay, because you know you have those challenges, they're here today, and then if things and data points change, then they might not use that bus route.

So is that what you're doing?

Yeah, that's what that's gonna be my question.

Yeah, and I was going we talked about this last week in our legislative legislative meeting with the state about the governor's executive order around housing.

So I'm I'm glad that you just mentioned that.

We're trying because you have we're only a little over 300,000 according to the US census of population in the county, and for order for us to put in increased either train routes, trains, uh locations, buses.

There's a certain algorithm that we're gonna have to get there.

We did it for the widening of US 15, but that's because we see people from Pennsylvania and West Virginia contributing to those metrics, right?

So if we just look at our local community, um, I hope that we can have a sliding scale to say, well, this is the impact in general to us, so we qualify.

But again, those funds would come through to leadership, and then you could deploy them hopefully in whatever studies that can take place.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'm I appreciate this presentation.

I know you could go deeper into something that I'm sure I have more questions.

Um particular particular areas specifically.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

All right, thank you.

Yes, it's been a very, very helpful presentation.

Thank you.

Is there anyone from the public who wants to comment?

No, okay.

We are on to um MPDU fund review and prioritization of uses.

Stuart, thank you.

Yes, good morning, members.

Stuart Campbell, Department of Housing and Human Services.

I am here to give a quick presentation about the eligible activities under the City Housing Fund.

I'm sure you are aware of the city housing fund, uh, but for the general public, I kind of want to do a uh just a quick overview.

So um I apologize there's a duplicate slide, the first one, City Housing Fund, but skip over the um so the city housing fund, it is actually what is created and funded by the fees that are paid um by developers who decline to create moderately priced dwelling units.

Um that's the payment and lie portion.

Um the uh developer can pay that fee based on a square footage uh in lieu of creating the MPDUs, and that square footage, as we discussed a couple weeks ago, has or that fee rather has gone up and it's now tied to an actual uh dollar amount per square footage.

And that is what creates the city housing fund.

Right now there are 10 eligible activities for the city housing fund.

I'm not gonna go through them all.

Um they're in front of you, and uh you you uh are the members who created it, so I'm sure you're familiar.

Um but there are some that are somewhat duplicate, and um I uh have highlighted those in red.

Um, and I'll go into a little bit of a deeper dive in a minute, but to purchase and resell or rent MPDU uh MPDUs uh to provide home buyer education, delinquency and default counseling, to provide grants for the modification of NPDUs to promote accessibility, um to provide grants for the modification of MPDUs to promote energy efficiency and conservation and to address health and life uh safety hazards in owner-occupied housing.

And by redundant, what I mean is that there are existing programs that are either federal, state um, or the city that essentially do the same or pretty close to what these um these uh purport to do.

Um but I do want to caution as we dive deeper into them that um this is just really a preliminary review.

Um I think it's worth taking uh a closer look um as to the history of why these were included originally and um what was the intent and to make sure that um there are other things happening like for instance uh weatherization.

Before you go further assistant before you go further, go back to your go back to this the first slide, please.

Thank you.

They're so no no I'm sorry, the the one that had in red I'm sorry, oh in red.

Oh got it.

There you go.

Okay, yes.

So I I I remember the discussions that we had during a lot of these, and we we realized that we did have existing programs that did those, but we wanted to fund them at higher amounts than we could possibly fund them without this.

Um, because we felt that it would add to affordable housing in the area, that it would support um certain things.

So it it was not, and correct me if I'm I'm I'm wrong, Councilmember Shackelford, but if um it was not to replace funding, it was to add to funding of those other issues.

Do you remember this?

Yeah, it was and that's to provide more flexibility as well.

Okay, good.

That and that's very helpful for me.

Um the current staff I have the ones that were involved in this are no longer there.

So I didn't really have a lot of context.

So it was sort of like not trying to leave anything out.

I mean, kind of kind of that kind of thought pattern was like we wanted to kind of cover all the spectrums we possibly could and and be as flexible as possible.

Yeah, absolutely.

And that and that actually makes a lot of sense, and and so that's why I said you know, cautiously look at these and um, you know, we want to really think um you know uh deeply about whether or not it makes sense to cut any of these.

Um well I very much appreciate you you noting that um you had questions as to why they were there, and I figure uh always asking the question is the best thing.

And if I can answer it right then in the air, that way you have the answer.

And I appreciate talking about the duplication, particularly from your experience.

I mean, I think sometimes it's kind of hard when we you try to say we want to make sure that no one's kind of left out.

We want to make sure we're able to have, you know, flexible as possible in terms of the needs of housing across the spectrum.

And now we can dial in more and be more concrete in terms of some specifics.

So I appreciate it.

Right.

Yeah, and um actually uh I mentioned weatherization, and that's a good example.

I've gone uh you know, going through the starting to go through the 2027 budget process right now.

I'm learning that um we actually utilize some of the funds to help cover costs that might not be covered by the Federal weatherization program.

So um, and that happened literally after I submitted this and today.

So well, again, it's it's great.

I I I love when people say, I'm not sure why this is, or I'm looking for the answer to this, and and we can, and even if not, um we can find out the answer to it, right?

But sometimes, as you say, we are the group that implemented this, so we do know the answer sometimes.

So again, I so much more appreciate somebody saying to me, I'm not sure why this is, and it doesn't make sense than somebody just trying to pretend their way through it, which happens way too often.

Yeah, so I appreciate the sure.

And I uh and I'm definitely never shy about saying I don't know if I don't know the answer.

So but I I always try and track it down.

So if I can just quickly look at these a little more deeply, um the the one of the first item is to purchase and resale or rent MPDUs.

So that's similar to our sold on Frederick program.

Um the only difference and the caveat is that the sold on Frederick is for purchase only.

Um so it doesn't help uh with rent.

Um and so that's you know one thing that it makes it different.

Uh the home uh provide home buyer education, delinquency and default counseling.

This is actually pretty identical to the housing counseling program, the Maryland Housing Counseling Program.

We receive funding to provide home buyer education, uh budget counseling, foreclosure mitigation, um uh rent, you know, rental eviction uh counseling.

So this one is uh I think probably of them all the most redundant one um right now.

Um the um the state uh Maryland Housing Counseling Program is tied to foreclosure filing.

So as for foreclosures go down, the state has less money to award.

So keeping it in there may make sense in case there's ever an uh a future where we aren't being awarded the funds that um you know we we have now.

Uh but it would be just something I would definitely de-emphasize as a priority for this fund right now, given the current reality of us uh receiving uh funds.

I do understand that the legislature in uh this year actually increased that fee.

So it should mitigate some of the declines of the uh foreclosure fund, but that's still to be determined, especially with the questions about the state budget and and things like that.

Um the next one is to provide grants for the modification of MPDUs to promote accessibility.

There are actually a number of programs that are federal that can do the same thing.

Uh there's an independent living tax credit, there's uh VA debt of housing benefits, and then there's a HUD Section 50 for home repair program.

So those are all that could be considered uh duplicative, and I just wanted to raise that for consideration.

The next one is the weatherization assistance fund.

We did talk about that uh already a little bit, but um the other factor that has occurred since uh I submitted this is the federal government is now shut down.

Um we have received we have received notification from uh Maryland DHCD that they're holding off and dispersing additional weatherization funds until they know that they will actually be receiving them.

So finally, to address health and safety uh hazards in owner occupied housing, we receive a grant specifically for this, or uh it can do other things, but this is a major part of what we utilize the grant for.

It's the Maryland affordable housing trust program that is administered by DHCD, those are all state funds.

Uh and it does allow us to do exactly this, especially when we go in uh to weatherize a home and we identify any health or safety hazards.

Weatherization doesn't cover that cost.

The mate uh grant does cover that cost.

But again, it's always nice to have a backstop in case for some reason um those funds go away.

So you had asked me to prioritize of the of the ones that were remaining, these are the the prioritization that I would recommend you consider.

Um I think uh providing financing for low-income housing tax credit projects and other affordable housing projects would be my top recommendation.

Um as uh Danny mentioned um uh right now I think one of the things we want to do is increase the available units out there.

And the LITEC program and multifamily projects are the top fastest way of doing that.

Um and the most um uh cost effective.

I do understand your concern about congregating low-income households.

I think there are a couple ways to address that.

You can have LITEC that are that are mixed in with market rate units.

Um you can also if we allow, which we um to an extent do now, if we allow them to develop LITEC properties anywhere in a residential area that's zoned for multifamily, a light tech can move there as well.

So it could be right next to a market rate property.

So it's not congregating the which I absolutely do not agree with, uh congregating lower income households in certain parts of the city.

It's more it is a building that is more affordable versus one that's uh all market rate.

So my my concerns with concentrating poverty is um I understand what you're saying about there can be um places that mix market rate housing in with others, and if anything, we absolutely those are the only ones that we should be funding in my mind.

Those are the only ones that we should be funding because again, when you concentrate poverty, it causes all kinds of trouble.

Um my other issue, and I I've I've read through this, and we do not um consider this.

It's something that I've brought up a couple times.

It's something I certainly would like to see before I leave office, and if not, I will be hounding at my new elected officials.

Um PDUs are new housing, and it's new housing that's purchased, right?

Right.

We're talking about taking the funding from what should be a brand new house being purchased and putting it into homes that generally are rented.

Uh that's a problem for me.

Putting some of that funding into I I understand that we have a serious problem with um as my colleague consistently calls it, price appropriate housing in Frederick.

And I agree with him.

It's that's exactly what we should be looking at is price appropriate housing in Frederick.

But again, as I noted on an earlier um presentation, that missing middle is in my mind partially because we have taken funds that should be for home purchasing and put it into rentals.

And that's all we've put it into is rentals.

Not all.

There are some that are are um but but this funding really should be um aimed better at helping people purchase less expensive homes so that then again live there for 10 years, buy a bigger house, then somebody gets to move into that house.

Anyway, so just as you're going through, I would love for you to keep this in mind.

For me, this is an issue.

So every single thing that you have listed here, my answer is no.

Okay.

Right.

Not that it's no, not to spend any of the funding on it, but we're prior prioritizing, right?

Yeah.

You don't have my thing in here that you would be able to prioritize because we didn't list it.

But that's my fight.

Sure.

No, and I I completely respect that.

And I um fully appreciate and understand the concern about generational wealth, and it's an issue I worked on at DHCD when I was there.

Um I think the counter-argument to that, not counter-argument to generational wealth.

The counter-argument to where you prioritize your your limited funds is you will be able to house more people with less money if you do multifamily units.

It is faster and you are able to build um and get more people in because there are a number of uh factors.

They're called condos.

Well, multifamily can be condos.

Sure, but when you when you uh try and sell homes, you always have well when someone buys a home, or you know this in your work as a realtor, that they need to have a good credit score, they need to have you know a history of of uh payments and how long have they been in that line of work and all of those factors that go in, and you will have a much smaller pool of low-income individuals because of the challenges that they face earning money and keeping jobs and having to change jobs and a lot of other factors.

You are thinking about those people again at the very, very bottom of the of the rung.

I'm not thinking about the people at the very very bottom of the rung, they wouldn't be able to afford to purchase homes to begin with.

However, we have many people in the city of Frederick who would be able to purchase a $250,000 house, maybe up to a $300,000 house, and everything is above $300,000 in in the City of Frederick.

So if we could get pricing down to $5,000 to $50, then we would have people, and I'm there's plenty of them because what they're doing now is going to Hagerstown or Pennsylvania, or you know, some to Baltimore, um, and purchasing properties there instead when we could have that middle right here in Frederick.

Yeah.

And I don't disagree with you.

I think the key is uh a point that I made is limited to limited resources that we have.

And that is a decision for the council to decide is where to prioritize.

Absolutely.

And these are just my recommendations.

And and and you didn't have this as a possibility, to be fair.

I'm not I'm not arguing with you.

I'm truly not absolutely.

I am I am asking you to add a thought to your process.

Absolutely.

That's okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um then uh so these again going down here, address affordable housing needs of of special populations that may require supportive or service or rich housing, um that is uh often considered permanent supportive housing, folks who are chronically homeless, um, to address affordable housing needs of lower income uh income individuals who do not qualify for the MPDU program to provide emergency loans to MPDU buyers uh to prevent mortgage defaults.

Um then finally um uh I put this one in blue because we we just this is one that we absolutely just need if uh to offset the cost of operating MPD program.

Right now, I think they're pretty minimal, but if we decide to expand the program or do some of the recommendations that we heard uh in the last presentation, um there would be additional administrative costs if we added stock staff.

Stuart, give me an example for number three to address the affordable needs of lower income individuals who do not qualify for the MPU program.

Give me the example.

Well, that would be someone who um maybe does not uh have the income, maybe they have uh to purchase an MPDU program uh property, they may not qualify.

Um so there may be ways that we can explore that they could get a larger down payment assistance, something like that.

So um this is one that I have some questions about whether or not to put it on here or not.

So I uh I did want this is another one where I wanted to ask sort of deeper into the history of why it was added.

Um but I I knew there wasn't a redundant program, so I I wanted to at least add it to this.

So you're saying that the the issues that I'm talking about, the possibility of down payment assistance that would um you know I I'm just gonna make up numbers for a minute.

Um $25,000 toward um closing and a down payment assistance that would then be leaned against the property so that when the person went to sell it, however many years later, at least a portion of that money would come back into this.

What I'm talking about is a revolving fund.

Um, which again, you know, my idea is to take it down by a percentage every year.

So if they're in the house for 20 years, then it's gone.

You know, they owe nothing.

Um but that would cover something like that.

Possibly.

Uh this one again, I wasn't sure of the history behind it, and I I wanted to see um if some of you may recall the history behind it.

Um is because I have been pushing for that for years.

I said it's the only thing I can think of because I've been pushing for that for years.

Yeah, I was wondering if that may be what it was around, which is why I kind of suggested that as a scenario.

Umsing the term lower income though, um, Vice President, I'm not sure.

Yeah.

Just kind of recalibrating and reflecting on all this, I think, and and some of my thought pattern has changed.

Now looking at this.

Of course, because from the standpoint of saying, wow, it did accomplish a lot.

I I think previously before I think housing was a focus, but we didn't, from my perspective, we didn't have the I want to use the word expertise, like use that word.

Yes.

We didn't have the staff knowledge in terms of from us as policymakers for us to make the make these concrete decisions.

Like looking at this, I'm like, I don't agree with some of this, just this fund being used for this because now looking at this fund and in its usage and what it should be used for, it's now like well, we we were trying to cover all bases, and really cover, I won't say covering none, but covering all bases, and that was and that's challenging now.

Looking at this, I'm like, I don't know if if this goes there.

I think there's another we have the rental, we have the rental um our rental assistance fund.

We I think also just another budgetary item that we need to start looking at in regards to some of these, and I don't know if terms of MPDU if that's the proper channel for us to use some of these funds because we all know we talk about housing shortage, we talk about building units.

And now if if we're talking about going this way, how's this this going to deplete some funds?

It's gonna deplete it.

And and what and what's the and what's the you are we talking about a first percent?

Now we've got to talk about a percentage.

We gotta start talking about a mouse, and then uh where we are in terms of you know um accumulation, all those things that we now are now entering to the picture.

But now that I got a greater look at this, I'm looking at this now and saying uh previously before we had all these measures to try to cover all these bases, and I don't know how I don't know how effective we really were in doing that.

Yeah.

I'm not saying I'm not saying we didn't make a difference, but was the difference in terms of what we could allows it for in totality enough to make a difference, so to speak.

Right.

And and I got that sense too when I read and really started looking at this.

It's like I think you guys were trying to cover all the basics basically.

And one way to do that is my on the next slide might very preliminary.

Except before you go to that slide, I need to go back again.

Sorry.

Um the second one.

So to address the affordable housing needs of special populations that may require supportive or service enriched housing.

Now you talked about the possibility of homeless people who um you know might need whether it be mental health or or or or whatever, right?

I I feel like we were talking more about um people who had uh that absolutely would be part of it, but I also think that we were talking about um maybe um veterans who were in very, very poor situations who are disabled in some way, or other people who are disabled, and um you know, maybe some people who have um learning disabilities to the point that they need somebody to live with them, or you know, that for me that was the supportive and service enriched housing.

Um yeah, I think that we we way too often look at everything that we have, and our brains automatically go to homeless, and let's be honest, many homeless people choose a lifestyle that does not um allow us to help them in a manner that we'd like to because it is um it's a problem for them living with other people, um etc.

And it's not that I don't want to help people, I absolutely do, but I want to help the people who are willing to get the help and do the work that it takes to keep that help.

I I really think that we need to put that ahead of just trying to I and um when I read that I I'm I'm sure that we were talking about people with disabilities, people with not just and many of those may be homeless that we need to, you know, but that's the support of and the service enrichment that I think we were really talking about there, not that uh that feedback's helpful.

Um I would love to get into a deeper conversation at some point about the about individual experiencing homelessness and um why they're still out on the street, but uh oh sure, and there's a yes, absolutely mental health issues, etc.

I I I know this.

Um and and I I don't I again I'm not trying when I say something like that, it makes it seem like I'm not like I don't have a care for those person.

I do, I absolutely do, and but there are people who simply want you to do for them, and you can give them all the support in the world, and it's not gonna change the fact that they're gonna just do stuff that they're not supposed to do and and wreak havoc with other people.

Um mental illness, mental mental illness, many of us have mental illnesses, absolutely, various degrees.

Yes, and I do use the term us, right?

And so um that does not at some point in time, people need to have responsibility also.

Um and mental health issues are not.

We can we can help with mental health issues, but again, you cannot force somebody to get help when they don't want to get help.

And when they've made that decision that they don't want to get the help mentally that they need, expecting that the rest of society should deal with the aftermath of that, I think is really unfair.

And providing people like that with opportunity after opportunity after opportunity when we have an older woman who um was and um I know of this situation, an older woman who was married her entire life, um, stayed at home with her children, had no job ever, like just didn't have a job, right?

An older woman who was married her entire life, um, stayed at home with her children, had no job ever, like just didn't have a job, right?

Was collecting husband's pension, social security, and her social security.

Hasband passed.

There goes husband's pension and husband's social security.

Now living on just her social security, and what happens, she falls through the cracks.

She ends up losing her home.

She ends up having to live with her children, she ends up, right?

That's a person who has worked their entire lives and they're falling through the cracks.

Because every time we talk about something like this, our brains all go to, and I know you say it, people experiencing homelessness.

There are people who are experiencing homelessness, and there aren't just people who choose to be homeless.

There are two different things.

But again, this is a different conversation for a different time.

Responsibility.

I'd love to do that.

Again, responsibility.

I it is very small, and the amount of money we spend on that very small amount, um, I think could be better spent on some other things.

Well, one thing I will agree with you on is that there are often uh this woman in an example that uh society fails them and they do fall through the cracks, I agree.

Um there are unfortunately many very wide cracks in our system right now nationwide.

And sadly, I see this most often with older women.

With the elderly, yeah, elderly women.

Not just elderly, but elderly women because their what we see as society now was not their society.

It's not how they were, you know, they were housewives in the 50s and 60s and going into the 70s.

Um and we've just we've we've failed them.

We have failed them terribly.

Yeah.

Sorry.

No, I it was uh a good conversation.

Um so going back, oop, I think I've lost connection to the clicker.

It's frozen.

Okay.

Well, um I had some there we go, it's working.

So these were just my again, very clear preliminary, and I'm gonna keep underscoring that.

Um consider deleting the redundant activities.

That's one thing, but I think as we've established, that really deserves a much longer conversation.

Um consider adding some sort of a catch-all phrase, other activities that promote affordable housing at the discretion of director.

I think that will allow flexibility to address things that maybe aren't considered on this, and as you mentioned, uh council member you wanted to kind of try and do uh cover all your bases.

This is uh just a phrase, and it could be however you want to word it, but as long as you have it tied to affordable housing, increasing affordable housing or increasing affordable homeownership or whatever, then it limits it, but it also allows if there's a new idea, a new strategy, if there's a project that maybe wouldn't fall under all of these that could be a pilot, something like that.

Um then consider prioritization, but uh because things do change on the ground.

I think flexibility is always important to have to some degree as long as there are parameters uh around around it.

So that is my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I mean it was again very helpful.

Um always to know what always good to know when we are um duplicating ourselves and the um I the ideas in there.

I can tell you the uh if you could go back one.

See if it works.

There you go.

Um so the um catch-all phrase, I am absolutely um interested in something like that, however.

I personally hesitate.

Um I hesitate to say anything that actually something at the discretion of a director.

And the reason I do that is because we've seen various abilities in different directors, and we are not the group of people who get to choose the directors, right?

So while I may trust you to make a decision, it may not have trusted somebody else to make that decision, and may not trust somebody else in the future to make that decision.

And so I I think that at the discretion of and and in there I would almost I would consider putting again, this will be future.

I'm not gonna have anything to do with it, but at the discretion of the council.

Because the director can easily bring something forward to the council, and the council could approve that as you as you say, as a pilot program, whereas something they're just like, oh goodness, yes, that's fabulous.

Let's go ahead and move forward with that, right?

Doesn't even have to be a pilot, maybe we just want to do it in general.

But I would um I'm very much in favor of adding a catch-all phrase at the discretion of the council, though, not the director.

Oh, yeah, I concur.

Um, because I'm looking at this just from the standpoint of if the more the more I look at this, the more I'm leaning towards this this money just being used, not primarily for units being built and less discretionary.

Um I think I think the more I look at this, I think there's other possibilities that need to be looked at in regards to some of the things we're talking about, some of those needs.

Um because it's sort of it's sort of like now looking at this, like we know there's a need, but we're trying to we're trying to find in terms of fitting those needs, and now it kind of still leaves the door wide open.

No, I mean those are some duplicate things here.

I mean, that we're we talk about redundancy, but then it's we're still we're still keeping the door kind of open per se for this for this money, and I don't know if that's the proper usage, the more I think about this for these funds to be used.

I I totally agree about at the discretion of the council, but I'm more inclined to use these funds towards units being built.

Yeah.

Exclusively.

And if and if there isn't, then there may be a small percentage, like one percent of that money being quote unquote discretionary.

Um that if if if I do if I would move towards that direction, it would be a small percentage of that funds being used.

And I gotta probably be really convinced now.

I'm sorry.

I probably really gotta be convinced now.

And I I say that from the standpoint of previously before I'm like, okay, we and I think from the standpoint we had this, we had the money, it was more or less okay.

How can how can we use it?

It's sitting here, now how can we use it?

What's what's the fastest way for us to use this money?

Let's let's use it.

We know there's a need, and now I'm looking at this like okay, there is a need, but what's the best way to use this, these funds?

And council member, are you um considering um purchased as well as rentals, or are you leaning toward rentals just well in terms of in terms of the units being built?

In terms of the use of the funding.

Both.

I mean, uh because the and the reason and the reason the reason being um if the units units are built and are affordable, I think that's the proper way to go.

Units being built.

So I I've actually um um I I agree with you on the both, although again the the funding is being collected for new housing, um housing that's to be purchased being built, but I would like to see there be some percentage in there, like 50-50 or you know, something that um something that ensures part of this money at least goes toward homes that would be purchased.

And and again, I'm not talking that it can be a condo building.

I'm not talking about most people do not start off purchasing a single family house.

That's just not how it works.

Um part of the to that question, council member.

So we're talking about specific AMI.

Sure.

Okay.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, uh but but again, it would be I I it like when they if you remember when they did the Hope Six project on one of the issues that they had selling homes was, and I took some people to see it, so I can you know you you qualify somebody at a certain price, right?

And when you qualify them at that price, you go to see homes kind of in that price range.

And some of those homes were listed in the proper price range, but really they weren't because they were meant for people who made a whole lot less money.

So like after the first time, I only took other people who were qualified because why would you take people who are you know can't be qualified for the home, but like say a $300,000 house, but really it was a $240,000 house because there's a $60,000 um I I don't remember if it came from the county or from the city or from the state.

Honestly, I'm not sure where it came from.

But again, it was one of those sixty thousand dollars, it gets paid back when you sell the house type thing.

That's where I came up with the idea.

Actually, it's not wish I could say that that was my idea.

But um, and and the people who purchased those homes at that 240,000, those homes are now worth 500,000.

Paying that $60,000 back is really no big deal for them, right?

Um, but it goes again into a fund for affordable.

Now, I personally think that's a huge number to put into something like that.

But Hope Six was a federal program, so we should expect that, but a local program would be less than that.

But I'm very interested in putting something like that together for home ownership, and then again using the rest of it for um rentals.

Give me a lot to think about.

Yes, for real.

Terrific.

Thank you so much.

Sure, really appreciate it.

Um any public comment on this okay, come on up.

Just turn it off.

My name is Jim Smursall, and I do pay attention when affordable housing is is on the agenda.

And I don't want to get too um kind of theoretical about it, but in the affordable housing world, there's pretty much three lines of attack.

One is to improve the housing stock of people who are lower and moderate, and there's a term they use in HUD called decent safe and sanitary.

And they you know, we had pro we have programs like that, Operation Rehab and the special loans program, and Stuart mentioned the Maryland Housing, uh Maryland Affordable Housing Trust.

And then there's the other line of attack, which is get people into housing, do housing counseling and get them qualified, get that credit card debt out of the way, or give them a second mortgage like a sold-on Fred's, you know, down payment loan or something second.

Or even if it's rental, give them a section eight voucher.

And kind of the third line of attack is just put more units out there, you know.

Uh and that's where MPDUs were intended, you know, just get more units out there that are kind of locked in to always be for some affordability period.

And I think ours and ours ordinance is 40 years.

Um low income, and then of course, make provisions for recapture of some of the appreciation when they sell.

The really tough part is doing exactly what Alderman Casumph just said is getting more of those units.

Well, let me back up.

The original tent was that they would be integrated into an existing development.

So a guy has a hundred-unit development and he puts in five, twenty-unit buildings.

Um there'd be you know, and twelve and a half percent of them had had to be uh low income, there'd be two in this building and two in this building, and just the guy right down the hall from you has a lower in rent income uh building if it's a rental, or he's paid less for it if it's a condo, but you never know it from the outside.

The difference might be in the you know, the way the bathrooms and stuff are all fitted out.

And Stuart mentioned the easiest way to do that is just give what they call gap financing to developers who are doing low-income housing tax credit programs.

You also give them a pilot, but that's not from this spot of money.

And you it's hard to kind of you know get lots and make people sell them to low-income people.

So it's a tough part that you've just identified the tough part.

And good luck.

I'll send you some more comments by email.

Thank you.

Really appreciate it.

Nobody else.

So I I'm gonna be clear.

Again, I'm not gonna I'm hoping at least something can come through before I'm out of here, but I'm never gonna be out of here, right?

As the as the one group can tell you, whenever I was not in office in the middle, I was there, and I will be an eye hound.

So don't think I'm going away, I'm not.

Um and I think that it's very important again.

MPDUs are homes that are being built to be purchased, not just homes that are being built, being built to be purchased.

And when we take that away, we remove the middle.

And without that middle, I do not know how Frederick's gonna continue to thrive.

Because we are pricing people out as has been proven again and again.

And I think the um new people taking office understand this much better than we did.

So anyway, thank you everybody for your information.

Very much appreciate it.

Um conversation, very much appreciate that also, and extra information.

Jim always appreciate whenever you add because you have a history here that most people do not.

So thank you.

We are gonna go ahead and move to the last item on the agenda, which is ADU discussion of proposed changes.

Good afternoon, Gabrielle, the planning department.

Uh so um what we wanted to share with you today is a very rough draft.

It's not in an ordinance form, um, because we wanted to solicit the the committee's feedback on potential changes to the ADU provisions that capture um some of the things that that Danny with uh the the land use council was here discussing earlier, as well as the topics that we presented in our brainstorm initial conversation back in May.

Uh those items were focused on uh parking, which we'll touch on in more detail, uh the home ownership requirement, and the size and scale of ADUs.

So what you have in the draft today um proposes some uh changes to the language, hopefully allowing you to kind of better visualize how this might um be applied to those scenarios.

So uh in addition, there are some strike-through and additions in the text that you'll see that are just correcting inconsistencies in the code that we've been working with over the years just to um make everything right.

So uh looking at page two of the draft changes, uh we get into the residential requirements.

And this is where um Danny presented earlier that we have that one additional parking requirement for an ADU.

So if the existing residence has only the minimum that the code other otherwise requires, and they're adding an ADU, they need to provide one more space for that ADU.

If they're I'm sorry, just can I ask it's just a question one when we um yeah.

Uh our parking requirements, because I'm I don't have them sitting in front of us, nor am I completely clear about what they are, right?

So let's say we have um single family homes, uh a group of single family homes, and one of those single family homes is a two-bedroom, one bath, and another one of those single family homes is a five-bedroom, three bath.

Are the parking requirements the same for those two homes?

Yes.

Two spaces is the minimum parking requirement for a single family dwelling unit, regardless of uh bedrooms.

I thought so.

I just I just wanted to be sure.

Okay, thank you.

Um so the current regulations require that additional space for an ADU.

So if someone were to be converting their uh existing one-car garage into an ADU, taking away one of their necessary spaces for the principal dwelling, they would not only need to replace that parking space, but also provide another space for the ADU.

So if so we're always looking to maintain that minimum parking, two for a single family or townhouse unit space, and then one more for the ADU.

The problems we've seen in practice is a lot of the scenarios where ADUs have the potential to be built are in older developed areas of the city.

And our very strict way of calculating parking makes it pretty much infeasible in most existing situations, unless the the lot has a already very large paved area to meet the this requirement that we have in our code.

So what we're proposing to do is to do two things.

One is adjust how we determine how we calculate parking.

So what does it mean to have two spaces?

If you were building a brand new home, they would need to be two side by side, nine by eighteen foot parking spaces.

This allows a little bit more flexibility to reflect a real world scenario as opposed to this nine by eighteen, which is really the standard we we hold for commercial uses where you have plenty of room to open your doors, assume people aren't great parkers.

Um the difference in size again.

I'm sorry, what's the difference in size?

The difference in size.

So 9 by 18, nine feet wide, 18 feet long is the standard.

What we're proposing is eight and a half feet wide and then 16 feet in length, with the provision that through the permitting, we're making sure that's gonna cause a problem.

Um obviously, you know, at home you park a lot close, you can park a lot closer to your family than you would somebody at a shopping center.

Um the other change to how we traditionally measure parking that we're proposing is that when you have double parking or tandem, one in front of the other, that we would count that as two full spots.

When we measure parking when someone's building a new community or commercial property, two spaces like that only counts as one and a half.

So we're we're calculating that those are two free spaces.

So if this is a single family dwelling unit proposing an ADU and they're you know parking each other in, we're both recognizing both of those spaces as a full space for the purposes of calculating this.

So just kind of loosening up the parameters for how we define parking to reflect really more of a built environment and and probably more um realistic, right?

The second component that we're posing that's proposed to change about the parking is related to transit.

So we've stipulated that that additional parking space would not be required for an ADU if the residence is within 1,320 linear feet, so about a quarter of a mile from a public transit or bus stop, provided that that distance is connected through a continuous system of pedestrian ways, whether that be sidewalks or bike paths or shared use path.

Um that is pulled from another provision in the code we have relative to our downtown.

Um so it's not um it's not groundbreaking.

We we already recognize that areas that have access to alternative means of transportation um hopefully attract residents who who maybe have less less parking or drive less frequently.

So that's the parking standards.

Um moving on to page three of the proposed changes.

Um we have proposed eliminating the requirement that the property owner live in one of the two units.

We're not proposing to change that an ADU still cannot be uh has to be at least for at least 90 days, which is in the code.

So the intent there was to prevent you know short-term rentals, but uh essentially opening the opportunity up to family units living in two separate units on a piece of property that neither of them own.

Um in Danny's presentation earlier, she talked about the potential applications of ADUs and them being great opportunities for somebody with aging parents or children who've returned or family members maybe with different abilities to be able to co-locate, and that is a uh a great application of these provisions.

But if we want to open it up more widely as rental housing opportunities of different size and scale throughout our community, um that would open that gate wider.

The thought process behind that um in your rental licensing regulations, uh any property we we specifically exempted ADUs and similar situations where the home you had two units on a property, one being owner occupied, that is not subject to rental licensing in this situation where you had two rental units, it would become subject to rental licensing.

And then the provisions for safe and um suitable housing would be evaluated, and we'd also have a registry of the owners.

So looked at our current regulations for size and scale.

So essentially, an ADU a detached ADU has to meet the same or more stringent requirements for any other accessory structure that would get built on a property.

So if I just wanted to build a massive garage, or if I wanted to build a garage with uh a studio space above for my pottery hobby, uh we have regulations that are already limiting the the size of that, both in height and size.

Um we have setbacks, we have a lot coverage requirement, we have a uh impervious surface ratio.

So the size and the scale relative to the property that an accessory structure is on is already regulated through section 803.

The ADU provisions are a little bit more stringent with regards to height, um detached ADU that's being constructed out of an existing building or uh through an addition to an existing building.

If it doesn't uh meet the setback requirement for a new ADU, it can only be so high.

Uh it's limited by 20 feet versus 25 feet or the no higher than the principal structure.

So we're already controlling for that massing.

So we started to look at other ways we can measure it as a proportion of the lot or a relationship to the principal dwelling itself.

But I think what if we we pursue that path further, I think what we may end up doing is um constraining people's ability to have ADUs based on a percentage of maybe the the house of the single family unit uh down to a level that might not be a meaningful ADU.

So the thought process behind it is if we have standards that we find acceptable for accessory structures currently, um, that we probably don't want to change those in a way that may limit the opportunities to create ADUs.

The concerns I've heard have been we want something larger than 800 square feet.

Um and that 800 square feet, you still have to meet these setbacks and the coverage and the impervious surface ratio.

So that's still controlling for size and massing.

So instead of proposing kind of a new standardized size and scale, uh creating an option where someone with an ADU they want over 800 square feet to request a modification from the planning commission.

This is consistent with planning commission review for design features for new ADUs that we already have in the code.

And the idea would be that then it's in the planning commission's uh jurisdiction to review for compatibility uh and consistency with the surrounding community.

So right now in the code, the planning commission can grant modifications to certain design architectural features for ADUs.

We have very limited provisions, but we there are provisions in the code.

This would allow the planning commission to modify not only those limited architectural components, but also the size to allow for something larger than 800 square feet, provided that the proposed structure includes compensating design features to meet the overall objectives of compatibility, that it's consistent with the scale and design of the community, um, and it won't be contrary to the purpose and intent.

So it allows for a very context-specific evaluation of an ADU over 800 square feet to determine its compatibility with the surrounding community.

That is the scope of the substantive changes that we've laid out.

I wanted this to be a starting ground.

Um, I think we we have tentatively scheduled a subsequent meeting to keep discussing uh before a formal text amendment would be produced.

Um but I wanted to kind of give you something to to respond to.

We've been talking in generalities and um about the issues, but I think having something that you can look at good, good, bad or indifferent um may help to facilitate that conversation moving forward.

Thank you.

So I've got a couple of questions.

Parking requirements when we talk about parking requirements for downtown, downtown doesn't actually have a requirement for parking in general, correct?

So downtown has like kind of a complex tiered system of the parking requirements.

So it the parking requirements are one half of the minimum otherwise required for new construction.

We do not require parking when someone's changing the use of an existing building.

If and so if they're non-conforming, they don't have to add parking.

If they're changing the use, they don't have to increase the number of spaces.

And then we have a tiered system, and um looking for the exact code, but um you have change of use, an addition of a certain size, you don't have to provide parking for, and then an addition of beyond that the parking lot.

Yeah.

Okay.

And an addition of a certain size that you don't have to provide parking for, you don't know what that size is.

Uh find that there it is.

Uh so uh additional parking is not required for uh and and we do have so additional parking is not required for the change of use of a building or addition that's 5,000 square feet or less.

So change the use or add a 4,000 square foot addition, no additional parking.

Uh it's not required for a new building that is 5,000 square feet on an existing lot for an addition between a thousand square feet.

So yeah, stop right there.

Okay.

Um 5,000, a 5,000 square foot home, let's just say it's a residential unit.

So anything less than a 5,000 square foot residential unit downtown does not require additional parking, does not require off-street parking.

Is this what you're saying?

So a residential, so if you have an existing lot of records, so we have a blank infill, yes, lot of record.

If you're in the DB or DBO zones, not DR, uh additional park is not required for a new building provided is 5,000 square feet or less.

And what if you're in okay, additional parking is not required.

So kind of the same thing I said a little bit ago.

No, no parking.

What about in DR?

I'm sorry.

What about in DR?

In DR.

DR.

DR uh the regulations all apply, the full parking requirement applies.

So the you the rate isn't halved.

Um, so if you need two spaces for a single family unit, you need two spaces.

It doesn't matter how big it is, etc.

Right.

This is only DBO and DB.

Why?

And then between five and ten thousand square feet, or in addition between five and ten thousand.

No, no, no.

Why?

Why do why would we require parking in a DR and not require it in a DB or a DBO?

I think the the um basis for that is probably one, the geographic distribution of DR, which tends to be moving out of kind of the core downtown, um, as well as I think a um an uh expectation that where we have solely residential uses that the units would provide the minimum um to so you you have a less of a rotation of on-street parking when you have all residential businesses and offices have people who work at them and people who come to them, so it seems to me the requirement should be higher for parking in those not less.

I I would assume I can go back and look at some of the legislative history on it, but I think the the thought pattern is that there is a more of an expectation in solely residential zones that people will have immediate access to parking to serve them, versus when I come downtown to go to the Weinberg and out to dinner.

I don't have that same expectation that I should have an available parking space.

I'm willing to park in a garage and walk and go to dinner and okay.

But so we're we're permitting ADUs in the areas that are DB and DBO.

Those are resident.

I um I'm sorry, you're blowing my mind right now.

Um so why we're we are allowing people to add residential uses and not have to add parking.

The a so the ADU at this point, the ADU says if you're in a DB or a DBO or a DR, you have to add that extra space.

You have to, if you're putting you in you, you have to provide at least provide a parking space.

Even in those, even in those places that don't have to provide them originally, now you do because you're talking about a residential unit, right?

Yes.

Yes, for an ADU.

If the parking serving the principal residents on the lot is less than or equal to the minimum.

So if you have no parking and you have a single family house and it doesn't have any parking, you still need to provide one space.

Okay, and what you're asking us to do is to remove that requirement completely.

Only if it's within 1320 feet of a public transit or bus stop.

Okay.

And remove it completely in in all areas.

Correct.

DVDVODR R for R16, whatever.

Yes, that transit.

Now the likelihood that you're closer to a transit stop is gonna be greater higher if you're downtown.

Absolutely.

Um parking is one of those issues that we as a group get complaints on constantly.

Like constantly.

It's one of the big that and um speeding.

Probably two of the biggest complaints that that I personally get.

Um I absolutely understand the idea of making the space smaller.

Because it's an off-street, any time it's off-street.

I just personally believe that if it's off-street parking, it can be smaller.

I but if it's on street, it should not be.

Um I have no issues with making making the size smaller.

I I guess I asked my colleague what he thinks about the parking in general.

I'm fine with all the changes.

I mean, I'll just out of the case.

No, no, that's exactly what we want to hear.

So um you have um sadly only two of us here.

Um and we disagree.

I don't know what to tell you how to move forward with that.

Um, I would suggest that you move forward with however you feel is best, and we'll discuss it as a larger group.

I'm sorry for that.

You're supposed to have three of us here, wish that you did.

Um property owner living in the unit.

So um Derek, you said you're fine with all of the changes?

Yeah, since we have the license registration, if one has a property, you have to they have to register it.

So they don't live in the principle.

Yeah, and see I see it differently.

I I I mean, I see the accessory dwelling unit as an accessory, an accessory to a homeowner, an accessory, not uh yeah.

I I'm again, we're not gonna agree on this, so do what you think is best or bring it forward, and we will each argue our specific side of it.

Um and and the size, I think I've been pretty clear about that.

I I'm not I'm not going to vote yes on something that's over 800 square feet.

I don't think I don't find that an accessory in any way.

And again, my colleague's already said that he agrees with all the changes.

So again, we are in complete disagreement here.

Um move forward with what you're gonna move forward with them.

We'll see what happens in a larger group.

And I apologize to you specifically and to the public in general.

Um it is it is unfair for you to come to hearings like this and not get a better idea on it.

It's easy, you know, when we just agree, because you know you're gonna move forward, and and generally speaking, you should be fine.

But when we don't, you know, you've got three more people to deal with, and I don't know how to tell you to do that.

So I apologize.

Your feedback has always been invaluable, so I appreciate that.

Thank you.

So um, I don't think that we need anything else.

I there's no reason to have anything else from you, but again, thank you.

We'll we'll hear um from the public.

Any public comment on this?

Well, first of all, any comment from other um city agencies?

No, we're good.

Okay, public comment.

Kevin Solner again, East Fifth Street.

Um I wonder if this is the appropriate place in our comprehensive city legislation to discuss an AD putting in criteria for an ADU that might be built in a residential area where it is specific for low income families and waiving some fees.

So in other words, not your relatives, not you know, but Derek, you want me to be in an ADU in your backyard, and you know, I'm a lower income folk uh person or family.

What could we do to incentivize uh lowering fees in that case so that we don't you know uh Danny put up all those costs?

But let's say if we really want to increase ADU affordable housing, let's think about incentives that we can build into that for non-family members, just the general public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

So um council member, I would uh uh with with that comment coming forward, I could probably go for all of these changes in the case that the accessory dwelling unit was for lower income housing and set for that and had to follow all the tenants thereof into the future.

Now you're fine with it without it having that requirement on it.

I'm saying is uh for me, I can I can go where you are if we are considering it a lower income.

Just uh I know that it doesn't change anything today, but just for future information for you.

If if you're looking for um a way to move something forward that might not otherwise move forward, um I absolutely can I am willing to make that compromise.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else for the good of the order?

No.

Thank you all for your patience for your help.

Um I realize this meeting did run long.

We had a number of things on the agenda.

Um I think we had great discussion and and really are able to move some stuff forward that we wouldn't have been.

So thanks everybody for being here.

Have a great day.