Evening, Rockville.

Today is July 27, 2026, and we're convening meeting 19-26.

Please join me as you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, everyone.

We'll now move on to our agenda review, Miss Sarah Taylor Pharrell.

Madam Mayor and Council members, there are no changes to this evening's agenda.

Thank you.

We'll now move to the city manager's report, Mr.

Jeff Mahalick.

Mary Ashley, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

Next week is Parks and Recreation Recognition Month.

So of course, we're running around town making improvements to all kinds of parks, which we're excited about.

These parks include the Village Green Park, Logan Oak Park, improvements to the Maryvale Park, and we made some really good improvements to the Civic Center Park in cooperation with Eagle Scar Andrew Schiff.

Andrew did a fantastic job working with us.

We congratulate him and we really appreciate his work improving one of our parks.

Also, next week, Tuesday evening is national night out.

There are a number of different um neighborhoods in and around the city that will be hosting events.

And we'd love to see a lot of people attend.

I know mayor and council will be out there.

Um if people want to see where those events are or they want to register their event, they should go to Rockville MD Gov backslash NNO.

Again, N N O National Night Out.

Last thing I want to make a plug for results, Rockville.

I do that on occasion, so people won't have to listen to me or the mayor or anybody else to find out what's going on.

They can do their own research themselves.

They can go to results Rockville and find out about all kinds of things, including affordable housing, climate action plan, vision zero, and so on.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

A plan is only good if we do the work in it.

So thank you.

Appreciate you mentioning that.

Uh, I wanted to note um the mayor and council will be uh being participating in members of the council will be at part of national night out.

There are over 20 events across the city.

I will ask for grace on behalf of all of us because we try to get to everyone.

I think last year we got to 13, some of us got to 13.

Uh please know that we love every community, and we're trying to get out as best we can.

So I just wanted to say that um we we do try to spread the love and uh we appreciate everyone who's planning those events.

Um I also wanted to thank staff.

I know the members of the council have been working very hard on getting out into communities, especially those who haven't been engaged in the past in the same way, and so we've had some really good neighborhood connects across the city.

Uh so that that's something that the team has helped us organize, and those are going to be continuing at the end of August.

And then lastly, I wanted to note a very important county resource given all that is going on in terms of immigration.

Uh, the Gilcrest Center is a resource that's available to Rockville residents as well.

Uh, and that number is 240-777-4940.

And thank you for the city manager's report.

Okay.

We'll now move on.

Oh, Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just uh wanted to put a plug in.

So last week I went uh to the uh graduation ceremony of the first annual uh police uh Rockfell Police Academy, and uh it was put on by um uh Corporal Crow and uh Corporal Lee uh as well as uh it was a brainchild of uh uh uh uh deputy chief um uh who really put on the uh program that the uh residents had.

It was a fantastic uh addition to uh the uh residents uh getting to know the police.

Um and uh they think there was about uh 10 to 12 graduates, and so I've just put in a plug that um they're doing the second annual uh Rockville Police Academy, and it's gonna be in the fall, so check the website because it's a really fantastic a way to get to know the police and what they do.

Thank you.

And we just had some additional swearing in, so thank you to our RCPD.

Okay.

We'll now move on to boards and commissions appointments and reappointments.

Uh we have appointment nominations for the commission on aging, the education commission, the environment commission, the human rights commission, the human services advisory commission, and the retirement board.

Uh thank you to all of our volunteers in advance.

We greatly appreciate you.

Now I would like to uh request a motion for the nominal the nomination that we've made for uh the commission on aging.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Again, uh so I move to reappoint Ann Herbster to the Commission on Aging to serve a three-year term until June 1st, 2029.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Valerie seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Herpster's in the audience.

We appreciate you.

We'll now move on to the education commission.

Councilmember Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I would like to move the appointment of Roshanda Piles to a new appointment to serve as the education professional with an expiring two-year term until April 1st, 2027.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Fulton seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

I will note that uh principal piles got a recent principal recognition.

We're proud to see that in Rockville.

Thank you.

We'll now move to the environment commission.

Councilmember Van Grack.

Madam Mayor, I move to appoint um Xi and U Jin to the Environment Commissions to serve an expiring three-year term until November 1st, 2028.

And I move to appoint Maxwell Samborn to the Environmental Commission to serve an expiring three-year term until September 1st, 2027.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Jackson seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much to Environment Commissioners.

Next, move on to the Human Rights Commission.

Councilmember Shaw.

Madam Mayor, I move to appoint Dr.

Jenny Stepanic to the Human Rights Commission to serve an expiring three-year term until July 1st, 2029.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Larry Seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Looking forward to more peace.

All right.

Now moving on to the Human Services Advisory Commission.

Councilmember Leary.

I move to reappoint Rima Joyde Google to the Human Services Advisory Commission to serve a three-year term until July 1st, 2029.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Shaw seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

It's unanimous.

Lastly, we have the retirement board.

Councilmember Fulton.

I move to reappoint Paula Perez to the retirement board to serve as the AAME representative for a three-year term until July 1st, 2029.

Do we have a second?

Councilmember Valeri Seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Excellent.

It is unanimous.

Thank you very much to all of our volunteers.

We appreciate everyone who's agreed to join our boards and commissions.

We'll now be moving on to our community forum.

This is a time to address the mayor and council.

Please speak in a civil and courteous manner and be respectful to audience members as well.

Each person is allowed three minutes.

There we will be a time clock in front of you.

We ask that you stick to the three minutes allowed.

Please state your name and if you live in Rockville for the record.

First, I welcome David Levy.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

Again, David Levy, Rockville resident, and 16-year former employee of Rockville.

I was here last month to talk about the pension program and the fact that Rockville chose to vote to have a zero increase, so no COLA for this year, just like you did last year.

And I was talking with my mom as one, some might do.

She is a 45-year employee of Baltimore City Public Schools.

And I I said, Oh, okay, well, you know, I was uh you'll be proud of me.

You always want to get your mom proud of you, right?

No matter how old you are.

And um, she said, Oh, did you guys get uh 2.698?

I said 2.698.

What's that?

She said, Oh, that's that's the state system.

So anybody who's on the state system got 2.698.

That's the CPI estimate.

She told the story about Doge and the evisceration of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and that Maryland had to come up with a system.

Anyway, there are 133 units of local government in Maryland who are part of the state system, and they all got 2.698% uh this year.

Um that's City of Annapolis, City of Bowie, Hartford County, school systems, Baltimore City, governments, school systems.

Rockville got zero.

Um so um.

I don't know if Rockville should be part of the state system.

I don't know enough to know.

You've got a great chief financial officer, you know, Stacy's great.

I worked with her for years.

Um she would know better than I do.

I do know though that Rockville should be true to its longtime employees.

We're talking about, again, as I said last time, some version of this, you know, the people who show up at 3 a.m.

and fix the water main break so that you have water when you wake up in the morning.

It's the folks who remove that beehive that was in the right of way.

Um it was uh road repaving, it's the people who signed up your kids for the rec programs, send message, you send in a call for service, they get it out to the right people.

Yes, I'm ultimately affected by it too.

It's not about me.

My my wife and I were okay.

It's about being right by the employees of Rockville, the longtime people who have served you.

So taking into account inflation, the pensioners, the retirees have lost over the last 11 years 26% of their purchasing power in the land.

And if you look, you can see when this started.

Before 2006, 2007, 2%, 3%, 1.5%, somewhere about 2008.

It was either zeros, most of the time it was zeros, or it was ones.

Rockville went way off track.

Please do CPI for your retirees.

Thank you.

I left materials with uh Miss Uh Taylor Pharrell so you can see the comparisons.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Welcome, Jake Jacobeck.

Okay, see you.

Virtual.

Okay, we'll move we'll move to that in a bit for virtual.

Uh welcome, Elizabeth Adams.

Hi, uh, my name's Libby Adams.

I am a former Rockville resident.

However, my belongings are still being held hostage by an apartment complex within your city limits.

Um, Mr.

City Manager.

Last time I was here, you made a statement when you knew no response could be made afterwards, making highly false claims.

First, you claim that your personnel are following every step of the new mall law in every instance.

However, on April 4th, I sent an email to Fields of Rockville as well as landlord tenant, code enforcement, the mayor and counsel, and you.

And I was detailing that mold had been found in my unit.

I even passed on the mold test results performed by Madison Taylor, showing positively the presence of mold, specifically black mold.

According to the state law, after a complaint of mold has been made, the complex has 50 days 15 days to perform a professional mold assessment.

And still 114 days later, that has yet to be done.

And for documented documentation's sake, the 45 days given for remediation has also passed.

Oh, and the very clarifying email that I have here that you claimed was sent did nothing but clarify this, did anything but clarify the situation.

In Rockville City Code of the Mold Law, you said an inspector must observe a suspicious substance.

However, the Maryland law is written as a landlord shall perform a mold test within 15 days after a written notice by local agency or tenant.

That's me.

They are actively breaking the law and have moved to evict me so that they can cover it up.

And all of you are allowing it.

All of you know about it.

You guys have known about it for more than a year.

I have asked for your help in every way possible at every step of the way.

I've begged you.

I've cried to half of you.

And still now they're able, I don't know, I messed up something, but they're able to move to evict my family, which means mine and my kids, every belonging that we have is going to be on the street because I don't have 12,000 to clean it.

And you guys aren't holding them to the fact that they sent an email saying their industrial hygienist said it needed to be cleaned.

Y'all were on that email, and still you're not enforcing it.

You say that the law doesn't include belongings, but it includes holding landlords liable for um habitability, which they didn't provide that either.

There were they were absolutely breaking the warranty of habitability law, also.

Multiple Maryland laws.

I parented out multiple Rockville laws that they violated.

Nobody's done anything.

So you guys claim that you care about Rockville residents.

You I see things on Facebook all the time.

Oh, we have this, we have that.

What about safe housing?

And then I'm told to go get a lawyer.

If I don't have the 12,000 to clean my belongings, I don't have money to go get a lawyer.

And you guys have shoved this as a low-income housing community over here at Fields of Rockville.

And so now it's full of people in my position who don't have money for a lawyer, don't have money for mold testing themselves, don't have money for mold remediation, cleaning their belongings, nothing.

And what?

They're gonna come to you guys and they're gonna get dicked around for a year.

Excuse my language.

You guys should do better.

I don't know who got re-elected, but hopefully not any of you.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

I do know that we've asked the city manager to make sure that we are following up and that also legal resources.

I know that there are some free legal legal resources that have been that are available.

So I just will continue to say we asked staff to follow up.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next, welcome Gerald Kitchy.

Jerry, did you want to speak?

No, I I just um for a transportation meeting, which proposes this today, but it's actually we welcome you.

All right, thank you.

Long resident, my wife and I fill we enjoy it very much.

Thank you.

Uh welcome Madison Dunn.

Hello, you guys know me.

Uh that's my mom just came up and spoke.

I know.

Uh I I was coming up here to talk about the stuff that my mom's been talking about, but I decided that is not going to be any use because none of you actually listen.

But first, uh but I did want to point out some some stuff that I've learned over the years about you guys.

First, uh, Mr.

David Miles, is that your name?

Is that last name?

Is that how you pronounce it?

Uh I did see you a bunch of times that's looking down.

I don't want to be rude or anything.

I just wanted to point that out.

But also I keep hearing you say that you that that there's a bunch of availability, some available stuff to help us out.

But so far we haven't gotten any help with anything, and we're still having problems with everything going on.

And as my mom said, our stuff is about to get thrown out into the street and thrown out.

And but there's still a bunch of stuff from my and my sister's childhood, even my mother's childhood that we cannot save because it's covered in mold, and we do not want to take it to our new house and then have to put uh us through it and then also our cats through all this stuff again.

And so far, no one has done anything.

And we've been here multiple times.

So you guys know what's been going on as well.

That's all I just wanted to say.

Thank you for your feedback.

Is there anyone else?

I'll just note Mr.

Mihilek if staff can be available at the back.

I know we've asked to provide support.

Please follow up.

Okay.

Um is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

We have a virtual speaker, Jake Jacobeck.

Good evening.

Can you all hear me?

We can hear you.

Perfect.

Um, thank you.

Dear Mira Ashton and Rockville City Council.

My name is Jake Jacobek, and I live at 319 Grandin Avenue.

I live in the city.

I am the chair of the Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee.

However, I am coming here to speak on my own behalf.

We are approaching an update of the comprehensive transportation review, the CTR in the city of Rockville.

The CTR is the tool we use to measure traffic impacts in our city, and ones we use to determine the adequacy of transportation facilities in place when new development or redevelopment is proposed.

The tool will use estimates of trips added by a development to determine if a road needs to be or road needs to be widened or turn lanes added or a free right turn, traffic light, etc.

Different kinds of infrastructure along those lines.

Three examples are levying the transportation improvement fee, even when the redevelopment of a property is not anticipated to generate more trips than it had already vested with the prior use of the land.

Much of what isn't built in Rockville is in field development, and developers have estimated trips vested for the proposed use of the land.

If the amount of trips does not exceed prior estimates, the buildings don't need the builders don't need to pay the TIFF.

Having TIFF money enables Rockville to build more cycling and pedestrian improvements because the money is dedicated for non-motor vehicle uses and is not tied to the development of a specific parcel of land.

This fee is already included in the current CTR.

However, we recommend more developments pay this fee.

Another idea is to add an adequacy measure of whether cycling and pedestrian facilities exist in a particular area rather than mandating sizes.

The CTR is the process to measure adequacy of facilities for automobile trips generated and requires infrastructure to be built depending on those trip numbers and if existing infrastructure can accommodate the new trips.

Cycling and pedestrian improvements aren't really like measured by this.

And I think one way simple, useful way to apply the CTR to such matters to simply ask the question do bicycles and pedestrian facilities already exist here.

This will enable missing tidbits to be built as properties redevelop and will also prevent a builder from being hamstrung by having to calculate the capacity for people on bikes and those walking.

Volumes in Rockville are generally low enough that simply asking if something exists and building the standard if it does not will be adequate.

The final idea is to relax thresholds in the CTR that mandate increasing the size of roadways in the area of a new development in response to the added vehicular trips that would would be a useful way of shifting the burden of travel to people driving rather than people walking.

If a trip estimate exceeds a threshold, then a road must be widened, extra turn lanes added, free right turns built, and other such projects.

These enable more car trips at the expense of people not in their cars.

Someone walking or cycling now has to watch out a free right turn or cross an extra turn lane while navigating this property, which makes the trip more dangerous.

So also more cars can pass through uh space.

Increasing automobile infrastructure largely results in more people driving and the cycle continues.

If you build for people in their cars, you will get people driving.

If you build for people walking or cycling, you'll receive more of those.

We can maintain a balance as long as you consider the needs of the less vulnerable in this matter for the first time.

Thank you for listening this evening.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

That exhausts the list of those who've signed up for community forum in advance.

We appreciate all of the feedback.

We'll now move on to our consent agenda.

Agenda 9A, award and authorize the city manager to execute a rider agreement with colossal contractors.

This is for carpentry contract contract services not to exceed 200K.

9B to award and authorize the city manager to execute a natural gas supply agreements with WGL Energy Services with terms consistent with the University of Maryland contract for initial term between August 1st, 2026 through July 31st, 2027, and authorize the city manager to exercise optional renewals through June 30th, 2031.

9C, award and authorize the city manager to execute electricity supply agreements with WGL Energy Services with terms consistent with the Baltimore Regional Cooperative Purchasing Agreement, Howard County contract, and authorize the city manager to exercise optional renewals for terms between September 2026 through September 25.

2026 through September 2036.

9D, authorization for the city manager to execute terms and conditions at PEPCO's Empower MD rebate program to include the program's application for use, implementing phase three of the city's LED streetlight conversion CIP project in support of our climate action plan.

9E award award and authorize the city manager to execute a five-year agreement for the purchase of software subscription and services with CDW government LLC for virtual service at various locations, an amount not to exceed about 1.496 million.

F authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the rider agreement with Gale Associates, Towson, Maryland for a multi-year consultant services for building envelope construction and repair work at city facilities in the amount not to exceed about 390 K annually, and this would support roof services as well.

9G authorize the city manager to execute amendment number one to interlocal contract for licensing SPDC software, buying between mayor and council of Rockville licensee and municipal corporation and body corporate and politics organized under the laws of the state of Maryland and South Central Planning and Development Commission.

A regional planning commission and political subdivision of the state of Louisiana, Damasalt and Terreborn Parish.

H is the approval of minutes for June 29th and July 6, 2026.

Colleagues, do we have a motion to approve or does anyone need to pull any of the items?

Councilman Van Greck.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I move to a point.

No, I move to approve consent agenda items A, B, C, D, E, F, and G and H.

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

Councilman Valerie seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

We're now moving on to agenda item 11, which is a potential adoption of the Jedi Strategic Plan.

I'd like to welcome Jean Booth, Director of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion from the City Manager's Office, as well as Dr.

Patricia Morgan, CEO of the Executive Learning Lab TEL.

And this is their second time presenting to us.

We did have a workshop and shared some feedback, and you are here to present a plan.

We welcome you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We're very excited to be here with us.

Thank you very much.

We're excited to be here.

I just want to take a moment just to introduce.

We have had an intern for the last three months from University of Maryland Masters in Public Policy Program.

Emily Sakai.

Thank you.

So tonight we hope to talk about the process very briefly talk about the process review and the existing foundation for the Jedi Strategic Plan.

We'll review what we've heard.

We will spend some time focusing on the seven strategic priorities as well as the one year roadmap, which leads into a five year plan.

We are going to highlight measurement, accountability, and governance structures, and then finally a recommended action.

Okay.

So tonight we present to you the Jedi Strategic Plan with the roadmap and the long-term plan.

We're asking you to adopt the plan as presented and to direct staff to proceed with the year one implementation beginning next week in August.

This plan is grounded in the staff survey and the focus groups that you've heard about in previous sessions, as well as expanded community listening sessions that have been completed since.

And in a full review of Rockville's existing equity related policies and programs, which I know Dr.

Morgan is going to talk to you a little bit more in in just a few moments.

The executive learning lab was contracted to lead these efforts.

Thank you, Jean, and good evening, Mayor and Council.

It's a privilege to bring you the finished product of the process.

The work has moved through five phases across the last seven months.

We were engaged in January and we were at the table with the equity champions in February, all the way until even last month, and this month doing some work.

In March following our work session, we launched the citywide staff survey and completed the focused groups.

April brought community listening sessions, and May and June were spent presenting preliminary findings to you for your feedback and for additional recommendations.

Then we translated everything that we heard into the strategic planning sessions that we held with the equity champions across June and July to present the final plan to you.

All right.

So this engagement was intentionally 360 degrees, both internally and externally.

We surveyed over 210 staff members, responded across all 13 departments, and we had over 38% participation average rates across our different groups and in our different departments, as well as initially nine focus groups, and then we had some additional focus groups in May.

Externally, we conducted at first nine community sessions, and we held interviews with some of the mayor and council as well.

And we also had some interviews with some senior leaders as well.

As we were direct with you the last time we presented to you in May, the external turnout was low in some of our sessions and fell below the target, despite all of the outreach that we did to over 250 organizations.

At that time, we went ahead and got a list from you all of some additional organizations that we should reach out to.

We made some targeted outreach and help some additional sessions, and we were able to have some additional representation from some of the communities that we were missing the first time.

So we do treat those findings as directional and not representative of entire communities.

So the plan that you see, the final plan commits to continued outreach because we know that in order to tap in some of the specific communities that we were trying to get into, that seven months is not enough to get into some of the communities, especially when they um when we have certain things that are going on right now that make some certain communities apprehensive to engage with law enforcement or with city officials as well.

Um so you'll see that later tonight in the plan.

All right.

So I know this is not the first time that you're seeing this, but um before we conducted the surveys, the focus groups, and the community sessions, the Jedi office completed a review of existing data, um, city policies, tools, programs, and all the reports that we could find.

Um it was an extensive, I believe, 30 33-page report of all the existing um prior surveys and reports that were done and that were handed to us by the mayor and council as well as other staff that had been in the position before Gene.

Um the review came back as being very important for our baseline and the baseline for this plan.

After the listening session and the feedback from the mayor and council, we went back to the foundation to this foundation that you see, and we looked with a sharper lens.

We're not just asking what does the city already have.

We're also asking how can the city use what we already have to better reach subgroups, address intersectionality, improve targeted community engagement, and connect Jedi implementation to existing city tools.

This is why this slide is very important.

Rockville is not starting from scratch, as we stated when we met with you last time.

The city already has meaningful infrastructure in place, including the 3E impact statement, the budget equity tool, Title VI, human right commitments, and human housing and youth programs, public safety standards, also demographic data guidance, which we use and included in the plan, as well as inclusive procurement efforts and climate-related equity support.

So I want to be clear that we are not starting from zero.

The plan that we have is asking the city to connect and strengthen, especially consistently applying what we already have.

For example, if the question is how can the city better track subgroups and disparities, the plan is going to point back to the city's standardized demographic data as guidance and mapping resources.

If we're looking out at how the city can reach people that we often miss, then we're gonna point back to the trusted messenger engagement strategy that we mentioned in the plan, as well as targeted outreach and continued listening sessions, not just the ones that we held over the last seven months.

And lastly, if we're looking at how can we be a force for change, then we need to think about how are we going to consistently apply the Jedi framework across departments, budgets, policy programs, as well as public reporting.

So this slide is not just a summary of all the existing programs, but it's a bridge between what Rockville already has and what the plan is now asking you to do.

Next slide.

So quickly what the what the plan told us.

Um, and this is why the strategic plan.

So you're probably wondering why do we need a strategic plan if we already have the infrastructure in place or we already have it.

Um it boils down to consistently consistency.

So because the engagement process made one thing unmistakably clear, having a policy on the books is not the same as staff and residents experiencing the effects of a plan in some of these policies.

Staff told us that Jedi happens in some departments and not others, and it largely depends on the supervisors that they report to.

Community members told us that services exist that they never learned about.

The plan's entire job is to close that specific gap between what Rockville is has committed to on paper and what people experience, not to invent new commitments for nothing.

And so here are key things at a glance.

Um, and no single, I just want to point that no single source of data can tell the full story here.

The survey showed scale for staff.

Um, we also had additional representation from the focus groups that added additional texture, and then we also had community sessions, listening sessions that helped us understand how residents were experiencing the city services as well as access, communication, and trust.

And then we also had community sessions, listening sessions that helped us understand how residents were experiencing the city services as well as access, communication, and trust.

Across those sources, eight themes consistently surfaced.

Staff and residents want Jedi to move from values into daily practice.

Staff needed clear guidance, tools, and role specific training, which is included in years one through five, and how we roll that out.

Also, language access and communication and communication continue to be a reoccurring gap, and disability access needs to be understood more broadly than physical access alone.

Community engagement needs to reach beyond the same established network, which is something that we tried the second time with the additional listening sessions as well.

And data measurement and accountability needs to be more visible.

So Jedi work needs clearer governance and shared ownership.

And finally, Rockville has many programs already in place, but sometimes the residents don't always know how to find them.

So the important point for this slide is that these themes are connected.

If residents can't find the programs, that's a communication issue.

If language access is inconsistent, that's a service delivery issue.

And if disability access is uneven, that is both accessibility and an accountability issue, which we found both with staff as well as residents.

So this side is going to bridge what we heard with what the plan is going to do.

And the seven strategic priorities are designed to turn these themes into structures, actions, and accountability.

All right, so let's look at some numbers.

The survey showed a strong organizational foundation, which we presented last time.

So you you may be very familiar with these numbers.

81% of staff feel valued and respected regardless of identity.

In terms of gaps, we mentioned this last time, and which is why year one we focused on making sure that we had some foundation in place to address training.

So 35% rated Jedi training positively, and 38% believe that residents were even aware.

Now some may question why does that matter?

Well, it matters if staff are saying that 74% of staff is saying that we are engaging with diverse members of community, but then we also don't understand what they know about Jedi.

Only 38% believe that the city even the residents even know what the city is doing in terms of Jedi efforts.

So that was against that 74% internal confidence number.

So that 36% percent gap or 36-point gap between internal confidence and external visibility is one of the clearest signs in our entire data set, and it shows up directly in priority too.

All right, some more strength.

Um before we dig a little bit into the gaps, I want to um name some of the strengths clearly because this is how we built um foundation year one.

Hiring and workforce diversity is the city's most visible Jedi achievement.

The existence and accessibility of the Jedi director was the single most frequently cited organizational strength in the open-ended response, and staff read that presence as genuine and as a signal that it wasn't just a policy statement to have Gene in this position, and that it was a priority for the city.

Leaders are also confident, 98% are said that they were confident and creating inclusive environments and interpersonal respect is strong across the workforce.

Um, so as I stated, the city is not starting from a deficit.

It's a city that has real assets that needs to be extended consistently.

All right, so four gaps, and this is what we presented last time to you, so you you are aware of the gaps, but they stand out as the clearest and the most actionable findings in the survey.

Training was late rated the lowest area at 34%, and a meaningful share of staff don't know how they can access training or if training exists within their department.

Data used to identify disparities is nearly as low with the highest uncertainty as any measure, meaning staff genuinely don't know whether their department is using data at all.

And then residence awareness sits just at 38%, as I shared lastly, um, badly lagging internal confidence.

So among the leaders, accountability is the softest dimension.

A third rarely discuss Jedi with their own teams.

They don't see, and some don't know how.

When we had our conversations with our directors and our senior leaders, they we had a transparent moment where we said, here's the plan where will you need help?

And some said, Yes, I will admit that I need help having these hard conversations.

So year one is going to look like creating toolkits when this happens.

Here's an example of how you can respond in role specific examples.

All right.

All right.

So this was who we found was left behind.

Yeah.

Okay.

And this slide is important.

Um, one, because the this team right here, the mayor and council, you specifically asked us to look at intersectionality to ensure that we were making sure that we were reaching those and not just giving you all the pretty data.

And so we did dig deep to bring you this.

And it is sad to report, but it's something that is going to drive a lot of the work in year one.

Um, and it's important because the averages that we had on the previous slide tells one story, but this right here tells a different story.

Um, we did just disaggregate the staff data where employees self-identified, and the subgroup analysis showed that experiences are not across, they're not the same across the workforce, um, specifically for these groups right here.

Um, and we debated on it, should we call out this group, but we thought we had enough members to where we're not calling out any individual person within these subgroups.

Um, so we feel confident in sharing this data.

So, frontline staff who are often the closest to residents rated seven out of the eight areas that we measured lower than any other group.

Um, and they also rated having higher discrimination rates than managers and the senior leaders.

Women reported microaggressions at nearly twice the rate of men, and black and African American employees reported lower authenticity and voice ratings alongside higher discrimination and microaggression rates.

Hispanic and Latino employees reported the highest level of discrimination and microaggression, plus a gap in advanced access.

Um and lastly, new employees also scored lower on the seven areas, which could just point to onboarding and that early employee experience with the organization.

So the takeaway is on this slide is not to single out any group.

Again, we felt confident that we had enough in here to make the statement without calling out any individual.

The takeaway is that the positive city averages can hide the meaningful difference in experience that you will feel if you are a member of one of these subgroups, and it's something for us to consider and to continue to put pulse checks in place so that we can measure this over time.

Okay, the staff focused groups.

Um, so we did some additional staff focus groups for additional staff focus groups after the um the first round, and the focus groups explain how the survey numbers show up in our daily work.

The foundational theme was that there is no shared organizational definition of Jedi.

Many frontline staff, as I've shared with you before, had not heard the acronym before it was introduced in the focus group.

And once we defined it, their understanding varied.

Um, some connected it to customer service and community members' experience with the organization, while others saw it as a leadership initiative and they were disconnected from this work or disconnected from their daily role.

Second, language access was a systemic gap, not just a training issue.

The language line was underused, and bilingual staff are often informally relied on without a consistent structure.

So, yes, we did find that there was a pay structure in place for them, but oftentimes the same individuals get used over and over again, and that creates like this patchwork of you know, um, of people always going to the same same three individuals to always do this.

And then third, the real equity implications, workforce culture appears highly dependent on your immediate supervisor and not the organization.

So that is why year one is built around shared language, staff tools that's tied to role-specific functions, language access protocols, governance, and accountable and public accountability.

So before the city can measure long-term movements in outcomes, departments need to have this common operating structure for how this work shows up daily.

Community listing sessions were across April, June, and July with the important caveat that I gave you earlier on attendance.

The first round was we did not have high attendance except for one group, the group that self-identified as having a person with disability.

That was the highest rated group for the community listening session.

But two things were most common across every session every session.

First, city outreach reliably reaches residents who are already connected.

So the emails and the newsletters that we're sending, they go out to the same people.

And then even if the residents who are deeply engaged are not reading the newsletter, they have friends that read the newsletters.

So they come and they usually find out 15 minutes before a focus group because of their engaged colleagues, and that's how they um and that's how they engage.

So not residents we that were working multiple jobs or new to Rockville, they're having a harder time engaging.

And so we ensure that as part of the plan that those continued listening sessions, and that was one of the things.

As we were holding the listening sessions, they were like, is that it?

What happens now?

Are you gonna come back and talk to us?

And we were like, yes, that's what that's what's supposed to happen.

We're supposed to continue having listening sessions to see if you feel differently today than you do a year from now.

Um, second, geographic equity.

This came up a lot.

I know we discussed this last time, and then we um got some additional names and um trusted messengers, what we call trusted messengers of people that we could go to based off of your relationships to get that.

Um, but Route 355 came up repeatedly as a dividing line.

And of course, we talked about Twin Brooks specifically being named unprompted.

We did not prompt it in our question guide in nearly every session by community members as well as the staff interviews that were conducted with roughly 40% of residents speaking a language other than English at home.

We don't think that this is a secondary concern.

It's central to how we should build this plan and implement it.

Three more findings round out the community picture, language transportation, and service navigation, and these are connected barriers.

Um, and I want to be clear that that some of these are not held with the city.

Um, so it's important for the plan to talk about how we'll work with other agency as well, because some of these things, when I present them, they're not on the city.

Um, this is where the city's relationship with social services partners become really important.

Um, you know, you all do not own every program, benefit, transportation option, or support system that residents may need.

Some residents sit within the county, um, some go to nonprofit providers, faith-based organizations, housing partners, schools, our community-based organization, but the city can still look a critical role.

You can still play a critical critical role in helping residents access the right reference and materials and making referrals more visible and coordinating with what we call trusted partners or trusted messengers and making sure the city's um facing information is clear, multilingual, and accessible, which um started in one of the focus groups after we did the first round of focus groups, the second round of focus groups, they really love the translation service that is on the website.

And we went and added that line, I believe, to the to the plan.

Um, trust and inclusion are also being affected right now.

This is something that's really important.

Participants describe a hesitation to engage with city services, irrespective of who the trusted messenger was due to what's going on right now with immigration enforcement concerns and faith communities flagged scheduling conflicts that sometimes can exclude them.

A disability access is also broader than physical infrastructures.

So participants raise concern about screen reader compatibility, digital access, service portals, voting materials, and how residents request our receive accommodations.

And that was also a request that came from staff as well.

Right now, all accommodation requests goes through their supervisors.

It's not a central HR function.

So that is a recommendation that we made.

So the takeaway for all of these barriers is that they are addressable, but not by one department alone.

Priority two is going to focus on inclusive service delivery and language access.

Priority three is going to focus on accessibility and inclusive design.

Priority four is going to focus on trusted messenger and community engagement.

And together, these priorities will help the city strengthen its role as a connector, a communicator, and a partner to these other service organizations.

All right.

So these are the seven priorities that come directly from the evidence that you've seen.

Everyone is traceable to a specific survey finding, focus group theme, or a community listening session.

These are not standalone projects.

In fact, when we were trying to prioritize which one should go first, we often found that they were interconnected, and you can't do this until you do that.

So training strength uh strengthens delivery.

Bader better data is going to strengthen accountability.

Community engagement is going to improve how programs are designed and accessibility and language access are part of equitable services.

So policy alignment creates the structural conditions for all of this to happen.

And I'll walk through each of them briefly, and then Gene and I will show you how year one translate into specific and dated actions.

Okay.

The first two priorities are foundational because they address two of the clearest findings in the plan.

Staff need shared understanding, a shared definition of Jedi, and residents need more consistency or consistent access to services.

So for priority one, the evidence was that staff across departments from frontline operations to executive leadership, describe uncertainty about what Jedi means for their daily responsibility.

So the priority is not just about training, just to check off a box that 100% of staff will engage in a Jedi's training.

It's about giving staff plain language definition and role specific examples and practical tools so Jedi connects to their actual work.

For priority two, the evidence was that Rockville has programs and services, but equitable service depends on whether residents know these programs exist, whether they can access them in their own language, and whether systems are easy to navigate, and whether staff have clear guidance.

That's why this priority focuses on language access, service navigation, multilingual communication, and residence awareness.

Priority three, response to specific accessibility feedback from the community, including screen reader compatibility, digital access, accommodation processes, and accessibility at public meetings or events.

Now, some of these are some are somewhat in the way.

I believe the city hired a had a whole revamp of the city website that does translations.

So at the beginning, that probably wasn't in place, but it was when we did the later focus groups in June and July.

So they didn't know that they love that service.

Priority four response to the engagement gap.

We heard that the city often reaches people who are already connected, while other residents are hard to reach through standard email or public meetings.

This priority focuses on what we're calling a trusted messenger map, existing gathering places, geographic reach, and better tracking of who's already being reached.

These two priorities are especially important for priority five and six because they answer one core question.

How does the plan move from value to practice?

Priority five focuses on systems behind decisions.

The city already has tools like the three impact statement and the budget equity tool, but this priority is about using those tools more consistently.

So equity is considered in policy programs, budget, procurement, and boards and commission works.

Also getting examples and non-examples of equity.

So right now, when you do your impact statement, you define in your words how that equates to equity.

But everybody has a different definition.

So giving them, giving leaders examples and non-examples is what we'll be doing for year one and priority five.

Priority six is the accountability backbone of the plan.

It focuses on clear goals, named responsible parties, public reporting, and how data can show whether progress is actually happening.

Together, these priorities will help the plan from becoming like symbolic and they make the work visible, measurable, and easier for the residents and city staff and council to track over time.

And then lastly, priority seven is what makes the other six priorities possible.

The Jedi office can guide and coordinate this work, but it can't implement all seven alone.

And that's why we met with the senior leadership team to basically highlight, which we'll show you in a couple of slides, which part every department will have to own and work and collaborate together to accomplish.

So the priorities create shared ownership structure, and it gives us clear roles for departments, stronger support for the equity champions, which we're requesting, coordination with HR for some of the items that we mentioned, like accessibility and access needs, communication, IT, and other partners as part of the plan.

So the key takeaway for this is that this is not this is a system and not a checklist.

Training, service delivery, accessibility, engagement, policy alignment, and accountability all depend on each other.

Now let's go into year one.

So you have the detailed map, and year one is very extensive because it is the foundation.

It runs in five phases that starts from July with formal adoption all the way through next June.

July was preparation, including the feedback that we receive from you all before, putting that into place, getting the additional focus groups, meeting with additional city leaders, conform confirming leads and aligning departments before the public launch.

August and September will focus on the launch and awareness with staff, residents, and community partners.

October through December is early implementation.

That's when we plan to have the first tools, the pilots, and governance structure begin.

Some of the items that we're developing in year one will not be able to be implemented.

We can't implement it until year two.

For example, when we make changes to the equity statement, that will happen.

We'll prep them now, but but budget season has already happened for this year.

So it'll go for next year.

So I want to be direct about what year one is and what it isn't.

So year one is not the finish line, it is the foundation that makes year two through five possible.

And the reason it focuses on leads, tools, launch, and governance and early measurement is because those are the conditions that the city needs before it can track the long-term impact of this work.

And so here goes the priority highlight map.

Um, this is the full the full roadmap is in the plan.

Um in our plan, we name the lead office, the key partners, the timing, as well as evidence of progress for every single action across all seven priorities.

There's roughly two dozen action items, and there's also a Gantt chart in the appendix as well that kind of flushes out where everything goes in the first year.

Every action has a name lead, and you can see the different leads on the screen.

Um, that's intentional because it makes this roadmap trackable rather than just aspirational.

And the leaders have already been informed of their respective department leads.

All right, and then resource and capacity.

Um, so I do want to be candid about the capacity because in order to make this plan achievable and not aspirational.

We have to also look at how we're going to leverage the leaders in the sitting, because right now the Jedi office currently has two staff members.

And so this is something that I've mentioned as well to the senior leadership team.

They cannot execute the 20 plus year one action items on their own.

That so I was clear with the department directors, HR, communications, um, IT, and finance that everybody will have to carry a piece of this plan, and they have assigned action items on the roadmap.

Um, and we've already started having this conversation.

So they're ready for their respective parts that they have to own.

Um, and then the equity champions right now are currently um volunteers and they are not paid.

Um so we want to formalize their roles or their structure and how they will support year one deliverables.

For example, one of the tangible artifacts that they have to come up with the Jedi training, the onboarding training.

Um, we can't make a goal that says 100% of staff has to complete it because of what's going on right now with like current, you know, DEI legislation, but we can track who's taking the course, and that can be monitored.

And then we also, but they also need time to develop that training within year one.

And then they also need time to develop the job aids within year one that we talked about before because that's one of the feedback that we receive from the staff members, especially the staff members that are doing the work and that are closer to the residents.

They want examples of how to actually implement this.

So the equity champions will need some type of either release time or budgetary concerns for that.

There's some budgetary concerns for that.

All right.

So the five-year plan is available in the full plan, and it documents the specific actions, the leads and evidence of progress for all five years across all seven priorities, not just year one.

I wanted to spend our time today, tonight talking about year one, but you also have access to the detailed plans for years uh two through five in the handout.

Um, but the arc is simple.

Year one is going to build the foundation, and it's critical that we do this right.

Year two and three will deepen and expand the foundation across every department and further into the community.

And year four and five are this really about institutionalizing this work so it's embedded as a standard, and when we come back in five years, it's not going to depend on the supervisor you had that if this work was successful or not.

It will be a value of our city.

All right, so who owns what?

So as you can see, I was very specific about assigning roles to the plan, and because I believe that without governance, Jedi becomes fragmented and it depend it depends on whoever's in place in terms of the equity champions instead of the community.

Um so I wanted this to be an organizational organization-wide structure.

So this structure distributes ownership deliberately.

So your role tonight as mayor and council is to set the direction and to receive progress reports as at these defined intervals that we've um placed in the plan and alight the Jedi priorities with the city's budget and policy decisions going forward.

The city manager's office will coordinate across departments.

The Jedi office will guide and advise it's explicitly not positioned as the sole implementer, and then department directors will own implementation within their own departments.

This is the structural answer to that comment that we receive that leadership depends on if you have a great experience in the city.

And this is the accountability cycle and public reporting standard that we have for every year.

We want to make sure that the plan is you're able to go back and adjust it as needed.

So this six-step cycle repeats itself every year through 2030.

We plan, implement, track, report, listen, and adjust.

For you specifically, you'll be receiving midterm mid-year reviews in January through the March window and a public accountability report in July of 2027.

And it right now we have it in the plan going on engage Rockville so that any residents can any resident can read.

Um, this ensures that the mayor and council what you all said in the fall.

I mean, in the earlier this year, when you called for public commitments and not plans, we want to make sure that the public had out access to the outcomes of this plan.

And that's it for me.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Dr.

Morgan.

So sorry.

I will by 2031, I will remember to put that on.

Uh thank you, Dr.

Morgan.

Mayor and Council.

This plan uh again does not outline the completion of the work of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in five years.

Um, it really is the launch of all of our work, our careers.

Uh, it's we are starting from a place of strength.

We have the policies, programs, tools, and most importantly, we have the staff.

We have the equity champions, we have the community partners who have spent years building the foundation for this work.

Uh, what the planning process has revealed is that the city it starts from a place of commitment, which is a beautiful thing.

Um, it's not yet consistently visible to everyone, but it is measurable and accessible, and we're gonna continue to strengthen this.

The plan gives us a structure for closing the gap from isolated efforts across the organization to shared ownership from promises to what some real visible trackable results.

That brings us to the action that we're requesting tonight.

And you can see the suggested motion.

And I will pause here.

Thank you very much for all the work that you've done on this.

And I know that every member of the mayor and council provided feedback last time and appreciate you going back to collect additional data and to focus on the areas of interest that we flagged.

We see some of that represented and deeply appreciate that.

I I'm gonna go down the line.

I just have two quick overarching questions.

So I just wanted to flag that would be something we want to consider.

Um and then some other plans like have a cover page.

This is a document of the mayor and council.

Uh it is approved by not approved by once once you have that language, and then it also has acknowledgments of the staff who contributed to it.

So I just wanted to flag some of those parallels and some of our other plans just as we have that ready, the one that's finally approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Dr.

Miles, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to echo the thanks to extended to you and everybody who contributed and participated in this process.

It's great to see some so-called meat on the bones on a number of points there.

I did want to highlight and thank you all for reminding all of us.

Um it's to continue some of the efforts and redouble our efforts, particularly with regard to disability access, this notion that is broader than just the physical, perceived physical barriers.

Um, and highlighting that was very important for my own education and a reminder about some of the work again we have done, but that we still need to do.

So thanks so much for this.

Uh, look forward to the comments of my colleagues and getting on with it as we say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you, and and sincerely thank you for getting us here tonight.

Um, I I mean, I will share, like since the first time we talked about this, I remember saying I'm I'll be interested to see like what's the plan, right?

We can we can spend a lot of time getting feedback, diagnosing the problem, admiring the problem, fine-tuning the diagnosis, rewording the diagnosis, uh, and getting wrapped up in analysis paralysis and looking for perfection is the enemy of the good here.

Um, and I am really interested in like approving this and getting going.

Like, let's start to see some results.

I also appreciate that you said um, you know, it's a cyclical process, right?

If we want to iterate and like next year we want to make a couple of changes or focus on a new thing, we we have that opportunity to do that.

Um, I also appreciate that you said, you know, even if we approve tonight, some things won't happen for a year from now, and each moment that we don't get this going uh has an impact.

I'm eager to like um, you know, one of the things you said, uh one of the slides said that only certain people are aware of the Jedi efforts.

We should increase the number of people that are aware of Jedi efforts, but we shouldn't just be talking about the fact that we have Jedi efforts, we should be making meaningful changes such that there's less issues to talk about.

Uh so all of that is to say, like there are parts in here where I am really curious what the meat on the bones is.

Some of them seem uh easier to address than others, right?

Screen reader um accessible emails is a tangible thing.

We can do it or not do it.

Um there's a but however, having a standardized engagement plan that we use for all things is a much bigger uh more nuanced issue.

So I'll be interested to see how we uh make progress on the sort of more specific versus the more complicated.

Um, but I think that you guys did some amazing uh investigating, got feedback, synthesized it, took our feedback, came back.

Um, and all of the major issues that we would have expected to see are here with plans to address them.

So I'm eager to move forward and get this done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Valeri.

Yes, hi.

Um, thank you both so much.

This has been um quite the journey.

I will say I I truly enjoyed um my very small input into this process because I just learned a lot more of kind of you know the what the focus groups look like.

I really it was a very thoughtful discussion too, and I hope that um every my colleagues had the same experience.

So I want to thank you.

Thank you both for taking that on, and um I I think we should do that annually, but maybe that's just me.

Um there are a couple things I did just want to note.

I want to absolutely um co-sign what um uh Madam Mayor said currently 10-21 is not expansive enough in that it only focuses on, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, racial equity and not the totality of of the diversity that we really need to look at from a justice lens.

So I would be all in um as to what Madam Mayor said.

If we need to, you know, um it's been a while, so that was 1021.

Like I think it's 1026.

I think we can update that.

Um, and again, be more expansive.

I think that would be great.

Um I am I don't I don't try to find the right word here.

I don't like being right on this point, but the geographic equity issue.

I thank you for validating something that I've been saying, I think since I moved to the east side of the city, um, first in East Rockville, now in Twinbrook, and people have told me and they've still told me, and I am continue to be disheartened that you know, even as recently as our amazing event at Twinbrook Pool, where we acknowledge the history on the east side of the city, people were still telling me, thank you.

If it weren't for you being there, people wouldn't know anything about the east side, and I don't want people to feel like that at all.

Like it's it's not it's not a good feeling.

Um, so I will be really interested.

Um, you know, what our plans are very specifically to address this.

I think it's there's a lot of, as with anything, a lot of intersectionality, right?

Like I noticed that um only 36% of staff report their department uses data to identify disparities.

Well, yeah, and then you're not gonna be reaching out to the east side of the city if you're not looking at the data.

Because I've been looking at the data since the Charter Review Commission, and it's pretty straightforward.

For instance, I know for a fact that more than 40% of uh the east side of the city speaks a non-English language at home.

So even that stat alone, when you apply it to the east side, it's an amplification, I think, um, of a lot of the issues that you caught in the staff feedback, in the the the rate of um uh the the table where you showed you know the staff from uh various uh groups, how they feel around microaggressions, just keep applying all of that.

You can see where we're at.

Um, and I will be really interested to see how we can um address this because I think it's a it's actually pretty um embarrassing, and I think we can do better than that.

Um I want to note, and that'll be my last comment for now.

I reserve my right, um, that if we're looking at an expansive um uh uh approach to disability access, I think that as with the entire plan, the consistency across the board in terms of disability access.

I think not only are we looking at um physical accessibility, but I think, excuse me, working more closely with the autism community, working most more closely with the mental health community.

Maybe we would be in a place where RCPD still had a mental health specialist if we actually looked at that with intentionality.

Um these are the things I think that we can do as part of that approach.

I think our wreck in parks does a really good job to a certain extent.

I think that the needs of the neurodivergent community go well beyond um you know sensory uh tense at hometown holidays.

It needs to be like an everyday thing.

I know a preacher of the choir, but I wanted to flag that um because I think those are two areas that we can do a whole whole lap better.

Um and I'm the last thing I'll say there really shouldn't, I don't think so.

There should not be any hindrance in conducting any Jedi training due to federal concerns because I think that we're all very proud that we have a Jedi plan here.

We have it on the um the agenda, and this administration too will pass.

So that's all I will say, and thank you both.

And thank you, Ms.

Buth for just spearheading all this.

I really appreciate thank you to my colleagues for all of your comments, and again, just say thank you for the deep work that you've done here.

Um, there's something that you said that really stuck out to me, and I know my colleague just mentioned it, but this idea that we can't require uh training for Jedi.

Um I have a problem with that.

So that's how we are responsive to our community, right?

Like we can't ignore people with disabilities.

We can't ignore inequities in socioeconomic status, racial inequities.

We can't ignore so we wouldn't be doing our job as a city if we're not thinking about how do we support from a cultural perspective, then turning into a service delivery perspective.

So I have a challenge with that, and I'd like to better explore that because I do think that that should be part of orientation as well as follow-up.

Um so I don't know if there's additional comment.

Is that is that a uh an interpretation of the law?

Is how would the city implement that?

And and I know I feel free to tap a friend from the city attorney's office.

We've been speaking.

And and it really is there's some language that's tied to funding.

We are absolutely committed to providing training.

We we are doing that.

The language is about requirements.

Um, and so that's what I would say about that.

We are absolutely if someone has to be trained on how to secure their email and cybersecurity, they should also be trained on how to support our community, and that's my perspective.

So it should be a requirement.

Yes.

Let us know if there's anything mayor and council needs to do to clarify that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um right.

Um by and large, the data and the information here is very good.

So I'm only gonna focus on things that I have questions about, if that's okay with you.

Um, but I will say I love some of the progress, kudos to RCPD, kudos to some of the programs coming out of Wrecking Park.

There's so many different points of um, you know, movement in the in the right direction.

I also appreciate some of the focus on, you know, I think you did a nice job of incorporating some of the ADA and elevating beyond the requirements of ADA.

Um, I think that you've acknowledged some of the racial equity issues and some of the geographic issues.

I would love to see a bit more about um it the interfaith piece.

That is something that we have seen some issues with, and um we've seen some some things coming forward that we've heard members of the community that we need some, we need to strengthen this area as well as our own practices on how we're respecting and observing and appreciating all faiths.

Um, same with socioeconomic disparities.

Um, I think the city has always done very well, has been doing very well on our responsiveness.

And um, there are some communities in Rockville, and I've said this before, who are really good at reaching out to the city, and their neighborhoods and blocks look as as such.

There are other communities who do not necessarily engage with the city in the same way through it because of a number of factors, and if we're only responsive then and not being proactive, then we're not seeing that balancing.

And I've seen it in wires dangling, I've seen it in um more potholes, I've seen it in you know, just the upkeep.

Um, and so I just wanted to flag that.

I've been trying to walk and take pictures and send them out, but I just that there's a the cultural perspective of who haven't I heard from, what part of the city haven't I engaged as a systemic question that we ask ourselves.

Um, so I just wanted to really point that out because I know we talked about moving from compliance to culture last time, and so that's a really key part of how do we continue to support um Jedi.

Um, I was also wanting to see like, and I know it comes through the department, so I saw kind of an in name, but um I will just say this I have worked for you know the old names of the Office of Minority Health for many many years.

I've um you know helped build plans in the past, and it's always kind of like a focus on outcomes and really targeting on specific populations or disparities, and so I know this is focused on sort of the infrastructure approach of how do we get there, but my heart was wanting to see what are the social impacts we're gonna be creating.

My mind wants to see how do we make progress and see outcomes and deliver, and so I just wanted to see more of a nod in that direction.

Um, and how will we dig into the plans of the departments and you know make sure that we're actually making change?

The city of Rockville does have a disparities page.

How is to just plan to be addressing like that needs to be updated?

Are we measuring those outcomes?

It's not just with reporting, but we need to be looking at those outcomes where people see and experience every day.

I was at a presentation two weeks ago in the a community presentation where I saw absenteeism happening in elementary schools.

I saw, and I'm not gonna name specific populations, but some populations only less than 30% of that population is proficient in math.

Now that is not we're not that's not a direct line, we don't do education, but there's social impacts that are contributing to those academic performance metrics, and we're seeing that we need more wraparound services.

And so I'm just kind of like wanting to dig into some of that meet to say how do we really make progress for our people.

Um and just wanted to hear your feedback on that.

You want my feedback on yes, like what how could we how how do you plan to get there?

Yeah.

So and I are appreciate the feedback and the questions.

Um we have plans that you can see in building out in year one the structure of how we're gonna be approaching the work, and that that the work that comes that um is a part of that building, is gonna inform what year two looks like, what year four three looks like, all of those things.

So the actions and the measures and all those uh sort of concrete details will become forthcoming.

Uh and I appreciate your saying that you would like to see them now.

Um, and so some of that will will have to come as we do the work.

Um I'm not sure.

Yeah, no, I think we're yeah.

I was just saying a couple of years ago, we did get some presentations on infrastructure, and like, okay, we're gonna be doing training, we're gonna be doing this.

And so that's why I'm like, okay, then we get into like making real progress for real people.

So um, and I also know that um we look at some of the parallel plans like um climate action or pedestrian safety.

There are we starting, we don't just articulate a year one work plan, but there are some aspirational goals for your two, three, yes, four, and five um that are articulated that we can go back and say, okay, here are our guideposts.

Yes.

So I was just wondering how does this compare to that approach on the plans and why is this different?

So we we have actually started building out the dashboard, um, the public dashboard listing out the strategies for all of the years.

So there are some in it begins on page 45, I want to say of the plan that talks about years two, three, four, and five.

And um, while they're not as substantive as year one, because we know that the work will need to build from year one.

Um, we we are already in uh uh Dave Gottesman and I have already had conversations about building it out.

So there's frameworks there, it just hasn't been published at this point.

We're waiting for feedback from you guys to say you can publish that.

But we're we are building out all of those metrics for all of the years.

Um, and we'll have a chance to see that yes, okay.

Absolutely, yeah.

Um, and then also to the point I made earlier about not and you made like not all of this sits in our camp, but we all need to work together.

Um, so just thinking about the um strengthening of specific metrics or actions that will support collaboration.

So, for example, um MCPS and the street outreach team at the county, and you know, there's a there's a variety of other partners who will be critical to the success.

Just like in the pedestrian action plan, we specifically tie in those collaborators because even if we do everything right on vision zero, if the state roles are not right, we're still having losses of life and seeing serious crashes.

Um so I just wanted to flag that as a potential area to flesh out like you know, how are we gonna strengthen relationships with those community partners and look at the mapping of who's doing what and where can we improve?

Um I'll pause there so my colleagues can give feedback, but again, just really appreciate this is deep work, but it's so important because this is where we can have a real community impact.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you guys have really done a great job.

Um and I'm really excited about it because you know, this has been a long time coming.

Uh this plan has been talked about for years.

Um, and for whatever reason, it just seems stuck.

Um, and you've guys have moved it forward, you've actually given us a lot of information, uh, both the strategic priorities, which I appreciate, and I also like how you said that they're not separate, seven separate projects.

They're all interconnected, and I think that um that realization going forward is gonna be key to actually implementing the the plan.

And it's uh a multi-year plan, which I think is a really smart too.

Um you're not pretending that it's gonna be solved overnight, that it's gonna be something that's implemented overnight.

It's a phased in uh approach to really bring about a cultural change uh in the city, which I think is uh is really uh needed.

And the other thing that you uh guys did, I just want to applaud you for that for this, is instead of like taking a broad survey of um city staff and drawing conclusions, um you actually dug down into the data and uh had specific groups that you uh found who were, as you said, being left behind.

And I think this is really a key because a lot of times you get the data and it's great news and you just skim the surface.

But I think you guys really did a good job in getting down to the nitty-gritty and pulling out the the findings that are really key to making the the the plan a success.

And finally, the other the other thing I would say uh to my colleague um uh to her point is yes, we need to just get it done.

I mean, this this talking is great and the the planning is great, but I think we need to to uh actually get it done and pass it and get on with it because it's been a long time coming.

We've been planning for a long time.

It's time to actually uh make uh the the progress that we want to make in Jedi.

Um and just finally I would say um that the priority of uh disabilities uh is something that's near and dear to my heart and know uh other people as well.

And so I thank you for that because I think that for too long um disabilities, we know about them, but we don't really talk about them, and we don't have a plan to address them.

Uh it's just something that is gonna be addressed, but more often than not, I think we forget about it.

So uh thanks for that.

Thanks for making it uh one of their priorities, and I look forward to uh going forward with it and actually implemented the plan.

Thank you, Councilmember Shaw.

I wanted to echo my colleagues and thank you.

This is a lot of amazing, excellent work, and I know that um we're just getting started with this in a lot of ways.

I know there's a lot of work that we can build on, but um we are revising this in a different way in a different approach, and so I'm um I'm very excited about this.

Um the first thing I wanted to chat about is the community engagement.

We talked about trusted messengers, and that term is often used um a lot within government.

Um I I am to a point, quite frankly, where I feel like it is very challenging for government to do real com real community engagement.

Um, and I I sometimes even question the the the extent in which government can actually get to the level that we need.

Um, and so with that, I know we talked about trusted messengers, but we also talked about how there is the same kind of circle of engaged people.

So, how are we going to find trusted messengers when we're going to the same circle of engaged people?

And um, I believe it was two years ago, we looked at community engagement from a spectrum, and at the end of that spectrum, there was community ownership.

Um, so I feel like part of the community engagement beyond trusted messengers, because I think the point of it is to get to community agency where and community ownership and actually building community power uh beyond um beyond those that are currently engaged to make sure that everybody has the ability to access their government and rep and have and feel represented.

Um so in terms of trusted messengers, there is that barrier of uh uh going beyond the engaged folks, which are probably the same folks when we ask for feedback, they're they're the first ones that gives us their feedback, usually the first ones that provide a budget proposal, um, like all the things, right?

Uh the first one that that responds to surveys, um, and then moving beyond that circle.

Sometimes we have to wait a little while uh to go through the barriers of engagement to hear other voices.

Um so could you talk a little bit about like getting beyond that circle to reach more people?

Yes, thank you very much.

And and um it is about relationship.

So it is it is a beyond the terminology of saying you're I'm trying to develop trusted relationships.

And this work began when you hired me, to be honest.

So I you know, I've been going out to meetings in the community, I've been going out to events, I've been stopping and talking to kids and teenagers and parents and talking about all kinds of things.

And so you plant those seeds, those relationship seeds in all kinds of ways in all spaces.

And so it's not like I'm going out to find a trusted messenger.

I'm going out to build relationships.

I'm going out to show authenticity and trustworthiness and represent the city in a way that makes people know that they can come and be engaged to be civically engaged citizens.

That's what we all want.

And so it is a process.

It is a slow process.

And so what I know is that it is a slow um planting of trust in all communities in all spaces through a number of different mechanisms.

It's not like we're gonna have a day where we're recruiting trusted messengers, right?

So we're gonna be doing it in small ways, in big ways, in um in direct ways and indirect ways.

It really is gonna be a long process.

Is that I hope that's helpful?

Yes, that is helpful, and I also encourage you uh, Director Booth, to it's not just you because you can't solve you can't just solve justice um alone.

So, and our networks are wider when we leverage all of them.

Um, and so everyone has their own network.

So um just thinking about that approach in that way.

Um, and then also um our impact statements um they are uh you know, we talked about outcomes, um, but I think they are one of the most powerful tools that we have in policy um to ensure that we are as an elected body making decisions that will either regress or advance equity or keep it neutral.

Um and if our goal is to advance equity, thus advancing justice, that we need to make sure that we have um a standard methodology across the board across departments that have uh an equity statement and that particularly answer the question not just who is burdened, but also who is benefiting from the current system, um, and also um identifying who is the most negatively impacted.

Um I've seen some equity statements uh that don't provide a lot of detail, and so I think it's very helpful for this body to have more information when making decisions.

Um and you know, there are times when we as decision makers may not uh our decisions may not align with the equity statement, but at least publicly, because we were you know looking for that accountability.

I think publicly um it's just kind of good to know where we stand and how we're making decisions to keep us accountable.

Um and I know we were talking about training, and I do think it's important not just for staff, but also this body to also have training.

Um, and I'm I'm not talking about this body in particular, but we as elected officials, as the mayor and council, we are an entity and previous mayor and councils did make decisions that uh created the disparities that we are currently addressing now.

Um, and um, you know, sometimes we we make decisions that may not advance equity, you know, either way.

I think it's really important as a body to have that information because part of our reporting system is reliant on us, and so we should also have that type of training to make sure that we have a defined equity lens.

Um it was good to see that uh we will get data or baseline data because when we're measuring outcomes, it's important to see exactly where we are and how we can get to equity.

So whichever group we have defined as doing the best out of a certain um focus area, uh, that the goal would be that everyone would have those outcomes.

So that's that's that's equity and the work of equity.

Um and uh if no one has the negative outcomes, and that that is justice, but making sure that we are uh defining these terms and also having baseline data to measure.

Um, and I I think you're going to do that with the dashboard, right?

Yes.

Um to make sure that everyone's okay.

Uh the other thing I was gonna uh share is um I did want to see um a little bit more data on on income.

Um I know we talk about race, um interface, um disability, but also income, because I think that's something that intersects.

Um also race intersects as well.

Um the data that I I have seen across the board, um, it did seem like race was one of the most profound um identities that has an impact on outcomes just across the board.

Um and so I do think it's still it very R 10-21 that deals with structural racism, I think is still very important and still very relevant.

Um the other thing I was gonna add, uh let's see.

Oh, uh so what is the process in terms of uh so we have our plan, right?

In in the next year or so, and we have our system set up.

What is the accountability?

How what is accountability look like?

Because I have seen um all types of equity plans for all types of governments come and go.

I see Dr.

Morgan is smiling.

I've seen all types of equity plans come and go, like trends.

Um so what is gonna keep us accountable as an organization?

Yeah.

So and part of it is the dashboard.

Um, and part of it is uh a uh planful way of approaching how we're updating that dashboard and who is is providing the information to update that dashboard.

And it's our dashboard, it's other people's other um initiatives, dashboards, making sure that they have just as you're talking about the the data points that impact that discuss impact.

Um and so we have I am I love a good tracker.

So we have trackers by month, um, by priority, by who's responsible for what, who's participating in what, and it's going to be available for um, it's gonna it's gonna inform what we upload onto the dash, the public dashboard.

We have the website, um, and then we have the dashboard.

So there's gonna be multiple places where people can look, and I'm gonna be available to come and present information whenever I'm asked, or to whomever required requests it.

I might add if it's okay, Mayor, Councilmember Shaw.

Um, part of it for me is a lot of this work is really gonna be the responsibilities of this team and also every single department director.

Yes, and I will hold them accountable in their work, including their performance reviews as part of this to make sure we're making good progress.

But most importantly, you heard us many times talk about the survey work that we did that really led to more what I would consider a gaps analysis of anything else at all.

We need to in future years, subsequent years, go back, talk to the same groups, talk to the same people, do the gaps analysis again to see if those gaps were closed based on implementing this work.

That's how we measure success in the future.

Thank you.

Councilman, are you done?

Councilman Bush.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Councilman Greg.

Thanks.

This is exceptional.

Um the structure that has been put in place about how we move forward with the Jedi is exactly what we need to uh do, whether it's directing how we you start with looking at staff, how we look at the community, and how we look about this five-year plan, it's exactly the structure.

And so while I do have some comments that I want to go over, I'm clearly going to be supporting adoption because you've really done what we need to do in the direction the planning for Jedi improvement.

So kudos across the board for the amazing work.

Um I do want to um um highlight a couple of things.

I know some of the some of the things that I mentioned last time, and I want to go over um just as council member Villary said, um, I think it's excellent that you've noted that geographic equity matters.

Um I hear it time and time again at the city.

I do want to note, like I did last time, you mentioned the dividing line of 355.

There's also a dividing line of 270.

And I think that's important because just as council member Shaw said, there's kind of trusted messengers.

And I know that I spoke to this weekend, kind of getting into a number of kind of some of the community leaders, because in the West of 270, there aren't a lot of very active community associations, but on some of the people who I know have been acting in the community, hey, did input like I didn't even know there was a Jedi.

Because in the West of 270, there aren't a lot of very active community associations, but on some of the people who I know have been acting in the community, hey, did input like I didn't even know there was a Jedi.

So I think there's a number of people, which highlights why some of the people west of 270 might not think that they're involved because there wasn't even a contact to some of the neighborhood groups of getting involved in Jedi.

So I I think that what you've got in the plan regarding geography matters is critical.

You are hit the nail on the head, just as Councilmember Valeri said, it's critical.

I just want to make sure we're not missing another dividing line where just as Councilmember Shaw said, we might have not reached some of the messengers who would be able to convey some of that inequities that they're feeling as being not part of the city or not engaging in parts of the city.

But your overall issue of geography matters 100% spot on, and I'm thrilled to see it in here.

And I know the mayor touched on it, and I think that's going back to some of the interfaith issues.

Because I think I know you did talk about the community, but I think it's also true with staff, because when we go back to the October 2023 issue that we've talked about with regard to the community, there was even at least one staff person that I know that was instructed to attend a city event on one of the Jewish High Holidays.

So this is not just about the community interfaith, it's also about respecting staff and their religious diversity when we make things.

And I know that in October 2023, when the mayor and council was addressing this issue, they specifically talked and made a resolution talking about the interfaith and diversity calendar.

And the mayor has actually been fabulous.

The mayor has actually regularly, I'd say almost a few every few months noted, hey, I note that there's actually an event that's been planned for this religious holiday.

Um, and a number of us have been pointed out that hey, so we might not be going in that direction that the mayor and council talked about going on three years ago, um, which brings me to the issue of your one-year plan is exactly what it needs to be because you've got to have an understanding before we get to some of the more implementation.

However, there's some implementation that is probably a good idea to include in that first year, some things that we know have been a problem, such as the interface calendar, such as the Jewish community has been waiting since October 2023 to have some meeting.

I don't want to say, hey, we're gonna push it off three years because we want to see what the content is, and similar with kind of making sure that there is a robust interfaith calendar, not just for the community, but for staff as well.

Um, and so I think to the extent that there is some implementation of that first year for known issues that we can try to solve, I think it'll be better.

But overall, I think it's fabulous.

Um fully support uh amendment.

Heck, I I'd even move to amend now.

I don't know if anybody or not move to um adopt now if need be, but um uh fabulous, fabulous work and fabulous organization.

I'm just gonna start down the line again to see if anyone has comments.

I saw some hands.

Okay, Councilman Valeri.

Yes, um, just two quick things.

Um yes, two quick things.

So I noted in the um in the presentation, there was a reference to plain language.

I've been um really urging us um our agenda, staff presentations during mayor and council meetings.

If we can start with level setting on what is actually being discussed, what um you know what does you know, uh suggested motion.

I think that there it was it was very tricky for for me as a um uh more academically privileged person to delve into this when I was a community association president.

If you don't have the benefit of that sort of academic privilege, um, which I would also state that in addition to to income is another thing to really look at.

Um I think that it's really important that we put everything across the board.

I think, you know, uh I know it's tough to write for websites.

I know it's tough to kind of take our agenda and all the outward facing, but you know, they all still score extremely high when you put them through accessibility filters.

So I hope that we can do that super quick to Councilmember Van Grack's point and thank you.

I always love a compliment from Councilmember Van Greg, but I would do want to make sure that we are also reaching out to HOAs because that is a vast majority of the other side of 270, um much deeper than it is, you know, on the east side of the city.

I think that as long as we have an intentionality about trying to work with HOA leadership to get the materials out.

And then finally, and this kind of just came popped in my mind.

Maybe what we call it is the Jedi Action Plan.

We have a climate action plan.

We had, you know, the Vision Zero action plan, like if it to many people's points, we want to just get this moving and going and do the work.

I feel like action plans tend to, I don't know, maybe it's psychology, but it tends to get us like rolling.

So that's what I'd I'd like to see for sure.

And thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and uh some of your feedback as well.

Um I had a few small things.

Um you talked about reporting.

I thought in this document that it was purporting to have an annual update to us.

Is that still planned?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to go to the preamble of like why we're doing this.

I I really appreciate some of the work that you've done with staff and staff's feedback, but there are and and some of the geographic equity.

There are some other things like that are pulled out in that disparities page on Rockville that also speak to our why, the income inequalities, the racial inequalities, you know, we've talked about in interfaith issues, but I also want to raise this.

We've just experienced this this June, the rise in hate and bias, and what some members of our community, and I want to acknowledge the Human Rights Commission and the work that they did on Pry, but we saw some hate and bias, disgusting commentary that has no place in the city.

But there's a there's a reason why we're doing this.

And so I guess when I say I want to give power to people and power to progress and really measure our outcomes, I also want to acknowledge that the time that we're in.

And so I, you know, whether this is approved tonight or not, I just want to see can that be just strengthened a little bit in whatever's posted online.

Um, if if that's okay.

And and I'm not gonna speak to those comments because they don't deserve that airspace, but um, you know, it cannot be ignored what we're seeing in immigration right now and people are feeling and the impacts it's having on people's.

I just I want to make sure we're capturing the moment of why we're standing up and doing this as a city.

Um the other piece I wanted to flag, I know we talked about departments.

I want to also speak to you um economic development equality, uh so equity and opportunity.

I know that we're doing some of that to the financial literacy, but socioeconomic status also has a key part in disparities and some divides as well.

So I just I wanted to flag that we think about the work that Reddy is doing and you know, consider that a part of the department as well.

Um, I really also appreciate what the city manager said of how we're gonna be doing this as part of performance evaluations.

I will say that each of our appointed have language specific to Jedi in our actual review, and I don't know if that has permeated down to staff yet, but that's a great way to make sure that people think about it every year.

And uh, you know, that's up to the city manager and to the city clerk and to the city attorney, but I would highly encourage it.

Um, because I think that used to people see and make progress on what's measured and what they're reminded of.

Um just the comment of like we've seen a couple of these presentations, and it's like moving beyond what is Jedi in terms of training to like how do we do equitable decision making?

Um, and again asking the question of who's not here and how do we help those who are not?

Um, there were also some other municipal plans that spoke to sort of supporting uh employee resource groups.

Uh, I don't know if that's something that's planned, but I did, you know, the the gender issues that the microaggressions really stuck out in the um staff survey, and there are things that we can do to address that.

But I just I wanted to say sometimes there's safe spaces and we were doing that last term where they were having um speakers come in and spaces for staff, and I know we went through a staff change and then we're working on this plan, but there are some things that have worked in the past and then disappeared, and so um just creating systems so that it's not like things happen after this conversation, and then two years from now it it fades.

Uh, we want to avoid that.

I was also wondering about like how do we think about the populations that we're serving and including them in the decision making process.

Even something as simple as as we're looking at our streets and sidewalks, how does it actually feel to someone in a wheelchair?

How does it feel to someone who is has low vision?

How we actually collecting that feedback when we're thinking about improving the audio in a space like this room.

Are we engaging with the populations we're choosing to serve?

Um I think that has to be part of how we operate as a city as well.

Sometimes what we think is a progress in a direction doesn't quite hit the mark with the population we're trying to serve, and we've heard that feedback in the past.

And so, how do we build that into our process and to our plan measurement?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, so what you're describing in my mind and in this plan is participatory decision making, right?

So it's be it moves beyond are we having the right staff members in the room, but are we asking the right people before we make the decisions, before we make the policy decisions that they're they're participating in?

So yes, that is absolutely a part of how we are planning to um build the toolkits for the decision makers in the city, right?

So they will now have potentially a checklist that says, Did you ask who did you ask?

And um how did you incorporate what you heard into the decision making?

So that's part of the toolkits that we're hoping to build for all of all the different levels within the city.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and I looked at um the you know, went to some of our approved plans uh that are being well measured.

Um they do have listed either up front or in the appendix matter, the actual resolutions that have guided the development.

I didn't see a new resolution here that's all encompassing, but um what would what would be your suggestion for that?

Should we include all the old ones?

Do you want to do a summarizing resolution?

Just wanted to see see how we can get to acknowledging the resolutions from the mayor and council, and you know, that is a plan format that seems to work well.

Um that's a great point, Mayor.

We can add um what to say, a ratifying resolution on the body on the front of the plan.

I think that's critically important with all the acknowledgments, and I think as an appendix to your point, all the other actions that the mayor and council took in past years should be as part of that too, because this has been, as many of you mentioned, an ongoing conversation.

There were numerous actions by this body and previous bodies to set us up for today.

So we're happy to add those elements before we publish the plan.

Okay, thank you.

And then maybe I know some of my colleagues had some really good comments that you might want to make some fine-tuning.

Um do you have any questions for us?

That's my question, and I'll go down and see if any of my colleagues have anything to add.

Not at this time, thank you.

I have lots of notes.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone have any other comments?

Councilmember Shaw.

I know this work has been a long time coming, and there have been some previous bodies also doing this work.

Um, but I do think it is important for us to review just to make sure that uh to review what would be included from previous bodies just to make sure we're all in alignment with some of the things that were suggested.

Um, I know that um community members have had some um feedback on some of the things that uh have been suggested and some concerns.

So I just think it's important just to have a robust process with what we include.

Um, and then also when when we're talking about participatory government, it's also important for us to be careful of the other end uh where there have been uh certain historically underrepresented groups sharing what they envision as a policy over and over and over again, and the city asking for continual community engagement, and then they essentially do not get that policy, which causes a lot of distrust.

Um, and so and I know that uh, you know, not all bodies are are perfect, and I know there's been previous bodies that have done have done that.

Um so just kind of uh keeping in mind just the history of our community engagement and some of the barriers that it has created.

Thank you, Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

Um so like it it sounds like we've gotten some good feedback from colleagues on as we move forward with implementation, some comments on maybe a ratifying resolution and some appendix.

Um, but coming back to what I said at the beginning, I'm ready to go.

So I move to adopt the Jedi strategic plan thing basically.

Thank you.

And it's incorporating, I know the city manager said he's gonna.

Yes, perfect.

Thank you.

One to confirm.

Councilmember Bangrak.

I'll second with those amendments.

Thank you.

Okay, all those in favor, please raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All right.

So you've got direction from us.

Thank you for making the tweaks that we've discussed.

Um we are looking forward to hearing this July 2027.

And then seeing see you soon.

And also would love to see the dashboards when you and you mentioned you'd send that to us as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

I know it feels like you're moving from the hot seat, but thank you.

We appreciate it.

I saw the sigh of relief.

And thank you to all the community members who have participated and who will continue to hold us accountable.

Thank you.

Okay.

We're now moving on to the work session portion of our agenda.

I will note it is 8 30 p.m.

We are just 15 minutes shy of hitting our target, uh, but we're moving to the chapter four arts and cultural affairs ordinance revisions.

I welcome, we welcome Anne O'Donnell Cultural Arts and History Program Manager, City Manager's Office, and thank you for presenting to us this evening.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council members.

I'm Anne Odell, Arts and Culture Program Manager.

With you this evening for our second work session on Chapter 4, Arts and Cultural Affairs Ordinance Revisions.

During the presentation, I will share the feedback we're requesting this evening, provide background on the ordinance, share the Cultural Arts Commission's comments on the revisions that have been proposed, proposed next steps.

I will then take your feedback and answer any questions you may have.

Feedback being requested this evening is does the mayor and council support merging incorporating works of art and public architecture and art in public places articles into one public art program article.

The recommendations for the publicly accessible art and private development article and enhanced community engagement and public art program delivery.

As background on chapter four, it was adopted in 1975, along with Article 2 that established the Cultural Arts Commission.

Article 3, Incorporation of Works of Art and Public Architecture, AIPA was adopted in 1978 and requires that 1% of qualifying capital improvement projects is appropriate for public art, and that 1% comes from the general fund.

Article 4, publicly accessible art and private development, AIPD was adopted in 2001 and requires developers with qualifying development projects to make a contribution to publicly accessible art.

Article 5, Art in Public Places, AIPP was adopted in 2003 and requires that one-tenth of one percent of the previous fiscal year's general fund budget be appropriated for public art.

These administrative revisions are being proposed to continue the implementation of the 2019 Arts and Culture Study recommendations.

The prioritized recommendation was to create the position I am now working in, Arts and Culture Program Manager.

And central to my work plan is to assess Chapter 4 as a foundation for future program development so that Rockville can fulfill its potential as an arts destination.

We also need to make sure that our roles and processes reflect best practices.

The practical implementation of the ordinance has evolved over the years, and we need to update our code to reflect that.

We also need to formalize and professionalize the city's role in arts and culture development because this is the first time in the city's history that a professional arts administrator has been hired to manage the public art programs.

We just need to come up to speed with best practices in that field.

Proposed revisions begin with the addition of a preamble that would clarify the focus of work in the arts and culture program because historically recreation and parks produced all the arts and culture programs in the city.

And the recreation and parks department has its own advisory board.

So we just need to provide some clarification around the scope of work in the arts and culture program.

Article 2, Cultural Arts Commission suggesting moving process relay language to guidelines because those are updated efficiently, more efficiently than ordinances, and shifting budget and project management responsibilities to city staff because there's now staff capacity to do this work.

Proposed revisions continue with merging AIPA and AIPP into one public art program because they have similar purposes and administrative processes.

We need to clarify roles in program administration to improve program delivery and follow best practices.

Again, removing process related language to guidelines for reasons previously discussed.

Revise the definition of acceptable art and eligible sites because the current definitions are limiting.

The field of public art has evolved beyond the definition that is in the ordinance.

And eligible sites limit public art installation to city owned property.

And eligible sites limit public art installation to city owned property, would suggest changing that eligible sites to sites in the public realm.

Also recommending that the public art plan be created by staff in consultation with the Cultural Arts Commission's public art committee.

The effects of these revisions will be discussed on this slide.

So currently, art in public architecture has used the AIPP process.

It should be noted that in the AIPA article, there is language specifying how AIPA projects are approved, which is the city manager provides the CAC with project information.

CAC has 30 days to return comments.

After those 30 days, city manager forwards project information and any received comments to the mayor and council.

AIPP process has been led by the Cultural Arts Commission with staff assistance.

The commission creates the AIPP implementation plan and budgets and project plans and selects sites with staff assistance.

Commission leads the artist selection process and then the artist designs the artwork.

The mayor and council approve the final design, and the artwork is created and installed.

The proposed public art process is one that's led by staff in consultation with the Cultural Arts Commission.

What I'm seeking to find in the proposed process is the balance between community engagement and involvement, commission, community engagement, involvement, staff management of the process, and then the mayor and council's role.

So we're seeking to have staff create the public art plan in consultation with the CAC's public art committee.

Mayor and council would approve contracts over $250,000 in alignment with procurement standards.

Staff would create and manage project plans and processes.

CAC's public art committee would approve the final artwork design.

And I want to pause here and share that with the Lincoln Park and David Skull Park public art projects.

We have had art selection committees that had at least two members of that neighborhood.

Community members joined the art selection committee.

We also had at least two CAC members, one of whom was on the public art committee.

And for David Skull Park, we also had a recreation and park staff person to make sure that the final design would work with the project.

So it's recommended that the public art committee would approve the art selection committee's recommendation because those two committees have the most firsthand information about the process that brought us to that final design.

The artwork would then be created and installed, and the mayor and council will be kept informed of projects by staff.

The community benefits would be that we would combine funding.

AIPP has historically supplemented the AIPA budget.

We just need to formally recognize that.

And we would be able to integrate public art into broader city plans and projects such as transportation, community planning and development, housing and tourism.

We would be able to respond to how the community involves by having them directly engaged with the process at all times.

We'd also be able to partner with county and state agencies and private entities on projects that affect the public realm, such as CSX overpass and the bridge between Metro and the Square.

Proposed revisions for Article 4, public art and private development would be to redefine acceptable art forms for reasons previously discussed.

Clearly define publicly accessible because not all artwork that's installed on site is publicly accessible.

We need to define roles in program administration for reasons previously discussed.

Eliminate the option to remove artwork because the artwork should be permanent in nature.

Currently, after it's installed, the artwork can be removed zero to five years with a sliding scale financial penalty.

After five years, it can be removed at no penalty to the developer.

Recommending to change the formula to determine required contributions because the current formula that Rockville has is not in alignment with the public art field.

Rockville is the only locality across the country of 92 localities that have an ordinance requiring developer contributions to public art that has the formula that we determine the required contribution with.

Our formula is tiered and it's based on residential, commercial, and industrial development projects.

I'll share on the next slide the change that I'm suggesting in its place.

Also suggesting to modify the options for how contributions can be applied because not all options are equitable or in alignment with the public art field.

So on the left side of the table, you see the current options that developers can choose to make their contribution.

They can install art on site, make a monetary contribution to the city's Friends of the Arts Fund, provide an art space such as a gallery, provide arts-based infrastructure such as lighting equipment, make a monetary contribution to a qualifying arts nonprofit, or combine any of the above options.

So in the 25-year history of this program, 58% of developers chose to install art on site.

38% chose to contribute money, and of that 38%, 72% contributed funds to the city, 28% contributed it to nonprofits, and those nonprofits that received the contributions were in closest proximity to city staff, which is not an equitable process.

And one art space was implemented, that was a gallery.

No arts infrastructure was implemented, and 0.03% of the time a combination was chosen.

That combination resulted when artwork was installed on site and there were a couple hundred dollars left over.

They contributed that couple of hundred dollars to the city most of the time and one time to a nonprofit.

So on the right hand side are the suggested revisions that reflect the reality of the 25-year history of the program, in that developers would install art on site or choose to make a monetary contribution to the city's public art program in the amount of 1% of the cost of the development not to exceed $300,000.

So this is an alignment.

All the other 91 localities across the country have these two options.

So we would be meeting best practices in the public art field, as well as just actually implementing the data that we have.

Currently, in the AIPD article, the AIPD requirement must be filled before the issuance of the first occupancy permit.

So I've even had developers come to me with this issue because if they're building a multifamily housing development with 52 building permits that require 52 occupancy permits, and they have to install the art on site before the first occupancy permit is issued.

They have to remove the artwork or potentially risk damaging it as they build other buildings around it.

So we need to address this and meet the developers where they need us to meet them.

So it would suggest having the AIPD contribution selection included in the plans provided to the planning commission and the mayor and council because historically developers have not indicated before that moment how they will apply the required contribution.

So we want to make that crystal clear that it needs to happen at that point.

And then if they choose to install art on site, we will have a building permit for installing art on site.

So that's how we will track their fulfillment of that requirement.

If they're making a monetary contribution, they would need to make that contribution upon approval of the project by the mayor and council.

Community benefits would be that we have permanent public art that is publicly accessible, will eliminate confusion for stakeholders, have a more equitable program, align with best practices in the public art profession, and improve that administrative process for developers who want to install art on site.

At the first work session, mayor and council requested the Cultural Arts Commission comments on the suggested revisions, and the Cultural Arts Commission assembled an ordinance committee.

They gave a great deal of thought to the revisions, and in February of this year, they adopted their comments and passed them along.

They do agree that we should have a preamble.

There's some conversations that we can have about what would be in that preamble, but by and large, they're in agreement that we need it.

They don't see the budget or process-related language in Article 2, and I would say just to give more background on that, Article 2 is written so broadly that the Commission has assumed staff work in the past.

So this is an opportunity just to provide clarification for everyone who's involved in the public art process as to how we'll each participate in it.

Article three, they mostly agreed, they gave some really good feedback, and they do continue the funding of AIPP and AIPA.

Article 4, again, good comments about administrative processes, definitions, and locations of artwork.

Additional comments, they did request a comparison of jurisdictions in the region for AIPD.

Going back to the analysis I provided the first work session, the reason I went for a national scan is because Rockville is the only locality in the state of Maryland, and we're the only locality in the DC region that has an ordinance requiring developer contributions for publicly accessible art or public art.

Arlington County does have a public art policy.

It does not require developer contributions.

That county program selects sites they would like to install public art on, they then have a negotiation with the developer about that site having public art on it.

City of Alexandria also has a policy that requires a minimum 75,000 contribution for publicly accessible art.

I only analyze ordinances just so we would have a consistent data set.

So proposed next steps, next steps would be that I would take your guidance tonight and I would prepare a draft of the ordinance along with any colleagues that would need to participate in that process, would then share that draft with the Cultural Arts Commission for further comments, and then we would present the ordinance to you, Mayor and Council.

So at this time, I will take your feedback.

Thank you very much for uh getting some feedback from the commissioners early on.

I know that they're anxious to see a revision as well.

Uh so I I do support that before it comes back to us and incorporating our feedback this evening.

I'm going to start on this side of the table to provide feedback, and then we'll go down the line.

Thank you.

Um, so this is great.

Um, I think there's a lot of plus here.

One just overarching question.

I know I've brought it up before has there been any discussion about um going forward with either a part of Rockville as an arts and entertainment district and how that could integrate with what we're looking to do here with regard to the um chapter four amendments.

Sure.

So the arts and entertainment district has come up, and we even had the state director of that program present at a cultural arts commission meeting in 2025.

Um he gave a very good presentation.

And essentially, we would look at the arts and entertainment district designation as like the icing on the cake.

There's so much analysis that would go into whether or not we would pursue that designation that I think first we need to take a look at how we can better implement public art into Rockville from an economic and community development standpoint, and then go back and revisit that conversation.

I just from what I've seen at this time, I don't think Rockville will be a strong candidate for that designation.

I think it is absolutely something that we should continue to revisit in the future.

So I don't know that I would include it in the ordinance, but I would definitely include it in any planning processes that we would use.

So then I I guess I understand that we wouldn't necessarily go ahead and do it now because of the uh the the hurdles that I know we'd have to meet.

The question is, is there anything within our drafting of chapter four here that we can do as part of that planning step, presuming that we'd want to do that because of the economic benefits and the overall benefits as the laudable goal in a step process.

I think the the quick answer to it is we're not aware that there's anything that we should add to the ordinance to TSOP for that designation, but we'll take that back and take a look at it.

And if there is, we'll make sure to present to the CAC and back to council.

But right now the answer is we don't think so.

Excellent.

Um, and so the only other question I had um before I kind of get to any feedback is going back to kind of one of the last things you said, is dealing with the CAC feedback with regard to Article 2.

Where, and I know you just said that it was they talked a little bit about who was doing what and where, where is because it seems to me that as you've laid it out, there is a budgetary process, and there does seem to be rules.

Where do they really see that there's something lacking within the process that you've proposed in Article 2?

And Article 2, Section 4-20, numbers four and eight are written very broadly.

So there's in practice, the commission has assumed the work of staff in those respective areas.

It's not prescribed in the ordinance.

So just have the opportunity now to clarify who would have the role regarding budget preparation, regarding plan preparation, site selection, all of those details could be included.

Oh, so you're supporting that clarification.

I would like a clarification.

Oh, great.

Okay, all right.

Then we're fully on the same page.

I thought it was like they're asking for it, and you don't see it.

No, but they're asking for more clarification, and you're supporting that more detailed clarification.

We're we're fully on the same page, and I and I'm uh have positive support for all of your questions.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shaw.

Um, I want to echo my colleagues.

Thank you.

Um, and this is excellent work.

I strongly support all three measures on this slide.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Excellent work.

Um I have uh a couple of uh questions, but I really want to delve into the uh mayor and council's role.

Can you just spend a little bit more about what you're proposing and what it means?

Sure.

So historically, the mayor and council have approved the final design for all public art projects.

I would recommend because this is technically a procurement process, it is a nuanced procurement process, but that we would hold to the standards of procurement with mayor and council approving contracts, 250, 250,000 or greater.

That's because what I want to see, and what's been proven as a best practice of public art is that we have that consistent community engagement thread from the very beginning of the project all the way to the end of the project.

And when we begin the project to very clearly lay out what our values are, what the expectations of that public art installation are, what may and may not be included in that particular public artwork, we'll be very clear in that.

So we make sure that we meet your expectations as a mayor and council, and then we'll move forward understanding we're on the same page with you already from the beginning, and then we'll keep you informed as we move along through that process.

All right.

And I had another question, and this one uh was it goes to the proposed uh revisions.

Um artwork should be permanent permanent.

And I just wonder what that means in practicality.

I understand uh it it living for four years uh with financial penalties and then uh the fifth year that there's none and you want to change it.

But broader concept-wise, what does it mean to have art be permanent?

We want at least a 30-year lifespan, preferably 50 years.

There are some artworks that will live on beyond that, depending on how much care and maintenance they're given on a regular basis.

So I want minimum 30 years for the artwork, and especially when you consider all the resources that's put into that public artwork, it really is best to do due diligence on the maintenance so it will last that long.

So even when let's say somebody has an appointment building or um an office building and they have public artwork there, and it changes hands, then you're saying that the new owner cannot uh change the artwork until a certain time period is up.

So, this is an excellent question.

I've encountered it already in the AIPD program.

Um I said to the developer, understanding that it's now changed hands.

You can, it's your project.

You're and they're actually doing improvements, they want to put a new public art piece.

But that aside, I said it's up to you if you remove it, right?

Like you're the new owner, the artwork has been there for I think 20 years already.

Please be sure to make sure that you can find the original contract between the developer and the artist to make sure that you understand what the responsibilities are for the owner of that property to the artist.

So that document is the guiding document for how the artwork can be removed at any point in time.

And if someone new takes over the development, I completely understand there would need to be flexibility given if they're doing uh renovation, if they're changing the use of the property, that could very well change whether or not there should even be public artwork.

So I think that's a dynamic conversation that I'd be open to having with them.

So, but that then changes the definition of permanent.

I mean, you're saying yes, it's permanent with various stipulations.

Yes, it could be.

Yes.

All right.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for the detailed and that the brief book and the presentation were very well done and clear.

So I appreciate the framework that you've provided for us.

Um, I'll just say separate from this, I do support the arts and cultural district support.

I know that the uh cultural arts commission has shared that with us, and I know it was in the art study.

Um also I know that the arts arts and culture study spoke about development of a plan, which I also support.

So I just wanted to make those two comments as liaison for the Cultural Arts Commission.

Um I I appreciate the comments uh and the specific feedback that you've provided.

Um I do tend to agree with some of the comments of the Cultural Arts Commission, just have her having her their rationale.

But um, in terms of the preamble, I fully support what staff is trying to do here.

I do think that merging the um the sections might be useful since there's so much overlap.

However, um, I think we'd like to see what that looks like to make sure we're not losing anything.

Um, and I do want to make sure that the CAC continues to have a role in that work as well.

Um I will say something about permanent art and also the mayor and council's previous feedback.

I cultural norms change over time, and sometimes things that were if you ever watch a movie from the 90s, you might be a guest.

I've had it happen.

I'm like, whoa, I can't believe what they just said.

So I just I want to make sure that we're thinking about that aspect of well of making things more culturally appropriate and respectful.

Um, so I just I wanted to offer some wiggle room there as we're thinking about how cultures change and norms change that we're striving to be more and more respectful of our community and inclusive, especially given the conversation we just had.

Um in terms of article two, um I was curious about the CAC's comments on they do not see a need for this change and request the opportunity review proposed track changes.

Um I was curious about the CAC's comments on they do not see a need for this change and request the opportunity review proposed track changes.

Can you I know there was a subcommittee focus on this?

Can you share a little bit more detail about that feedback?

Um this is for article two relating to move the process related language to program guidelines.

And I think some of the some of the feedback they had is like it's great to have some things written out, and I know we've seen this as a body where like staff changes, and someone is not looking at that process document.

I have seen that happen where I won't name which particular issues, but things that I know were supposed to happen have changed because it's just turnover, it happens in any organization.

So I have I I do value some of it being articulated the values of what we have and making it clear.

So this is how we do things.

So I just want to get more feedback on that.

Um let's see.

Which of their comments specifically?

Yes, this is Article 2, Cultural Arts Commission.

It's unclear how what process related language is referenced in the proposal.

Yeah.

So that would be the section 4-20 numbers four and eight.

That's what I was referring to before.

The practice has been that the Cultural Arts Commission has assumed certain administrative and budget tasks.

Um, when we now have staff capacity to do that, it's just not written, it's not clear.

So that's why I would provide clarity around that.

Yeah, so obviously staff creates the budget with the city manager, right?

You guys send the recommendations, um, but we do have commissions who are engaged with plan development.

So I guess it's TBD because we don't have the language yet, but you're gonna come to us with something to look at.

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Okay, um, that is very helpful.

Um, the article three public art program.

Um I appreciate that you're gonna be uh specifically making some changes there and looking at key considerations.

Um I do I do value and have appreciated the opportunity to review and approve.

We have made some important changes uh as I go through some of the projects where some things might have gone up that might have been concerning if they're they're very very much invisible places in the city.

So I just wanted to, and this is prior to you being here, it's not you, but I just want to say there have been instances where we have made substantive changes to a project that might not have been appropriate, and that that's what gives me pause in particular.

Um, and I I like the commission's comments on not just the a number threshold.

So I just wanted to share that feedback again.

This happened before your time, but staff changes, and so I just I I do value the opportunity, and then the public also gets to see what we're putting up, what it means, etc.

So I there's something nice about presenting it in public as well for all to see.

Um, so I wanted to share that feedback.

Um, and I I this particular section, I think the CAC had some really good specific feedback, which I also align with.

I won't repeat everything that they have here, but they they were very specific in that.

Um and then the um, I'm just sorry, my scrolling is a little slow.

The page nine of this section was something that um I know that the CAC was very um interested in making sure that they have a chance to see the revised draft.

They had some concerns um that I think that we should pay attention to.

Um so I just wanted to flag that.

I know the naming pieces I'm I have questions about some of those comments, particularly as you know, um, I I know that it's a process for naming things, but the other comments I do support and appreciate.

And those are my core comments, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.

I know this is a work session, and we'll get a chance to see the actual draft.

Thank you.

Councilmember Valeri.

Yes, hello.

You know, it's it was very funny, maybe not funny haha, but interesting.

Um, when I was looking at the presentation, that um some of our most prominent and um I might be biased, uh, visually interesting, uh, engaging art pieces are both done by the same artist.

Um, Charlotte Lees.

So in 2012 and 2009, uh yeah, I was interested by that.

Um sorry, I had to like as a sidebar.

Can you tell me expand a little bit on number three on the enhanced community engagement?

Kind of tell me what your what you're thinking.

Yes.

What direction you're thinking about going in.

Yes.

So enhancing community engagement.

Every day I work across departments with my colleagues so that we're implementing your standards of community engagement.

I have access to all the tools to do that.

So that's step one.

And then continuing the thread.

That's actually where I connect with people.

I ask them, would you like to volunteer to be on an art selection committee?

And that's how I find community members to be on the art selection committee carrying through their voices from the selection through to the installation.

Because after we select the artists and go to contract with them, they come back to Rockville and work again with the community.

So continuing to build on those touch points along the way is not something that's historically been done, but it is now part of our process.

And I would just like to recognize that as part of the process.

Gotcha.

So kind of formalizing the formalizing the process and making it.

So I'm hopeful that you could work with the Jedi team to really make that more fulsome.

I'm like gonna segment everything out here.

Only about art in public places.

Okay.

To ensure that the if we're looking at art in public places, that we either avoid art in the public right away, or we look at location based on vision zero best practices.

I think a great example of this is the globe at 355 in Middle Lane, that is actually in such a location as to make it difficult for folks.

So I just want to flag because again, it's I know we have CTR coming up to art and and transportation do not often overlap, but you know, we want people to still be able to safely traverse.

Um so that would be my I think one of my my biggest things that you don't really think about in terms of public art.

Um I I definitely I see as far as the current public arts art processes and the proposed public art process.

I absolutely see where you are uh kind of coming from, and I would probably not question the approach if I hadn't been witnessed to public art, the art in public places being made better by feedback from the dais.

And the two examples that I can give are the mural on City Hall, or not on City Hall, but you know, um that very well could have had a wine glass on it.

Martini, I apologize.

I knew it was some sort of booze related beverage.

Um, but you know, I I think that from an artistic perspective, I wouldn't have had a problem with that, but there is also a connotation of you know, putting um alcoholic beverages on a city hall, and just we're not in Napa Valley, right?

Like there are other things that we can like look at.

So that got better.

I think the other one, actually, frankly, um, it was this elected body, and that was the original the OG uh Twinbrook recenter mural.

And this definitely it predated you, but the first iteration that was brought to us didn't was not reflective of um the idea, was not at all really reflective of the community, and I think it was made better in part um by the feedback from the dais.

And my concern is that it wouldn't have gotten to a better place if we hadn't been part of that process.

So the artist selection committee had no problem with the idea, and in part that was a different, that was kind of an issue with the artist selection committee because it was not reflective of the diversity of the neighborhood.

So that was a problem.

But you have a much more diverse mayor and council.

We all kind of said, hey, these are things that we should look at, and that art got better because of our input into it.

So in a perfect world, yes, every every you know, public art piece is going to be brilliant and perfect out of the box, but you always have to have that fail safe, that that backstop.

And ultimately the backstop is us because we have the fiduciary responsibility to be good stewards of tax dollars.

So while I appreciate, right, that that you know it um everybody has a role in in art in public places, ultimately we have that responsibility so that if a resident comes to us and says, hey, why are there martini glasses all over City Hall?

I just this is what the process did.

You see, so like there, I think that that I'm very challenged by taking us out of the um final design approval process.

I think there can be guardrails, there can be um criteria.

There's a way to to form it so that people are not making, I just don't like that kind of art.

I only like Thomas Kincaid, whatever.

Like, we're not talking about those sort of situations.

We're we're looking at just having um the lens of uh being the final decision makers and having that fiduciary responsibility.

Um so I really want to I really want to emphasize that and I feel very strongly about that.

Um you mentioned in uh uh in the public art and private development section in the proposed revisions.

Um did you mention that the provision of an art space, it only happened once and it was a gallery.

Is that gallery still around?

I will have to check.

Okay.

I just off the top of my head, I was like, I can't even really remember.

I I I say this because I I'm challenged because again, while the proposed options are awesome, I also think if there is a developer out there that's like, hey, we would love to have how about we give X number of spaces for local artists to be able to come in.

Artists don't, I mean, BizArts is amazing, right?

But we need more spaces that people can actually do that hands on work.

I wouldn't want to preclude that.

And again, I know that we have to again create these these options, but I think that it's very it's very difficult to find art spaces, especially when you start getting into like the larger um uh art forms, not painting miniatures.

So I I really just want to put a plug in for perhaps there's a better way to encapsulate that, but um if it if a developer really wants to provide an art space for the amount of time that their their art would be in place, so the 30-year trend, I would not say no to that, especially not for the local arts community.

Um I think I think that's it.

I think my colleagues definitely said um the artwork should be permanent.

I know that and I I definitely hear you on the you don't want like artwork that's made of jello that is not going to last very long, but I think that um I think the the flip side of that is sometimes confederate statues.

There are art pieces that should no longer be out, and so you know, having that kind of framework and process for that.

And with that, Madam Mayor, I think I'm back.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

Thank you.

And thanks for this.

Um broadly speaking, on the requested feedback, I am supportive, I think of all three.

Um, but I guess more generally, you you had made a couple references through your presentation um about best practices.

It would really help I am not an expert in this space.

So it would really help me as we move forward and actually like make some more fun decisions if we had like some, if you could provide some of that in the in the background, what what other jurisdictions do, how like how it works, uh, just so I could put us in the context of everyone else.

That would that would help me make decisions moving forward.

Um the other broad point I'll make is you know, a lot of this is about clarifying roles and role clarity.

I'm 100% not gonna say that clarity is kindness, but um we should be like a lot of the issues that we've had in the past with the the public art and everyone's acknowledged it, it was before your time.

Like we have an expert on staff now that can help solve some of these problems and has some accountability and should therefore have some authority.

So, like being clear on the role of of staff and the committees and mayor and council is a great idea.

Um but I think you know, uh what exactly those different roles should be.

I'd love to look at best practices, but um, I do think that you should be empowered at your job.

So we should do that somehow in the role clarity piece.

Um I think that's all I have for now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Dr.

Mouse.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I thank my colleagues for bringing up some very important concerns with regard to oversight.

I think um I do ascribe a bit to both what and had written down previously things that our colleagues that said, particularly council members Jackson and Valerie Jackson on the just getting clarity on and think buttressed by Madam Mayor about making sure that the mayor and council had some role.

Look, we're guilty.

Like I think we like the analysis by process paralysis by analysis is real.

We spend sometimes way too long picking through stuff where we have competent individuals like yourself, great commissions and boards that do the grunt work um to bring excellent res um recommendations before us.

I don't think there's anybody with nefarious intent who's going around like we're gonna approve this thing because we know it's gonna get I don't think that's what that's about, but I do appreciate and would align myself with the comments of my county council member like and to the end of the day, it's our names on it.

Uh and for something that's permanent, I would want to just take a peek or something.

Um you know what I'm saying?

I I don't think that again, I don't I don't assume nefarious intent, but I do uh want to make sure that before plat goes up, and I hate my name being on stuff, but I want to make sure like I really co-sign this thing before he gets out.

So that's you know, putting making sure that we have some oversight, I think is is fair.

Um, and then we talked about the removal part.

I do agree with um part number one, the merging.

Uh number two, I talked about particularly with regard to 2D.

Um, but you know, not withstanding those comments, uh, and no and and in agreement with it.

And for three, um, works for me.

Thanks for this presentation.

Thanks for taking the back and forth.

And again, it's all in the spirit, we're not trying to micromanage you, but we just want to make sure, or at least I'm coming from the percent.

I just want to make sure that I'm I'm okay with my name being on something on behalf of the city.

I understand that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

I have three quick things.

Um, the cultural arts commission talked about the database of public artworks.

I know that we have something that's online.

Um go ahead.

I'm not sure.

So I'm ready.

I'm ready.

Um there's specifically, I think they specifically referenced the database for AIPD.

Uh-huh.

And we have just finished compiling the list of all those artworks over the 25-year history.

Now we have to go out and make sure they're still there.

Okay.

Before we put it up online because I don't want to send anyone on a wild goose chase and not be there.

So yeah, so that is in process.

Um, and we agree we should be able to recognize that program.

Um, because sometimes people don't even recognize that that is art and private development.

It's own like the um piece that council member Valeria referenced on the corner down here.

That's actually an AIPD piece by creative machines.

So right, and a lot of people have come to me saying that's such a cool piece of artwork that you have.

Well, sorry, it's not ours, but we should be able to communicate that.

Yeah, we will.

And we have like people really cool walking tours.

Uh, so that could be part of our Rockville walking tour, right?

Um, so I I fully support and co-sign that as well.

Long that it's still there, and then when things are not, we can always archive them.

I know we've had to do that with memory walk, for example.

So I know that was a tough, a tough issue, but uh I think cataloging that and recognizing the community's input into that also has a place for thinking about how we archive and and remember the past.

And then they also had a comment about establishing a clear set of guidelines to track in loo fees.

I do support that as well.

I just wanted to specifically call that out.

I know that we've um you had a nice accounting here from what has been done in the past, but just making sure that we can do that in the future.

Um and if someone is contributing, how we tracking and allocating that.

Um there was something that came forward in a development project that we were told you can't include any name of the community in the artwork.

Um is there anything in our arts and is there anything that says no, we can't do that?

Because I that we said we'll come back to that and address that.

So I just want to make sure that if we want to include a name of a community like Twinbrook or what other community, Lincoln Park, you know, that then we're not precluded from that.

So this is a very good topic to explore.

Um because it gets into the regulation of commercial speech and non-commercial speech, and at what point does artwork become a sign and is a sign artwork, and there's a case law that's been established around that.

So what I said to developers, because this isn't a good AIPD question specifically, if they have a development that is so tight and there is hardly any room to install public art, but they want public art, I will say to them, I will explore the options of signage with you if the public artist designs, creates, fabricates, and installs that sign.

So I'm open to exploring that on a case-by-case basis.

Um, because there are very good pieces of public artwork out there that do have signage, like they are artfully communicate where you are.

So I that's a case-by-case basis for me because we want to make sure that we're there have been localities that have been sued for not regulating art as signage, but regulating um marketing firms uh putting up signage, and those were very expensive lawsuits.

So for that reason, like I would want to do a case-by-case basis.

Okay, that's helpful.

I appreciate that background.

And I think our goal was the primary intent is art, but if it recognized the community woven into something, why not?

Um just wanted to make sure that we weren't specifically doing anything to preclude that.

Sure.

Considering potential litigation.

Yeah.

But yeah, I had a note on that, and I just wanted to say, and then the the we just spent a lot of time talking about Jedi.

Just want to make sure that we're thinking about equity and the programs and policies that we're putting forward as you rewrite this and develop protocols.

So we want to see that translate into uh all we do.

Sure.

Yeah.

And whether that's transit considerations and equity and another you know, types of equity considerations.

I we could just have that lens for this as well.

Yes.

I agree.

Councilman Valeri.

Just remembered um one last thing.

Um I think, and this might be something to maybe go back to the CAC, but I would love to find a way to encourage more local artists, especially for the uh art in in public places, not so much the private development stuff, but you know, um, I I definitely want us to have a diversity of um, you know, artists, but we also have, you know, uh Montgomery College Rockville has a very strong arts program.

I think that um we have some fantastic artists here in Rockville.

If we want to expand to Montgomery County, sure, if we got to, no.

But I just I I would love us to have like a uh a local preference on uh our art in public places because I think that's another way to to both excite um residents, but it's another way to excite young people too, um, who sometimes don't think that um being an artist uh is a is a uh viable endeavor is very exciting as a a young child to see, hey, that was somebody that used to like live in Rockville and now their arts here.

So I just wanted to throw that idea out as something to consider.

Something councilman Valeria previously said, you just remind me of it because I wrote it down and I didn't say it.

Um the and the Cultural Arts Commission said we tend to favor visual arts, uh um, graphic arts.

Um so when it comes to arts in private places, to the common of if someone were to develop something that supported performing arts, uh, they made a gallery, they made a uh uh a theater or something, um is that something that we have the capacity to consider I would well consider in the AIPD as a contribution or in general?

As a contribution.

Because they're they I think they're right in saying like we're pretty much not including performing arts or things that support performing arts.

But if someone is developing something that does support performing arts or create space art spaces that will stay, um I'm just wondering, is that allowable?

So for the revisions that I'm putting forward, it would not be simply because it's developers have not expressed interest in doing that because it's very expensive to do.

They're often not financially viable.

So that's why you don't see these spaces being put in.

Um there's I've been in in other jobs where people have wanted a black box theater, but they can't get the funding to do it and they can't create the business plan and make it stay.

And I think that's why developers have not implemented arts spaces.

Um also I think if you want to take into consideration, you know, this article also allows for office space for nonprofits for nonprofit arts and culture organizations, but they can't rent them out at the market rate because it's too expensive for nonprofits.

So there could be a separate conversation for the nonprofit sector as a whole that the city could pursue that could still benefit arts and culture nonprofits.

I think if the city wants to encourage a black box theater or a gallery, there are other avenues that wouldn't quite be a public-private partnership, but it's along that model.

There's actually um organizations that specialize in bringing those to communities and they are sustainable because of the historic tax credits that they are able to take advantage of, and they specialize in creating those spaces.

So for-profit developers haven't done it, it's just not financially desirable.

And I think that's why we haven't seen it.

I appreciate some of the creative options you've mentioned.

I'll also note for an instance, I'm not sure this was part of our in public and private places, but if someone wanted to come in and build a performance stage that is like in town square, and it's providing tremendous joy in arts and community building, that might be something that you know.

I just want to make sure that we're being creative because I did take the comment very seriously, and I've heard it multiple times of how do we support other types of arts as well.

So I appreciate you thinking that through and sharing best practices with us.

Yes.

All right.

Well, you've heard our feedback.

I wanted to pause and say thank you.

I also want to make sure that we've answered your questions as well as we can.

Uh, you've got some feedback as a work session, and we'll have a chance to make decisions in the future.

But have we given you enough to work with?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Appreciate you.

Welcome.

Okay.

Well, now moving on to our second work session, which is focused on uh amendments to City Code Chapter 21, streets, roads, rights of way, and public improvements, and the comprehensive transportation review.

I'd like to welcome Sean Murphy, who is our principal engineer and public works, and also recognized panelists, Craig Simoneau, Director of Public Works, and Ahmad Al-Shafi, Chief of Traffic and Transportation and Public Works.

Um, I will also just do a time check.

Uh, we are at 9.23, and uh we have given ourselves until 1015.

We may not need all that time, but I just want to make sure I'm marking the time for us.

Welcome to our panelists.

Hi, good evening, uh my name is uh good evening, uh thank you, Madam Mirror, uh, members of council, um city manager, thank you uh for this opportunity to hold uh an opening work session uh on the proposed changes to um chapter 21 of the city code, uh the road code and the comprehensive transportation review, the CTR.

Uh joining me tonight, director of public works, Mr.

Craig Simono and Chief of Traffic and Transportation, Mr.

Amad El Shafi.

Uh the purpose of this work session is to obtain some general direction uh from Mayor and Council on the policy revisions to the code and separately to the CTR regulations.

Uh so I'll go over some uh background information.

I will go through a timeline, uh introduce what what these uh ordinance and regulations cover.

Uh we've picked out um the top uh issues uh in chapter 21 and the CTR.

What we'd like to do is to pause at the end of each of the Chapter 21 sections to have a bit of descriptive discussion and direction from you all.

And then we'll take the three CTR topics together and take a look at those.

So updates to the code are a bit overdue.

The code hasn't been significantly revised since 1958.

Both chapter 21 and the CTR were two specific action items of the city's FAST initiative.

And as a reminder, that's the faster, accountable, smarter, and transparent project that the city's undertaken to make improvements to the permitting and development review process.

Those changes would include codifying some of our current practices and if where it's appropriate, establishing some administrative approval authority to again speed up our development process.

So to be quite honest, staff has been working on this project for far longer than this timeline might indicate, but I've tied it to again the FAST phase two project.

That brings us here to uh tonight to have this uh this initial discussion with you all.

Uh looking ahead, we'll uh hold a public uh virtual meeting with uh the development stakeholders, get some of their thoughts.

Uh we've scheduled a briefing with the Transportation and Mobility Commission for August, uh August 25th.

Uh, we've also invited our RBAC and RPAC members uh to attend that TMC meeting as well.

Uh the next time uh we see you all will be in September, where we actually introduce a draft of the ordinance and follow up with with some more work session on these changes.

Uh now uh the code does not require a public hearing, uh, but we've scheduled for one.

Uh certainly we we would like uh your your uh feedback on as to whether to hold that public hearing or not.

Uh we can come back to that question after we go through some of these uh topics uh again to get your thoughts.

Once the ordinance and um draft uh CTR have been introduced, uh we'll return to TMC again, uh get their thoughts on uh more of the detail of what's in that draft and uh scheduled for an adoption hearing in December.

Uh so want to try and very briefly describe uh what this uh chapter 21 is is really about, our uh streets, roads, rights of way, and public improvements ordinance.

Um the road code uh regulates and and allows the city to uh manage the infrastructure which makes up rights of way, including the streets themselves and the improvements therein.

Uh we do this through the issuance of permits and approvals.

Uh the code also requires that uh DPW establish standards and specifications.

These are in addition to the minimum standards established by code, and it gets more into the uh the the nitty-gritty uh engineering details.

Uh chapter 21 works in tandem with the zoning ordinance to to review and uh make requirements of private development.

Again, trying to summarize on this slide the scope of what chapter 21 includes and to try and address some of the misunderstandings or misconceptions as to what it doesn't cover.

And so there are separate chapters or regulations specifically that look at traffic and parking and streets, for example.

Any on-site development, any private property is obviously regulated by the zoning ordinance.

Even the establishment of rights of way themselves is regulated by the subdivision ordinance.

And then we'll we'll take a closer look at the CTR, but the purpose there is to establish transportation adequacy in accordance with the city's adequate public facilities ordinance.

So next I'd I'd like to go into the first of our topics for discussion, private streets.

So chapter 21 does apply currently to all city streets.

And it's been the department's practice to wherever that private street is allowed to record a public access easement instead of the dedication of public right-of-way.

Now, unless that private street is classified as an alley, DPW has generally pushed applicants to providing a public street for several reasons.

There's also a bit of inequity to city residents, whether that maintenance is being provided directly from the city or through a third party.

This has come up specifically for the requirement of street trees, which doesn't make sense, and we'd like to correct that.

Actually, I think it was corrected in the zoning ordinance rewrite.

And it also makes sense to have a public right of way if that road contains city-owned and operated infrastructure, specifically the city's public water and sewer system, and very often storm drain as well.

So again, the code is silent as to where a private street might be allowed.

So having public roads available to our to our citizens and to those who pass through is a priority of ours.

And so by by adding this to the code as to where private streets could be allowed, we want to make it very clear to applicants what those scenarios might be.

Um we've also received uh some development applications for research and development campuses, so that that type of uh single um use uh where there's a uh an overall owner for that uh non-residential use uh where a private street might serve a um apartment complex.

Uh we have not allowed that historically in the city, but uh if we think um of some examples where this could have applied uh in the past had uh had it been allowed or had the uh subdivision uh gone through slightly differently, um thinking about uh Rollins Park, for example, or parkside landing, uh these sites uh were developed with private drive aisles, but maybe we could you know consider private streets in those circumstances.

Uh this last option, limited streets within a mixed use zone uh that meet certain specific conditions, it's is pretty vague.

Um I realize, but uh the intent there uh would be um where that street is not critical to the public transportation network or or necessary for access and circulation or where it doesn't contain again uh the city uh public water and sewer, for example.

Um the best example would be in Twimber Quarter, the recently constructed uh festival street, and that's that's sort of what we're modeling that uh after.

So I wanna pause here uh again, offer you guys the opportunity.

Thank you very much.

I'm just gonna see if any of my colleagues on this side have any questions or comments.

Just on this, yeah, we're start starting on this.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh, thanks for staff for answering and clarifying questions about whether or not these changes would be retroactive, which they are with regard to private streets.

So thank you for that.

I have no further questions or comments.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fulton.

I guess I do have thank you by the way.

I do have one question.

What is the benefit to the developer or any one of the private of a private street?

Like I must be missing something.

If our code still applies, but we're not responsible for the update.

What why would someone want a private street?

Uh there could be a few reasons.

Um private streets are not dedicated to the to the city.

Uh it remains uh privately owned land, so they can they can to some extent you know do as as they would like.

Uh maybe I guess if we take uh festival street, you know, if it's uh it's directly adjacent to that park, and so programming that private street uh for for private use for events, for example, it's a little easier uh for for the owner, the private owner to do something like that.

That helps.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Um for your feedback, do we support?

Yes, I support uh this proposal on private streets.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Valeri.

Yes, hi.

Um thank you to Councilmember Fulton for asking that question.

This actually came up during drop-in, um, where someone was having a concern about um the snow removal on a street that was not a city maintained street.

Um so I think that it's always good to um educate residents about, you know, yeah, no, this is not a city street.

Um and and this is why.

And I will tell you, at least based on that feedback, there are uh none too pleased that it is not a city street.

Um but you know, that that to me makes sense.

Um it's also interesting too, given the discussions that we had during the zoning ordinance rewrite and the the uh parcel 12 and the idea of you know restricting um access to certain uh uh types of uh vehicles.

Like I I think you know, at a certain point, if if you want that kind of close um control on a on a street, then yeah, you should it should be a private street, but um otherwise it's a city street and it's uh a public utility, really.

So no, I have this is really great, and thank you.

Thank you for the very clear uh requested feedback.

Thank you for your presentation for the work on this.

Um I will just say I know all of this is gonna come back to getting feedback from the Transportation Mobility Commission, RPAC and RBAC.

So with that in mind, that will get that feedback.

Um I'll say I do support a public hearing.

Um I do support getting their feedback regarding this particular question.

Um I support staff's recommendation.

Um I will say that a lot of people want private streets until they have to deal with snow and maintenance.

So um and I do think that long term those residents may not have been there in the original project and now feel like they're treated inequitably.

Uh so I do support making those public.

Um and so I and I appreciate staff's approach here.

Um now, if there are projects that are already in play, I also want to like Timber Quarter, I I support that approach because that there's been plans already laid out.

Um so I want to acknowledge people who are already in progress, but going forward after that, at some point there's a cutoff.

Um I would support this new approach.

Can I also say I think we need some more clearly articulate when HOAs want to give streets back to the city, what that process is?

We literally had that question and drop in, and they are not getting the same ability to go to work and go to school because they can't get out with snow, and sometimes it's hard to hire vendors because you're competing with governments and MCPS and others, and so they're kind of stuck.

Um so I just want to acknowledge as we think about this, we should also be thinking about what is a clear process if someone wants to give a street back to the city.

Is there an initial fee?

How do we deal with that?

I just want to make sure that I also have a chance to raise that given some of the comments I've recently heard.

Um so that's my feedback.

Councilmember Jackson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um first the uh good presentation so far.

Um I support a public hearing.

I think that um we we need some uh public fee feedback as well as um you know uh way in from uh uh the the transportation committee uh and and uh others.

Um I have a question about uh private streets, and this is something that I've have familiarity with uh living uh in King Farm and being uh the edgeway president for uh uh a number of of years.

Um for those of you who are are unfamiliar with the workings of King Farm, it's a hodgepodge of private streets, public streets, private sidewalks, public sidewalks.

Um it it it drives you up the wall.

Um and the the question of maintenance, snow removal, um I can go on about uh what we what the uh HOA pays for and what the city pays for, and yes, and Mrs.

Timino's uh nodding.

Um but why are there so many private streets in King Farm?

I'll take that one because I was here for I know you were at least the end part of it.

I wasn't here when it was all approved, but the developer wanted the private streets.

And a lot of the reason why they wanted the private streets was upgraded um uh amenities in the street, pay brick pavers and things like that.

So um they wanted something that was higher than the city standard, uh and they were allowed to have it, but they had to maintain it.

Um there has been some requests to give things back, and usually my first thing is if you give it back to us, we're going to not necessarily abide by the upgraded uh infrastructure that's there.

And that usually puts an end to the question.

But wasn't there also when they built King Farm?

Wasn't there a desire to um have more dense density?

And so they made the trade streets narrower.

There was um back when that was going on, uh we had some degree of how we were counting the parking on private streets and how we are counting the trees.

We had a very uh disjointed way of counting the trees.

If it was a private street, they got credit for the trees on that street, which was in our opinion not equitable because a street tree is a street street.

Street tree is a street tree.

And we have since cleaned up the uh code to rectify all of that counting of things on private streets because we were uh incentivizing private streets, if you would, by allowing them to count the trees differently than if it was on right away.

We have since cleaned all that up and put that on a more level playing field, and that's why we're able to take a stronger stance here now on private streets.

So but what I heard, and and I'm I'm sorry to belabel the point, but I just want to be clear because uh for years I have heard that you know we have private streets in King Farm, and the they're narrower, narrower or uh because we want a more density.

The city and the developer want a more density, and that was a way to actually um get it and to get more room to to to build more houses was to make the streets narrower.

Is that not the case?

The mayor and council did approve alternate street designs for King Farm, and so some of the public streets and the private streets were accepted or wavered from the standards.

Um but it wasn't universally just to get private streets.

Uh it was a little bit of both, but density was one of the reasons why they wanted to get different standards.

And so I and guess and that's what I wanted to get at is you know, it kind of uh uh we're we'll seem to be moving across purposes, and and and that's okay if uh uh we end up there, but we have a desire to have more housing and more density uh in uh uh places in Rockville.

And so according to uh what we proposed here today, we're saying no more private streets.

So if we don't have the ability to negotiate private streets with uh developers, then do we have other tools to make sure that we can get the density that we uh say we need for uh all the housing that we want.

Yeah, we've reviewed our road codes, road standards since that time, uh, since the urbanization, and we have made changes to the standards uh to allow um more denser, and we've allowed, for example, parking on one side if there was enough parking in the street.

We've we think we have urbanized our uh standards now uh to catch up with what what happened, if you would back then.

And effectively uh we're taking all the only waivers we're taking the mayor and council have made it through, and the developers we seem to have right size what we're doing now, uh, and the developers seem to be accepting uh the practice that we're bringing to you here.

That's that's a perfect answer.

Thank you so much for for that answer.

And then we just say, I mean, uh if we could uh develop some way to actually take back some streets, I'm sure speaking of the King Farm resident, that would be awesome.

I know that's uh really difficult to do, but uh maybe that's uh a step uh for another time.

But no, I support uh exactly what you're trying to do here.

Uh councilmember, I'll just say I sent a question to the city manager specifically on that very topic of an H way who wants the city to take the street back, and we just need to also clarify what what that process is if there actually is one.

So thank you for raising it.

Councilmember Shaw Thank you for the excellent presentation.

I do support uh staff's recommendation here, and I also want to thank my colleagues for their questions.

Thank you, Councilman Van Gregg.

So, yeah, um private spee streets create problems.

Um I've seen it broadly when I was in college in St.

Louis, where they had an extremely broad ability for mixed-use zoning to have private streets, and it creates problems.

And we've seen it here in Rockville, and part of it is not just that certain neighborhoods that have private streets can't get it.

A lot of times those neighbors don't even know that it's a private street and blame the city for the problem.

And I know that a lot of times there's creative building that developers want to do, but down the road it often becomes a city problem.

There are certain circumstances, such as when you have an alleyway or when there's a non-residential campus where it certainly makes sense in limited circumstances to have private roads.

But when you're getting into mixed-use zoning and mixed use areas where snow plowing is going to be a necessity, where you have the narrowing of roads, where you have a reason for the city to have its regulations in a certain format for the benefit of not just the people who live there, but the people that are going to be driving in there, it really makes sense to have it uh public.

So the very narrow areas that you talked about at the beginning, which is the non-resident the alleyways, the non-resident campuses, um, and possibly certain complexes that are adjacent to each other under certain circumstances.

But outside of that, um I think we need to clarify that it's for the benefit of the residents as a whole not to have private streets.

And of course, I'd also uh support my colleagues to the extent there's a way to get the streets back to the city.

I'd support that, but I think that also creates a lot of problems because depending on what that infrastructure was created, just as Mr.

Seminar, you were talking about, it might not meet city code for even certain trucks that the city would need to do with those streets.

So it's certainly something that we could look into, but we have to be extremely careful because again, we let it go in the first place.

And again, all the more reason to be very, very, very restrictive about private streets because there could be a circumstance where they wanted to come back to the city, but how it was built makes it difficult for the city to actually control its infrastructure.

Um, um, excellent presentation, really appreciate it.

And I also support um having a hearing on this.

I think this is broad enough that we need to do so.

Thank you.

Can I ask one clarifying question you made about the comment you made about trees?

So we actually have heard about this.

I think it was a project in King Farm.

I'm trying to remember exactly, but uh someone was developing a project and they were thinking about you know they were going to turn land over to the city to have public streets, and there was a debate about whether the trees would be counted as part of that project.

We have use we've fully solved that, like their trees that they put in the public right-of-way would initially be counted, correct?

As part of the development.

That has been clarified now.

And no longer is there an incentive for uh street trees on private streets to count.

The example, one of the examples we had was in town square.

Uh, there was a tree removed that should not have been removed, and it was not in the right of way, and we had to take enforcement action to get it uh back to way it should have been because it was a private street.

Yeah, okay.

So when they think about the total number of trees they have to plant, we are initially allowing them to count because they're giving us the land and the road, but going forward that becomes our tree.

No, I don't do not believe the street trees uh count.

I I would like to know about that because more I think that's something that we need to look at because if there's a total amount of land that's given to the city, and then the project is based on that, and then there's no place the crowding trees without them being be able to grow.

I just I and we're thinking about density.

I think that we just need to be careful about that.

That did come up as a major issue and a complaint that this is this is land that they own, they're gonna put trees there, they should count.

So I just I wanted to flag that as we think about this.

Okay.

Moving on to the next question.

Thank you.

Uh we'll move on to uh private improvements in the right-of-way.

Um so private improvements which are uh privately owned uh by by an adjacent uh owner can be allowed uh in the public right-of-way in a in a city street.

Um it's been our the DPW's current practice uh to issue permits and to require license and maintenance agreements uh for those cases.

Uh we found that uh urbanization uh, particularly in um mixed-use districts where there are zero-foot setbacks uh for buildings, uh, pushes some of those uh streetscape amenities uh into the public right-of-way.

Um and doing so uh is supported by urban design principles, and it is in fact encouraged by the uh town center master plan.

Uh I want to just highlight two two very specific examples that you all are very familiar with uh quickly, and because they'll they'll uh come back in in some of our later discussion.

Uh, shown on the right here is uh Gibbs Street, um, Gibb Street in the square.

Uh that was closed to vehicle traffic uh during the COVID pandemic, uh, and it was repurposed as a pedestrian promenade uh in a streetery.

Uh we did this uh through the issuance of uh short-term six-month uh permits.

Um and again, that allowed uh businesses to use uh and to install um private improvements in the right-of-way.

Uh the city recently formalized uh a formal agreement, uh, a license and maintenance agreement to allow for uh, I believe it's a five-year term, um, you know, a long-term uh deal with Morgard uh to allow that streetery uh to continue.

Um we're actually going through the process of working with Morgard uh to improve that streetscape further.

Um so actually I would encourage you all to to check back later this summer uh to see the square uh once more guard makes those final improvements.

Um the other quick example that I would share uh is EV charging stations in the public right-of-way.

Um I understand those uh were recently adopted uh and allowed through the electric vehicle uh readiness plan.

Uh that was um uh brought to Marin Council, and uh there was authorization for administrative approval of a template that would allow for EV charging stations in the right-of-way.

And so that's that's the process that we want to apply to other improvements.

So codifying the requirement that our current practice of requiring license and maintenance agreements and and who would approve those.

Again, for site-constrained area constrained sites.

Like we've talked about architectural improvements of buildings again, directly abutting rights of way for awnings or balconies projecting into business district roads or for uh wayfinding uh signage, for example.

And then if we consider even more broadly than that, uh improvements for urban streetscape furnishings that might be shown on a development plan, a site plan, for example, um, and those could could include a number of different things, uh, streetscape amenities for uh bicycle parking, for uh hardscaping, for landscaping, uh plantings, for uh amenity lighting, um all sorts of of common uh streetscape improvements uh that we're seeing uh with with more urban development.

Uh of course, any other private improvements uh that might be proposed uh that are not categorized here uh would still be subject to Marin Council's approval in the public right-of-way for for that to allow for that uh on a case-by-case basis.

Uh and so seeking your feedback um those uh different options, um, whether you support first uh the EV charging charging stations, the awnings, the signs, the balconies and and business districts, and then uh beyond that uh allowing administrative approval again with a LMA, a license and maintenance agreement uh for other specified urban streetscape that is uh proposed uh through development.

Thank you.

I'm watching the time, just want to make sure we're getting the feedback, and you just want to say Brawley, does anyone have a question or can you do a thumbs up?

Okay.

I'm gonna show some thumbs up, and then I have three colleagues with questions.

Okay, I'll start down the line there.

I was just gonna say uh generally speaking for administrative approval for just about uh all any of these, I'm okay.

When we're doing something broader like a giant streetscape and potentially closing things off, that's where I think we need to have a little bit of an oversight from the mayor and council.

But if we're talking about awnings, we're talking about charging stations, balconies.

I've got no issue.

It's the larger issues that I think there needs to be some mayor and council, even if it's within development plan.

If we're talking about a larger scale, I think there should be mayor and council opposite.

Councilmember Jackson.

I would agree.

I I just agree with uh uh my my colleague uh councilmember Van Greg.

Uh, I think that's uh is stated perfectly.

I'll echo, but I'll just note again there has to be some for bigger opportunities.

The Transportation Mobility Commission, they're here for a reason to lend perspective.

So I just want to make sure we're thinking about how you're gonna build that into the approval process.

Councilman Valeri.

Yes, thank you.

Um I I think I'm sure we'll get into it in the next work session, but I think that um getting a little bit more specificity here, especially for number one.

I think there's a difference between looking at an EV charging station in the right-of-way versus looking at a balcony.

Um I think that there may be different levels here.

Um I recall that when we had a development before us for middle lane that this was pre-ZOR adoption, that there was um they were unable to have anything more than a Juliet balcony on uh Maryland Avenue.

And that the developer at the time, the developer was like, well, we would want to do more than a Juliet balcony.

So even long story short, even with amongst balconies, we're looking at, are we talking to Juliet?

Are we talking a full-size balcony?

And I, you know, I I really hesitate to say yes, I support, because I think that there's the the devil truly is in the details here, and um I will be the one to say it.

Clarity is kindness, and any way that we can um kind of look at uh the specifics of that, because I think we're looking at very different um intrusion, I guess.

And then overall on um all these private improvements in the right of way, um, and this might it'll be a jump ball for whoever wants to answer this.

Would we say that pro ag is a city policy for transportation?

I'm sorry, and I can I can unless you want to go through.

I just I hate doing acronyms, I just realized I just threw one out there.

But that's yes, and you um you asked a very current question.

Uh currently, right now, pro ag uh municipalities are not required to implement ProAG because the Department of Justice has not passed it.

Uh we anticipate that's going to happen.

So we are uh right now transitioning uh into ProAG.

We're requiring uh by a matter of policy all new developments to comply.

Uh the problem is if I tell you today that PROAG is the policy, will be found in violation tomorrow because we have sidewalks that don't meet the new 2% requirement.

And the mayor and council have approved a plan in the CIP to get us there.

Uh but uh so we'd be very careful on what we would say, and that's how we I would say it right now.

Yes, all new development, all new infrastructure will comply with ProAG, and we're fine figuring out now how to get existing infrastructure there because we know the day's coming when it will be mandatory.

That's and and thank you for that.

I think that that is generally that was what I thought.

And for um, I hate I didn't have it up in front of me.

So ProAG is the acronym for the public right-of-way accessibility guidelines.

They're um guidelines around ADA and ABA accessibility in the public right-of-way.

I I think um there's a lot of overlap.

We've heard it, you know, with the public art.

Um there's just a lot of uh aspects of PROAG, and I want to make sure that um while we can't say that is a city policy right now, that as this evolves, that there is uh some sort of uh not placeholder, but flexibility in the the code that we can once it is policy that we can insert because I think it should be um a policy of the city when it is passed.

Um I will be equally cautious with you.

Um, and I'm sorry, and the ABA is the Architectural Barriers Act, which is even older than the ADA.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

I think generally I I agree, I would be okay with a template agreement.

I I again um I'd like to kind of see more details, and maybe even um I'm a big fan of illustrative examples too.

Um, that would be hey, this would fall under administrative approval.

So um thank you.

And I know that both um the transportation mobility commission as well as RPAC and RBAC, I'm sure are gonna have some great feedback and input.

So I look forward to that as well.

And thank you.

Thank you.

I think we're ready for the next section.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Uh moving on to uh easements.

Uh easements uh and right-of-way agreements such as LMAs uh are routinely necessary for development and CIP projects.

Um however, the code doesn't specify uh that process specifically of how easements are approved, uh executed or abandoned.

Uh and so we'd we'd like to to clarify that in the code uh specifically for easement abandonment uh because that does require uh the city to to release uh some of its interest or or responsibility uh to uh to providing uh a service or or uh maintenance of of public infrastructure.

In keeping with FAST goals, we think it's necessary to both clarify in the code and make it predictable for staff and applicants.

So we're asking whether you all support abandoning approving the abandonment of city easements in the code and allowing the administrative approval of certain easements by the city manager for certain template agreements.

Thank you.

Colleagues, are there any specific questions?

Can we do a thumbs up?

All right.

Good to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item will be primary access.

Just to explain, traditionally, a record lot will have direct vehicle access from an abutting street that's been a tenant of land development, what we would call street frontage.

However, working with the zoning ordinance team, we want to allow for a bit of flexibility in developments in allowing for alternate site layouts.

So the zoning ordinance currently and in the recently adopted version do allow for frontage on not just the street, but a common open space.

But the goal again would be to allow for alternate layouts to provide for that flexibility.

Again, we would like to align chapter 21 with the zoning ordinance to allow for that.

One of the standards that staff is considering developing where units are primarily accessed by an alley, we would not want that alley to exceed a certain distance.

I've highlighted the right of way in red.

On the left-hand side, we have detached housing, which has frontage directly on a public street.

In the middle is illustrating this common open space concept.

And also there are separately units that front on a common open space, but those are all accessed by an alley.

And so where those units are accessed by an alley, there is a public sidewalk allowing for pedestrian connectivity to the to the right-of-way because alleys do not the standard for an alley does not require sidewalks.

Aside from alleys, we also want to allow for shared driveways without triggering the requirement for a street.

And so if that driveway is less than a certain distance, and we've based that distance off of fire code requirements for access to lots, we again want to provide for that flexibility in development without using a public street, but having a private driveway with an easement between the owners.

So we're seeking Mary and Council's input to change the uh chapter 21 definition of an alley to allow for secondary access to develop standards where that access uh is where that primary access is being provided by an alley, and then the second question asking about uh the use of shared driveways uh for certain residential uses.

Thank you.

Dr.

Miles.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to thank staff for answering a question, but I needed a little bit more clarification.

If we can go back to the previous slide, that example is helpful with regard to pedestrian access in the context of an alley.

Um my read of it was that there was going to be requirement of a pedestrian access in the alley, but that's not true.

It's that there should be some sort of pedestrian access.

Um, which in this case it wouldn't necessarily be the alley, it would be the courtyard between the two, presume those are townhomes on the right-hand side.

Is that the pedestrian access that's being mandated in the context of there being an alleyway?

Correct, in that green open space.

Got it.

And so the the broader, again, I just want to make sure I'm reading what you all are recommending correctly.

Is that in the context of there being alley?

There just has to be some sort of walkway.

Um, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an alley, just something that connects the housing units.

Is that a fair read?

Right.

We don't want to allow for uh pedestrians uh in the alleys themselves.

Uh we want to separate uh vehicles from uh pedestrian traffic, uh, and so providing primary vehicle access in the rear via the alley and uh primary pedestrian access uh at the front of the unit uh via the open space.

Thanks for the clarification.

Just help the written response to the question that I have.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Councilman Van Grack.

I just want to clarify, we're not mandating anything more restrictive, we're just giving more abilities to construct things in a more favorable positioning if they want to do so.

Is that correct?

Good.

I that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

Does this have anything to do with some of the multifamily projects that are coming through?

Like that are is it just mostly for town homes and single family?

Uh it's mostly for town homes uh and uh what we project uh multiplex units uh again as uh are now being allowed by the zoning ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

And are there any projects that would this negatively affect that are going through review right now?

Okay.

No, they're all uh moving to this practice now.

Uh and we're trying to align chapter 21 with 25 with what we kind of have settled on as a good common practice.

Excellent.

And Dr.

Miles' question was exactly one of the ones that I was thinking of, so thank you for asking.

Yeah.

All right, do we have a thumbs up?

Thank you.

Uh we'll move on to uh road code waivers.

And specifically for road code waivers, we want to focus on uh dead end streets.

Uh the code prohibits dead ends.

Uh specifically, it says that roads must connect with other roads or end in a cul-de-sac.

Uh however, given the the very urban nature that that uh that uh redevelopment uh is is uh is going through.

Uh we are proposing uh alternatives to uh the more land-intensive cul-de-sac design by allowing for uh different turnarounds, uh T or hammerhead uh type uh areas uh to allow for uh more flexibility, uh a bit more uh space for urban development to facilitate again housing uh per the fast goals.

Uh we are proposing um to also allow for flexibility uh where dead ends um are under a certain distance again.

Uh we're um considering uh fire access to these units, and so if they uh if that road is not necessary for fire access, uh it might not need uh a turnaround uh if it's uh meeting certain conditions if it's only for residential uh for example.

Uh we'll take a look at an example here on the uh uh currently under construction, the uh farmstead, the King Bioic site.

Uh there are uh three uh dead ends that I'll just quickly point out.

Uh the first being in the top left of the screen.

Um you can you can see the uh the very large T or hammerhead uh turnaround area because that alley is exceeding 150 feet, it has to be safe for a fire engine uh to go down uh to serve those units and to turn around.

Uh the alley at the at the top left uh continues through from uh George Thomas Road and circles around it, provides for that clean complete circ circulation.

Uh there are two more dead ends at the bottom of the screen uh pointed out by these blue arrows.

Uh those are simply dead end alleys without a turnaround.

Uh they are um less than 150 feet, uh they're very short, uh they're pretty much just serving uh those townhome units that provide access to it.

Uh and so uh staff feels comfortable in in allowing um very limited uh dead ends to allow for flexible housing development.

Uh so seeking your your uh support uh on these uh two items um allowing uh the connection of roads to um either end in a in a turnaround in something other than a cul-de-sac, uh the item that I didn't mention uh allowing roads to connect to a private drive aisle or driveway where there's a continuation of public access uh via an easement, and secondly, to allow administrative approval uh of certain dead ends uh without a turnaround if it if it meets certain criteria looking to the side if there are any questions.

Okay.

Can I just ask uh two questions for safety?

One is have we seen any challenges with this in regards to fire or even ambulance access?

That's what the 150 feet is for.

Uh after 150 feet, the fire needs access there, so we need to turn around, etc.

So we this is in conjunction with the fire regulations for fire trucks.

Okay.

And if someone, if you're connecting to private drive aisles and there's a fire truck that needs to get through, are you saying that the fire truck could use the private drive aisle to turn around?

Or would they would just back out?

We we would uh unlimited circumstances allow the public to use that private uh drive aisle to turn around if we had a public access easement on it.

Okay, and it's that's not a situation where a car would be parked there.

No, no.

It would be the the entrance to uh some some other private development that would allow public access for somebody to turn around at the end and come back.

So it wouldn't be a block by accident.

All right, I was just gonna there's something that came up last weekend.

It wasn't residential, but it was um some of the car shops uh that are in the Lincoln Park community East Rockfall border.

And um there were cars that just all stacked up and an ambulance couldn't get through a turnaround, someone had a heart attack and it was hard to get help.

So I just thought I just had that in mind.

I wanted to make sure we're thinking through all those issues.

So you're telling me this will be safe.

Correct.

We would ensure that the area selected would have an easement and it would not be it would be subject to not being blocked uh under those conditions.

Okay, and then in some cases we just need to do better enforcement.

Yeah, I don't I don't believe any of the areas we select are gonna have that parking problem.

They're gonna be pretty obvious entrances to businesses, et cetera, that public almost can go to anyway, but we're gonna have an easement to protect the public's right to go and back turnaround.

Okay, and we'll trust that answer.

Street classification.

This is an interesting one.

The road code functionally classifies streets mostly according to the adjacent land use and zoning.

So that's all done.

Land use of zoning is separately adopted by comprehensive map amendments, as was recently done with the zoning ordinance.

Back to you all with that recommendation again.

And then before a classification is adopted by resolution.

The classification of a street again, because it's tied to land uses and zoning is typically self-evident based on what those adjacent parcels are zoned for.

More simply to allow for the classification of streets.

Secondly, there was uh there was some discussion that came up uh during the zoning ordinance uh adoption process uh about emergency access drives.

Yeah, and so I want to share an example of where uh the city has been successful in uh addressing this very issue.

Uh so at the top of the screen is the uh the chestnut lodge development, uh to the bottom of the screen is the Rose Hill neighborhood.

Uh Chestnut Lodge has a single point of access off of West Montgomery.

Uh however, to allow for uh emergency access, um it was necessary to provide some alternate means uh for fire trucks in the in the case of an emergency or in case that single uh entrance off of West Montgomery became blocked for whatever reason.

Uh and so while this looks like a uh a typical six-foot sidewalk, uh it in fact um supports the load of a fire emergency vehicle.

Uh there's pavers underneath that grass.

Um there are bollards to restrict access uh only in the event of an emergency.

Uh and so we've uh developed these standards before and could implement uh a new street classification for emergency access drives uh just the same.

So uh seeking mayor and council's feedback on those two options.

First, uh the classification uh of a of a new road for emergency access, and secondly, the process for street classification uh proposed by administrative approval.

I will just say those are some of the best walking paths, secret hidden areas, and it really creates a beautiful way to get around the city for pedestrians and feel safe.

So thank you for sharing that example.

Should be safe everywhere.

That's true.

All right, do we have a thumbs up on this?

Excellent.

This will be the uh the last chapter 21 topic, uh street closings.

Uh first want to recognize that mayor and council are authorized uh specifically for the permanent closure uh and abandonment of rights of way that we don't uh uh propose to change at all in the code.

Uh however, the process for temporary closures is a little less clear.

There's some overlapping of authority uh where the code uh says that mayor and council could close a right of way for a period of 18 months by resolution.

And that's exactly what uh what happened uh with the Gibbs Street example.

Uh there are other means of of temporary closing rights of way that I should mention uh chapter 12 if there are special events, uh say for example a marathon in town center, uh that follows its own process, not addressed uh by chapter 21, uh, but managed through record recreation and parks uh through a uh public events license.

Uh so staff are proposing to uh first uh retain their authority for permanent closures.

Uh we think that's clear, uh, but to clarify where all other temporary road closures uh could be approved administratively by the department through the issuance of permits.

Uh and so uh perhaps we could clarify the the uh the the length of term uh temporary road closures exceeding that that typical uh permit duration uh might still be subject to mayor and council's approval through agreement through a resolution um and clarifying uh all other uh temporary road closures uh at the discretion of uh the director.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, the original agreement to close grips was a very robust mayor and council discussion.

Um so I just wanted to flag that that happened during COVID.

And I know that staff maintained it, but that was a that was a public discussion to support it.

You are correct, Madam Mayor.

There was a very robust public discussion resolution of the issue was not done during that session.

Uh staff was directed to come back a second time.

However, uh in the end, the mayor and council did not want it to come back and uh gave guidance to city manager to have the director take care of the temporary closing, and that's what happened.

Okay, I just want to make sure that like if there's something that's closing for two years, we wouldn't know about that, it wouldn't just randomly happen.

Yes, we don't typically close streets uh for two years or or anything, but there is authority to do so uh uh if it needs to happen.

So clearly the mayor and council are going to know about it.

It's a matter of do we need a formal agreement or do we do it under permit?

Okay.

Councilman Valerie.

So I've been kind of struggling with this um concept a little bit for the entirety of the presentation, but it's kind of hit me really hard right now.

We're talking about closing streets to vehicular traffic, right?

Primarily, yes.

Okay.

So is the my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the the CTR encompasses all methods of transportation and mobility.

So it we heard uh during community forum from um the RBAC chair.

Does the CTR include um pedestrians, bicyclists, and other modes of transportation beyond automobiles?

The CTR does not prescribe any standards for anything other than vehicle vehicles.

The standards that we do to review uh pedestrian bicycles, et cetera, is usually coming from either chapter 21 or it's coming from uh the standards we write, like the neighborhood traffic guidelines or chapter 25.

The CTR itself does not promulgate any standards other than the the capacity and the transportation improvement fee, as you'll find out.

Gotcha, but wouldn't we just to be clear when we're talking about transportation, we're talking about automobile transportation.

Closing of streets, yes, we have never closed the street and closed it to uh pedestrians and bicyclists.

Matter of fact, we have specifically tried to retain pedestrian and bicycle access when we've done it.

Exactly.

Okay, I just want I just wanted to be real clear on this because I think that um when we just say road closings, you know, one person's road closure is another person's opportunity to traverse safely.

So um I I appreciate this.

Um I vaguely recall the very robust discussion uh around Gibbs.

I know it it continued to be robust.

Um and uh yeah, they I think I can I can I'd have to think on this one a little bit more whether or not you know that it was a good discussion to be had in the public eye um and wouldn't want to lose that opportunity, but also we'd want to make it easier as well to to do some of these temporary street closings.

So um, yeah, I guess I'm I'm a little wavering.

continued to be robust um and uh yeah they I think I can I can I'd have to think on this one a little bit more whether or not you know that it was a good discussion to be had in the public eye um and wouldn't want to lose that opportunity but also would want to make it easier as well to to do some of these temporary street closing so um yeah I guess I'm I'm a little wavering I'm not agnostic but I'm I'm kind of wavering on this one thank you I remember one of the things that came out of the robust discussion was um thinking about ways for emergency vehicular access that was one and then there was some discussion about thinking about um pickup opportunities and creating space for that so there were some improvements that came out of a discussion um just a out of curiosity are there and what instances would staff be exercising their right to do two years without mayor and counsel being aware I can't see any right now maybe another pandemic okay all right no we are not going to bring that into existence no no manifesting on that councilmember fulton I do feel like on this I just I I want to make a point uh it is intention for us to say we need to move things faster get things done let's make it easier for people yet we want to have a conversation here scheduled every and it takes months to get it scheduled um I I am in favor of being able to move faster while still exercising appropriate oversight I I also think it's worth noting that like these meetings are not the only place where things can be public and clear to the public and communicated well in fact I would argue in a lot of ways this is not the best way to do that.

So I I do think that you confirmed that the mayor and council would be aware of any such closure uh before it happened if it was that long and I hope that we could find a way to make sure that if we were ever doing that it wouldn't just be awareness but we'd be able to have that opportunity for you know you all would be thinking about things like emergency access and pickup and and there'd be an opportunity to make sure that was done well.

In fact council member we we had three public meetings staff held public meetings in fact we went door to door of all the businesses on Gibb Street to personally invite them to those meetings.

Awesome thank you Councilmember Van Grack.

Yeah and I just want to just expand on that because it's not just about public so long as the code allows an oversight so there can be an administrative approval but that the mayor and council can exert and veto that decision that allows us to be able to do it while retaining the ability to do something in expedited basis without months of potential meetings if needed I think my colleagues have shared some good feedback just making sure that if this is allowed that we are one and we must be notified and to this veto power.

Understood okay thanks thank you we'll uh we'll talk next about uh amendments to the CTR uh so as as we said the CTR is is implementing uh the APFO for uh transportation um uh making sure that uh there's um adequate capacity uh for the APFO uh and there's a review for uh acceptable traffic flow uh within the city's network uh the uh very similar to chapter 21 the purpose of updating the CTRs is again uh implementing uh fast initiatives um and uh to up late update some of the thresholds uh for requirements uh to make it more equitable uh between developments uh staff also intend to separate out uh the CTR uh regulations from some of the more uh administrative processes or or guidelines into two distinct uh documents um similar to to for example similar to what we've done uh with the with a development review manual uh setting up uh guidelines for for applicants uh what what's needed for submissions uh a checklist of requirements uh some of the more administrative uh process uh a um trying to summarize again uh what the ctr uh specifically covers and what's covered uh by uh separate codes and regulations uh again the ctr is focusing on on adequacy uh and mitigating uh insufficient uh specifically vehicle adequacy um it uh the transportation report evaluates developments impacts uh to road capacity and traffic operations uh it establishes the transportation improvement fee um yeah all of which uh we'll we'll take a look at uh what some changes are proposed the CTR currently requires uh make mitigation uh whenever a developer uh is adding greater than 10 percent capacity to that intersection however uh staff are proposing to eliminate that requirement for mitigation if it can be shown that that intersection will still operate at an acceptable level of service uh

The CTR currently requires uh mitigation uh whenever a developer uh is adding greater than 10% capacity to that intersection.

However, uh staff are proposing to eliminate that requirement for mitigation if it can be shown that that intersection will still operate at an acceptable level of service by uh reducing or eliminating that requirement for mitigation uh where there's still adequacy uh within the transportation system uh is uh a more staff proposes to be more equitable uh between developments.

The second change uh that staff are proposing uh relates to our requirements for a transportation report.

Uh there is a a uh threshold for uh applicants proposing so many trips, 30 peak hour net trips uh to submit for an on-site report.

Um however uh the the CTR is really uh focusing more, should should focus more on the adequacy of public facilities and staff can continue to review on-site requirements, uh, but there are other channels, the zoning ordinance, for instance, the on-site requirements uh for transportation uh safety can be done through, can continue to be done through the development review process rather than the uh requiring an on-site report.

And so uh we would uh remove that requirement uh for an on-site report.

We would, however, still continue to analyze uh two of the intersections closest to uh the development for applications uh proposing so many trips.

Um that analysis uh would not be used uh to require any uh capacity mitigation, it's more for uh our information, our understanding of how uh traffic is operating at those intersections.

And then uh the third change to uh the city's transportation improvement fee.

Um the the TIFF uh is uh used by the city to make uh certain public improvements.

Uh these might include uh installing uh bus shelters uh or sidewalks, uh, but the TIFF is not used in making any capacity uh improvements.

Staff are proposing to lower the threshold of requiring the transportation improvement fee from 30 peak hour net trips down to 10 peak hour net trips.

Uh and by lowering the threshold of trips, we can increase the number of uh development projects subject to that requirement, which is actually uh more equitable uh to collect from uh developers of all sizes, uh contributing to uh this this fund so that the city can make uh transportation improvements.

Uh so uh taken as a whole uh uh seeking uh mayor and council's uh feedback on uh these four items, uh eliminating the requirement to provide capacity mitigation where there is adequacy at that intersection, eliminating uh the requirement to submit uh the on-site report uh for applications with less than 30 peak hour net trips, uh, still requiring that applicants of less than 30 peak hour net trips or more than 50 uh total peak hour trips to analyze intersections and lowering the threshold uh for the payment of the transportation improvement fee uh from 30 to 10 peak hour net trips and adding a new threshold for any application to pay for that transportation improvement fee of more than 50 peak hour total trips.

Thank you.

Uh I know that uh councilman Fulton and Dr.

Miles had questions.

Councilman Fulton, go ahead.

Thank you for this.

I really appreciate it.

But before getting to your actual feedback, I I want to ask a question, and I'm sorry if this is sort of out of the blue.

You've done a really nice job of explaining um what this is and what this isn't.

And that it's, you know, you you said it's mostly about vehicular traffic.

Um you've given some of the purposes here about acceptable traffic flow.

Meaning vehicular traffic flow.

What if we wanted to make it more than that?

Like, what if we wanted the purpose of the CTR to be about all modes of transportation and impacts on them and not just vehicular traffic?

What is our ability to conceptualize it that way and think about changes and improvements for all modes of transportation?

Um you can do that.

However, um the CTR, to be quite blunt with you, the CTR is being conceived as more than it really is.

Um it is a way to not only do those things that we're talking about with the transportation improvement fee and capacity, because we have an APFO.

It's also a way to think about reviewing the entire development and all of the transportation needs.

We're gonna retain that in the checklist, but we're gonna separate out where the core requirement comes for each of those uh requirements, if you would.

For example, chapter 21 lays out a lot of standards that they must meet.

You don't have to repeat them in the CTR, because there's already a code requirement to do those things, and there's already a chapter 25 requirement to do those things.

And so there's a lot of feeling that we gotta add things here because we gotta make it more equitable, but that is already out there in the codes, et cetera, to do that.

But part of our code, like part of what we're doing with our codes in the and the ZOR is to synthesize, to bring like with like to not make people have to go from one place to another to find the different requirements.

I don't I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, but I just I approach when we do development seems to be focused on traffic vehicular traffic flow.

Will what and you know, is this gonna increase traffic?

Is it gonna increase traffic?

I'm just wondering if this body, given our priorities, has the ability to think holistically about the impact of on all modes of transportation when we evaluate development.

I agree with you, and that's why we're gonna have a checklist that's gonna contain everything.

So it's a one-stop guideline shop for the developer and everybody looking at it that all here's all the requirements synthesized from everywhere.

However, you do not have to create any new standards for pedestrians and because they're already all out there.

And we are we are in fact looking at streets holistically.

In fact, we are paying probably more attention to pedestrian and bike safety right now than we are a lot of a lot of them.

We have a uh for example, one one example is on East Middle Lane.

Uh, we are actually considering removing a vehicle lane, a turn lane, where enters Rockville Pike, so we can get an adequate sidewalk and get the bike lane to go through there.

So we're actually thinking of doing the reverse of what people say we're only look at vehicle stuff.

We're we're actually trying to do that.

I appreciate that.

And I thank you.

I'll I take you at your word, as long as what we're able to do it, but just one last question on it.

Um when we talk about the tie to the it's the adequate public facilities ordinance that we do a transportation review on.

Is there anything about the APFO that requires facilities for other modes of transportation and pedestrians, or does the APFO only consider vehicular traffic?

The APFO only considers vehicular traffic.

Capacity.

Got it.

Okay.

I'll let it go with that.

I just wanted to make sure I understood where I wanted to make sure it somehow we were looking at it holistically.

And I'll take you at your word that we'll do it that way.

Dr.

Miles?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to thank staff again for answering my questions in advance.

I'm asking them again because it's still less than clear for me, and perhaps in this discussion you can help clarify the point.

It's kind of backward, so I've taken point number four up here first.

And it's this who's the entity that question I asked is who's the entity that determines peak trips and the response I got.

I guess in part it is the developer in part that would help develop uh determine those peak trips.

Um that the city will get the um input from from the developer.

But then it strikes me that it's in the developer's interest to reduce the numbers peak trips so as not to have to pay the TIFF.

So that um so again, we have very smart people like again high high marks to all the folks in DPW.

Like I don't think you all are um are pushovers, but I'm just concerned that if it's the developer that's giving us the numbers, how can we ensure their accuracy in terms of determining peak trips?

The the guidelines detail very specifically what manual they use to determine the number of trips for each type of use in the development is a very prescribed process.

There's standards out there that are published that they have to use.

They do it because they know what the development is doing.

Staff reviews it to make sure they're following the correct guidelines and using uh the correct manual and the correct numbers to do it.

So despite them submitting it to us, they're very prescribed process and very prescribed manuals they use to gener to calculate those trips.

Understood.

I appreciate the uh the response.

And again, it's just a concern.

That's all from um incentive perspective.

The other question I had is um I needed some additional assistance in understanding of the capacity mitigation mandate.

Um you spoke about it earlier, but it I'm still trying to wrap my brain around on the one hand, it seems to be a good thing to ensure that traffic is appropriately managed.

So if we were moving it, like I'm I'm trying to understand why you all are um advocating for the change that you're advocating.

So again, apologies for having you to re-explain it to me.

I guess my question is which change are are you talking about?

Uh the change the yeah, the the first one.

Uh yeah, see what what we do right now is it requires any developer who's generating more than 10% more traffic to mitigate an intersection, even though after they do the development, the intersection is gonna be at an acceptable level of service.

So they're actually doing the opposite of what the speaker spoke at uh during community forum.

If we follow this, they're actually gonna have to do improvements at an intersection, even though the intersection is going to function fine after that we get done.

It's just the way it was written.

Um we want to eliminate that and only require improvements to intersections when the capacity is going to be exceeded at the intersection.

Thanks.

I'm gonna just munch on it a little bit, but I appreciate your explaining it to me again.

Councilman Valeri.

I like that.

I'm gonna I'm gonna munch on a lot of this, I think, over.

Um just for um my own clarity, maybe clarity for people up this late watching at home.

What exactly is the difference between a net trip and a total number of trips the net trips uh subtracts out the existing trips that the site uh is authorized?

For example, if it was a retail center uh of a certain size, there's a certain number of trips that inherently has already been approved for that for that development.

And they come back and they put a residential in there, you take the new residential trips minus the old trip.

That's the net trip.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

I did I I was joking, Matt is not my strongest subject, so I appreciate the the guidance.

When the city does a traffic study.

Now I understand developers do their own traffic studies.

We we definitely heard some of this tension around the the new uh Rockshire development where there was um uh I guess a difference in approach on uh traffic studies.

When the city does a traffic study, do we look at the not necessarily the pardon the pun, the intersection of vehicular and pedestrian slash bicycle traffic.

Um, but do we kind of gather data on how much existing pedestrian or bicycle traffic there is when looking at vehicle uh the pedestrian and bicycle traffic, there's not a standard of capacity by numbers.

What we do in that regard is we look at our master plans.

Uh we look at the pedestrian master plan, the bikeway master plan, all the plans, and we act we see which infrastructure is lacking there, and then we see uh what is on the frontage of that development and then require them to do uh improvements there.

As far as the intersections go, we always look at all the pedestrian and bicycle movements at all of those intersections.

It's understood we're doing that, and they're required, especially on the frontage.

Uh, we can require a lot of development improvements on the frontage if there's lacking of that capacity or the or the width of the sidewalk, for example, uh the pool uh in a good good example is Woodley Gardens Pool.

The sidewalk did not meet the standard, and they came and developed, they put a new sidewalk in that met the standard.

Yeah.

No, then that makes sense.

Thank you.

Um I I just think you know, um, we're gonna have an evolving definition, I think, of transportation and and frankly, traffic, because I think that over time things are gonna look a little different.

And I just want to make sure that you know we are thinking in a uh more uh proactive way in how we define transportation.

I would be absolutely up for um including adequate pedestrian or bicycle facilities as part of the APFO.

Um I I don't know why we we couldn't.

We already, you know, have the advisory body that is a transportation mobility commission.

Um I think that their input is vital to any development that's coming in because they have that particular expertise and lens to be able to look at these sort of things, but if we could, you know, codify it in some way, I think that that would be a uh a more progressive view of of the way that we look at at traffic and transportation overall.

Um, and maybe we'll we'll get to that point because I'm I'm thinking, you know, I would be fascinated to see what some of the peak hour trips, you know, um for less car centric newer developments will look like I think it's gonna look different over time.

So um no, I appreciate I appreciate that.

And I I echo um Councilmember Miles' concern too.

Um, you know, I again the developer does have to do the traffic study.

I think that obviously the city traffic study is probably the most uh neutral arbiter in in many ways, but I could see that being perhaps uh a challenge.

But thank you, and uh I really appreciate actually I appreciate everybody but per in uh definitely you uh Mr.

Simono, who I feel like I've known for so long.

Um and we we've got a crazy journey together, and I always appreciate how um you take the time to explain things the way that you have.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I uh echo and support the comments of Councilman Miles Fulton and Valeri.

Um I I did wanna just say two things, one well, three things.

One is this is something the CTR is something that the traffic mobility commission has been asking about for a couple of years.

I really would like to get their feedback uh on this, especially this specific section.

Um I I think there's a lot in here.

I think that um moving to Ministrally Publish Guidelines, does that remove the commissions in our back and our pack from you know, this discussion?

I will note that vision zero came from a mixture of mayor and council and the community driving this discussion.

So I just want to make sure that we create opportunities to you know, not only have which I fully respect and appreciate, and you keep us legal and safe, this in the engineers' perspective, but vision zero has really grown from the community.

Uh and and engineers are embracing vision zero, but there's there's always space for you know, hearing what the lived experience is beyond what the technical standards are.

And so I just I really want to on this in particular give give the opportunity to have those um review bodies give us input here.

So I just I this is one in particular I wanted to pause on.

Um the second piece is um the peak hour net trips.

How did you come at the number with 30 in my head?

I was thinking of number for numbers two, three, and four, uh, where it says 30 to do 20, uh four at 30 to 10 to 20.

Um so where did the 30 number come from?

Because if you have a an area, because you talked about total that has a lot of trips, adding an additional 30 could be a lot.

Um so I I was the the number the numbers jump was what caught me.

30 is the existing number.

Okay.

Where that came from, uh, believe it or not, it preceded my 21 years in in the city.

Um exactly, so it goes way back.

Um we're we're proposing to lower it to 10 and then to add a second group, and again, which is more than 50 total trips, and this is what we hear about from the community a lot.

This is what we hear about from the boards and commissions a lot.

Wait a minute, you're telling me that there's only th 28 new net trips and they don't have to do all this.

We're adding this 50 because it could be a major redevelopment where there's a lot of uh uh trips total, but there's not a lot of new ones and still require them to go back and uh analyze the intersections and pay the transportation improvement fee.

Okay.

I will say when we did the CAC uh Cultural Arts Commission code, it was very helpful to see the comments of the commissioners.

This is one that I I value and I would really like to get their feedback before I particularly weigh in.

But I I appreciate and support where staff is going.

I just love to get that additional perspective.

Council Van Greg.

Thank you.

Um obviously uh I support my colleagues saying we definitely want to hear from the commission, we definitely want to understand where their perspective is.

But I think the broader issue with these four questions that we're addressing here is on the most part, almost every single question you've got that has a lesser threshold that needs to meet it.

So I really think we need to not diminish where we have the necessity for the on-site transportation reports for the applications so that we can more understand what the actual impacts are.

Because even if we're just evaluating certain peak hour trips, that transportation report could evaluate and see differently what is the peak hour that you're looking at.

Because in certain areas of the city, different peak hours, whether it's lunchtime going into an area, schools versus um uh versus rush hour, could all impact differently.

And that on-site transportation report does a more broad evaluation than simple checking off boxes as to whether it's gonna have certain peak peak hour impact or not.

So to the extent that we're limiting the on-site transportation report, I want to not necessarily do that and make sure that we're actually having a transportation report where we need to, and limiting the amount of, for example, requiring applications with less than 30 peak hour trips, not more to analyze uh to to give those extra um necessities.

Basically, we've got certain areas of the city that we want to make sure that if we're going to be building that area, we're not impacting the city overall.

We can still have the development, but we have to make sure that it's not creating more of a burden than need be.

If I could, council member number two, the reason we're proposing elimination of the on-site transportation report, that's on the private property.

We already get all the information off the site plan.

And requiring a developer to do another plan, another submission when we in fact already have all the information on the site plan uh is duplicative, and that's why we're recommending getting rid of it.

We we still look at that site plan for all of them.

For example, one of them that has more than those trips, they're not required to l uh do an on-site one, but we get all the information through a site plan process.

So it's duplicative.

So help me out here because I know that when we were evaluating the, for example, Rockshire development, part of the issue was there was no requirement for an on-site development uh transportation report.

And otherwise discussion from us on the day is saying, hey, where's a transportation report?

They said, well, we did a voluntary report, but they acknowledged their voluntary report didn't meet the standard of a full on-site transportation report.

And so what I'm trying to get at is just because there's a site plan doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be an on-site transportation report, which I think is going to be helpful for us in evaluating what is going to be the impact.

Uh I do not believe so because the on-site report just says what the what the infrastructure is on site.

When I have a crosswalk on-site, et cetera, not in the public streets.

When we say on-site, we don't mean in the public street, we mean on the private property outside of the public realm.

And so there's nothing there that we don't get from the uh from the uh site plan.

Well, then how can we evaluate?

Because I think what maybe we're getting at, or what I'm getting at is I want to understand that when we're putting this out and we're making an evaluation, we understand the impact of the transportation on the surrounding area.

Yeah, we look at that through the right-of-way.

We looked at that through chapter 21.

We looked at that through the zoning ordinance and all this all the things that submitted to us.

This on-site report is just duplicative of what we already get.

Can I ask Councilmember can ask a question?

When do you involve the Transportation Mobility Commission?

I know sometimes you do joint meetings or invite RPAC and our back.

So when would they be able to see what's going on?

125, is it peak hour trips?

Peak hour trips.

If it's greater than 125 peak hour trips.

Total or net.

Net.

That's a lot.

That's a that threshold is really high for a city that's trying to do vision zero.

So I'll just note that.

I know last time we were really bringing more projects as courtesy reviews.

I just I just want to make sure that we're not that we're thinking about moving the vision zero stuff forward to my colleagues' comments here.

That's the intent of what we're trying to do.

So I just as you look at revisions and talking to the commissions and committees, just we would like you to come back to us with that in mind.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um there were a couple things.

I think this is your last section, correct?

Okay.

Um there was some things in the staff report that talked about like cross uh marked crosswalks.

I just wanted to my comment is I would love more marked crosswalks.

I think we've heard from community members that they would love more marked crosswalks.

So I just want to put that plug there.

Um and then there was a comment about like we don't typically like to have only one entrance in a community.

I you showed us some examples of like how there has been safe ways and just not having cut through traffic.

So I just wanted to, we've said that the body has spoken a number of ways about that.

As you look at revisions, just keep the spirit of the body's feedback on that in mind, please.

We have heard you loud and clear.

Okay.

That is why we're putting that forward.

We always had the anticipation that we could keep trying to get two regular entrances.

And I think what we're acknowledging is in in-field development, you're gonna have an impact on that adjusting uh adjacent neighborhood.

And that's why we're putting this forward because we've heard you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the entire team.

I know this is a lot of work in the making, and you outlined a very articulate process going forward, and we look forward to it.

Thank you.

Okay, so next we have the mock agenda.

We have reviewed this during the leadership planning team meeting, but just wanted to flag in case anyone has any further comments.

Okay, thank you.

Next is old new business.

Dr.

Mouse.

Thank you, Matt.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I want to bring up a request.

Uh, I think we received from Peerless Rockfell about a letter in support of their grant uh from a historic foundation.

Um have to pull it up.

It is a letter or an email correspondence, I believe we received back on the 27th.

Um this program or a grant program that's rural roots, freedom and kinship in Rockfill's Height community.

So I'm just wondering if there's support among us here to uh have staff work on a letter of support for peerless application for this grant.

Thank you, Dr.

Miles.

I'll just also note this is a project titled Rural Roots from Freedom and Kinship in Rockville's High Tay Community, and uh speaks to um high Tay being a thriving perirural self-sustaining black community bound together by tight-knit family and social networks and shaped in response to the legal and economic restrictions of segregation.

Uh and this primary objective is to update an outdated survey data, create a baseline for future uh planning, and uh they will host a public launching event featuring expert-led walking tour of the HATI community.

So I support this grant and just want to see to support the comments of Dr.

Miles.

Are we can we do a thumbs up?

Okay, excellent.

We'll have it ready tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Valeri.

Yes, hi.

Um I I absolutely support the intent of it.

Um I I do have some other concerns regarding ongoing uh outreach and engagement.

Um so I I will reserve those for for now.

Um, but I think it's a more than worthwhile uh grant.

I do want to note um that, and I I believe that council member Jackson as well is familiar with this, there was a um a incident regarding um a service animal at a business in Rockville.

And while it was very kindly um uh uh addressed, I think ultimately um it caused some discomfort by making the individuals have to be outside in the heat.

And so it might be a good teachable moment or maybe some better education on um where service animals are and are not allowed to be.

Uh, I think this dovetails nicely with our Jedi uh discussion that we had.

Um, and again, I I know that it was very tactfully dealt with, but I think that ultimately it it did cause some consternation, and I do defer to to others on that as well.

I just wonder is that thank you.

Councilmember Jackson.

Yeah, so uh just because uh Councilmember Valeri mentioned my name and just to clarify.

No, no, no, it's okay.

I I I agree with you, uh, but uh I was there and I saw it and heard it.

Um it wasn't egregious, but yeah, I I think it it definitely um bothered um myself uh and you're the person that it occurred uh uh to think it does speak to the the need for more education and uh uh potential um uh uh outreach uh that we need to do uh more uh of uh with this uh service animals and acceptance.

So thank you for raising it.

Can I just sorry?

Can I just ask a clarifying question on that?

What because I don't it wasn't clear and I'm looking at was it city staff who were maybe not, or was it a private okay yeah, just wanted to clarify that.

Sorry, yeah, yeah, sorry.

Perhaps more information can be shared with the body, and is there anything that the city has to do uh so that we're clear on?

I'm sure Jeff's team would like to know what maybe during our one-on-ones we can just catch up on all perfect, thank you very much.

Um the last thing I just I meant to say this earlier during the Jedi plan, but I just wanted to specifically call out that it is my hope that the human rights commission will be involved in in the finalization of you know and implementation of the work plan for Jedi.

Uh it wasn't specifically called out in the report or our comments, so I just felt it would I would be remiss if I didn't say that.

Thank you.

Councilman Valeri.

On that on that note, um, also want to put a pin in.

Um we did not include veterans in as part of the the diversity equity inclusion that we want to see.

I think it's a community that um we could be doing a lot more and maybe do things better for.

So I I realized it after the fact, I was like, dang it, I forgot to mention that.

But um, I think it's a community, maybe that we do some sort of advisory group and similar to uh Mr.

City Manager.

I saw that there was a disability community um advisory group or something to that effect.

Um I think that you know nothing uh for us without us also applies to uh veterans as well.

So we may want to look at that sort of uh entity for them as well.

Thank you, colleagues.

I'll just note our next meeting is August 3rd, and it is virtual.

I wanted to just repeat that again.

It is a virtual meeting on August 3rd, in case anyone is interested in watching.

There can still be virtual community forum.

Is that right, uh Miss Sarah Taylor Farrell?

Absolutely.

Excellent.

So you can still be a part of community forum, but it will be virtual.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Councilmember Fulton.

I move to adjourn.

Do we have a second?

Councilman Valeri, seconds.

All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Thank you, staff, for the great presentations this evening.