City of Frederick Public Works Committee Workshop Summary - October 27, 2026

The Public Works Committee met on October 27, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. to approve the previous meeting minutes and hold initial workshop discussions on updates to the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) ordinance and the Park Facility Impact Fees ordinance. No public comments were offered, and the substantive items were discussion-only, with no final ordinance votes.

Consent Calendar / Approval of Minutes

• The committee reviewed and unanimously approved the October 13, 2026 Public Works meeting minutes by voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public offered comments on either workshop topic.

Workshop: MPDU Ordinance Update (Initial Discussion)

• The committee's initial MPDU update goals include retaining the option to accept in-lieu fees while also incentivizing construction of MPDU units. The presiding member noted this was a significant topic in District 3, where there was discussion about whether to forbid in-lieu fees and require developers to build affordable units.
• Staff feedback described MPDU in-lieu dollars as a core catalyst for funding affordable housing development in Frederick and noted that developers face economic difficulty building MPDUs, so additional city incentives should be considered.
• A council member added that homebuyers also face costs such as electricity and water, and said the city must advocate for equitable housing opportunities while working with developers' business models. The council member said in-lieu fees offer flexibility for LITEC projects and low-interest loans and give the city room to incentivize developers who meet its goals.
• Proposed changes include exempting 100-percent affordable housing developments from MPDU program requirements, creating incentives, and clarifying the MPDU definition so it applies to dwelling units constructed within market-rate housing developments and sold or rented under the City of Frederick MPDU program.
• The committee discussed lowering the MPDU threshold from developments of 25 or more dwelling units to 10 or more dwelling units at one location, as suggested by the Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force. A 10-unit threshold would still trigger the 12.5 percent MPDU obligation.
• The committee also discussed using Frederick County-specific Area Median Income standards rather than the HUD-designated Washington AMI. LITEC projects must still use the HUD definition, while city projects may have more flexibility. One council member advocated for eventually developing the city's own AMI criteria using local data, and another agreed.

Workshop: Park Facility Impact Fees Ordinance (Initial Discussion)

• The committee reviewed proposed definitions and an editorial restatement requiring payment of a park facilities development impact fee before a certificate of occupancy is issued; the draft also says no final inspection or certificate of occupancy may be approved unless the section has been satisfied.
• A proposed exemption would apply to residential developments where 100 percent of dwelling units are affordable and occupied by households at or below 80 percent of AMI, with affordability restrictions running with the property for the duration of the affordability covenant. The Department of Housing and Human Services would verify eligibility. Asked why 80 percent was chosen, the presiding member explained that 80 percent is the top of the range of incomes the city has discussed helping, including 80, 70, 60, 50, and 30 percent AMI.
• The committee discussed moving the impact fee amount out of the ordinance and into the city's fiscal fee schedule to allow annual review. The fee calculation is based on the assessed cost of new development on existing and future park development improvements. One council member expressed hesitation, preferring to observe the fees for a few years and noting that reviewing housing fees as part of a larger fee schedule has challenges. The presiding member said developers look for certainty, not stability, and that keeping fees in the ordinance provides that clarity. He also said the goal is not to add fees but to cover the city's part of park costs.
• Additional proposed edits include making the Chief Operating Officer, rather than the Director of Public Works, responsible for appeals; expanding eligible uses of impact fee proceeds to include design, construction, purchase, and installation of park improvements and amenities; and staff clarified that this fee is separate from the park fee-in-lieu and is specifically for amenities.
• Park location standards discussed would prioritize parks where not less than 75 percent of new dwelling units are within one-quarter mile, measured in a straight line, provided the distance is not interrupted by an arterial street or freeway. The committee debated whether arterial streets such as Monocacy Boulevard should block eligibility, and one member was uncertain about treating them as a significant barrier. Next-nearest parks measured in a straight line would also be eligible.
• A proposed expenditure process would require Parks and Recreation to develop a draft plan, post it online for at least three weeks of public comment, notify neighborhood advisory councils and Main Street organizations with MOUs, hold no fewer than one public meeting, give substantial weight to public feedback, and bring the final plan to City Council for review and vote. The presiding member noted that District 3 residents said the process has sometimes been skipped in practice, so it is being codified in the ordinance.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the October 13, 2026 Public Works meeting minutes.
• No ordinance amendments were adopted; both items are at the initial workshop discussion stage and will continue to be refined.