2026-09-28 - Mayor and Council

00:00.00] Evening Rockville today is September 28, 2026 and we're convening meeting 22-26. [00:06.53] Please join me as you're able in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:28.91] Ms. Sarah Taylor-Farrell, we'd love to do a gender review. [00:38.06] Any changes? [00:41.04] Madam Mayor and Council members, there are no changes to the agenda for this evening. [00:45.79] Thank you, Mr. Mahalek, City Manager's Report. [00:49.40] Mayor Asher, members of City Council, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. [00:53.13] We're quite busy right now. [00:54.49] Just gonna rattle off a few things that we're engaged with while we're rolling out a whole [00:58.31] bunch of our new fall youth sports programs. [01:02.34] We're engaged with a number of city code updates, working diligently on our economic development [01:07.82] strategic plan, working on design plans for the farmstead and Redgate Park. [01:13.17] We're also identifying new city solar initiatives and working on public art projects on Lincoln [01:19.38] Park and Stavids Skull and we're prepping for the start of budget season. [01:23.82] Other than that, we have nothing going on, that's all I have here. [01:26.86] Thank you. [01:27.82] Just a few small things. [01:28.86] I just wanted to say thank you to staff for the range of events. [01:32.47] I know my colleagues and I have been out. [01:34.61] I think we may need some skates to get around to some of these events faster, but I wanna [01:39.93] acknowledge the Lincoln Park Community Center reopening and dedication was done on Friday. [01:45.27] It is the city's first solar installation, but there's also a lot of great features [01:49.65] in terms of reconfigured space to support the community and the STEM lab and many other [01:54.37] things. [01:55.37] So thank you to the team for that. [01:57.28] And also, we appreciate Rocktoberfest, the city supported and helped with the new ambulance [02:03.10] that the Rockville Volunteer Fire Department unveiled and we did a 250th anniversary time [02:08.71] capsule which will be opened in 50 years. [02:11.87] So we're sending messages to the future. [02:14.43] Thank you to your team for all that you're helping us to do. [02:19.23] We're now moving on to boards and commissions appointments and reappointments. [02:23.93] We have several, the compensation commission, education commission, environment commission, [02:28.98] Rockville Housing Enterprise, sister cities, ethics commission, and youth commission. [02:34.38] Let's start with the compensation commission, Councilmember Fulton. [02:47.30] I move to appoint [name] to serve an expiring for your term to the compensation [02:51.78] commission until December 31st, 2027. [02:55.36] Thank you. [02:56.35] Do we have a second? [02:57.90] Councilmember Jackson. [02:58.90] Second. [02:59.90] All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. [03:00.90] Aye. [03:01.96] It is unanimous. [03:03.66] Thank you. [03:04.66] Next, we move on to the education commission. [03:07.09] We have a new appointment. [03:08.03] Dr. Miles. [03:15.84] Thank you, Madam Mayor, for the education commission. [03:20.52] I'll submit the nomination of [name] for a new appointment to serve a one year [03:25.51] term. [03:26.49] I'm sorry. [03:28.47] Yes. [03:29.47] One year term as a youth representative until October 1st, 2027. [03:32.92] Thank you. [03:33.92] Do we have a second? [03:34.92] Councilmember Larry seconds. [03:35.92] All those in favor? [03:36.92] Please raise your hand and say aye. [03:37.92] Aye. [03:39.56] It's unanimous. [03:40.77] Thank you. [03:42.28] Next, we move to the environment commission. [03:43.28] Councilmember Van Graak. [03:44.28] Madam Mayor, I move to appoint [name] to a new appointment to the environment commission [03:49.07] to serve an expiring three year term until February 1st, 2029. [03:52.62] Excellent. [03:53.60] Thank you. [03:55.00] Do we have a second? [03:56.32] Councilmember Jackson seconds. [03:58.31] All those in favor? [03:59.31] Please raise your hand and say aye. [04:00.31] Aye. [04:01.21] It is unanimous. [04:02.57] Thank you. [04:05.55] Next, we have a reappointment for Rockville Housing Enterprise. [04:08.48] Councilmember Shaw. [04:10.12] Madam Mayor, I move to reappoint [name] for Rockville Housing Enterprise to serve [04:16.62] a three year term until May 1st, 2029 or 2828. [04:26.79] Sorry, there's an error. [04:29.98] Yeah, perfect. [04:32.08] Thank you. [04:34.48] Do we have a second? [04:35.48] Councilmember Fulton seconds. [04:37.12] All those in favor? [04:38.12] Please raise your hand and say aye. [04:39.12] Aye. [04:40.12] Excellent. [04:44.67] Thank you. [04:45.67] We now move to Sister Cities. [04:46.67] We have a reappointment nomination. [04:48.85] Councilmember Van Graak. [04:51.29] Madam Mayor, I move to reappoint [name] to the Sister Cities Corporation Inc. to serve [04:57.72] a three year term until September 1st, 2029. [05:02.00] Thank you. [05:03.00] Do we have a second? [05:04.57] Second. [05:05.57] Councilmember Jackson seconds. [05:06.57] All those in favor? [05:07.57] Please raise your hand and say aye. [05:08.76] Aye. [05:09.76] It is unanimous. [05:10.76] Yes. [05:13.30] Thank you very much. [05:15.61] Next, we have the Ethics Commission. [05:18.20] We have an appointment and a reappointment. [05:20.84] Councilmember Van Graak. [05:26.70] Madam Mayor, I move to reappoint [name] to the Ethics Commission to a new appointment [05:34.76] to serve an expiring three year term until June 1st, 2029. [05:38.38] And I also move to appoint [name] to the Ethics Commission to serve an expiring [05:45.04] three year term until June 1st, 2029. [05:48.69] Can we do that to December 1st, 2029? [05:50.53] Would you be okay to make that friendly amendment for [name]? [05:55.13] So which one is it? [05:56.81] Okay. [05:57.81] All right. [05:58.81] So I amend the second moving for [name] to the Ethics Commission serving an expiring [06:05.78] three year term until December 1st, 2029. [06:08.57] Thank you. [06:09.57] Councilmember Fulton seconds. [06:10.57] All those in favor? [06:11.57] Please raise your hand and say aye. [06:12.57] Aye. [06:13.57] Excellent. [06:15.36] Thank you. [06:16.36] Next, we have several nominations for the Youth Commission and reappointments. [06:20.36] Councilmember Valeri. [06:23.04] Madam Mayor, I move to reappoint [name] and [name] to the Youth Commission to [06:29.46] serve a one year term until October 1st, 2027. [06:34.14] And I also move to reappoint [name] and [name] to the Youth Commission [06:40.37] to serve a one year term until November 1st, 2027. [06:45.76] I also move to appoint [name] to the Youth Commission to serve a one year [06:50.46] term until October 1st, 2027. [06:54.02] And I move to appoint [name] and [name] to the Youth Commission to [07:00.93] serve a one year term until October 1st, 2027. [07:05.40] Thank you. [07:06.40] Councilmember Jackson seconds. [07:08.42] All those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. [07:11.42] Aye. [07:13.37] Excellent. [07:14.37] Thank you very much. [07:15.62] We'll now move to community forum. [07:23.92] This is a time to share ideas, questions, concerns with the mayor and council. [07:28.00] All persons, please address the mayor and council. [07:31.64] And we encourage you to speak in a civil and courteous manner. [07:34.82] And members of the audience, please also be respectful to each other. [07:38.61] Each person is allowed three minutes and we ask that you adhere to the three minutes [07:42.21] allowed. [07:43.33] There will be a time clock in front of you and you will hear an audible beep at the [07:46.53] end of your three minutes. [07:48.27] Please state your name and if you live in Rockville for the record. [07:55.45] First person to testify is [name]. [07:58.03] Welcome. [08:11.23] Hi, my name is [name] and I'm not a current resident of Rockville, but I have [08:16.78] been since I was 12 on and off. [08:20.10] So I've been here a long time. [08:22.18] I am here not just on behalf of my family and our situation, but now an entire community [08:29.71] through my fight over the past 16 months, I have come across so many other families [08:33.70] experiencing uninhabitable living conditions, unfair housing practices, inaccurate and illegal [08:42.03] bookkeeping practices, retaliatory evictions, and overall lack of appropriate response from [08:48.90] the departments within the city that are supposed to uphold the laws put in place to protect [08:53.10] the renters. [08:54.10] I know that as the mayor and council members, you have departments and seats within the [09:00.58] Rockville city government that you have delegated to uphold and enforce the regulations that [09:07.75] are written in the city code and laws. [09:11.06] I am here to say that their duties have been neglected and ignored when I spoke with you [09:16.45] guys earlier and I'll find out how to write a written request, but I am reiterating that [09:22.22] I would like a meeting, a follow-up meeting with you mayor and at least two other council [09:27.94] members to be able to show you my proof of these grievances. [09:35.14] I've loved Rockville city, I've been here forever. [09:37.74] There's always been help and Rockville preaches that and I'm telling you that it is not available [09:45.72] for these families, not the way that it should be. [09:50.57] The amount of low-income families is increasing daily and I personally saw five evictions [09:55.49] last week in my neighborhood alone. [09:58.49] You all need to know what is happening to the constituents in the city that you were [10:03.00] elected to represent. [10:05.47] All of these individuals, all of these are taking place within city limits, all while [10:10.50] rent stabilization isn't even being discussed in the Rockville city meetings after it was [10:15.80] passed in the county, July 18th, 2023. [10:19.32] The low income and I guess middle class, if that's still a thing, families across [10:24.28] the city need your help. [10:27.95] I know that I don't have many people here with me today, but I've talked to many people. [10:32.03] I have the information some of them are willing to share. [10:36.05] A lot of them are scared. [10:38.73] They need your help. [10:40.69] These families are being put on on the street because they're complaining about conditions [10:45.91] that are making their family sick. [10:49.17] Babies are getting scratched and bit by mice and then when they complain, they lose their [10:54.90] payments or say they've been too loud despite not having documents of any other complaints [11:02.20] and then evicting them. [11:03.53] I know that you guys don't have anything to do over Montgomery County courts and I'm [11:06.77] going to handle that somewhere else, but the eviction court over there is not set [11:11.20] up for renters to be protected. [11:17.58] Thank you. [11:18.68] Thank you for your testimony. [11:20.98] Welcome, [name]. [11:28.17] All y'all know me. [11:29.17] I don't think I have to introduce myself, but it's churches that I'm still here. [11:37.48] The fact that they said that they fixed our apartment, but now there's mold on the walls [11:44.95] again and in our closets that you guys still haven't done anything. [11:50.68] We are not going to stop fighting for our lives until you fix it correctly and we're [11:56.12] staying strong for our dead cat. [12:03.18] Welcome [name]. [12:05.51] Hi, my name is [name]. [12:13.53] I rent an apartment in a Rockville building and I got my first renewal lease this week and it spurred [12:23.58] me to get into action about that lease. [12:27.50] The first thing was being charged for HVAC. [12:31.31] Now I don't understand why I'm paying for the infrastructure of a building. [12:37.64] I paid electric. [12:39.80] I don't use my HVAC much because I don't like it. [12:44.12] I'm a radiator and window air conditioner kind of person, but I was floored when I [12:53.38] was told that we have to absorb the cost of a requirement to breathe in our building. [13:04.80] The other thing that goes along with that is the fact that windows may only be open [13:10.23] to four inches, I'm sure you're aware of that. [13:13.31] What floors me is the fact that people have terraces. [13:17.54] Now those have 42 inch gates on them and I don't understand where these two are equivalent. [13:30.95] I can't open up my windows to get air through my apartment, but if I had a terrace I could [13:40.92] open the door full. [13:43.02] So I really don't understand that kind of thinking. [13:47.02] It doesn't seem equivalent and I want to be able to open my windows. [13:52.50] Now I have the window guard lease addendum and as I read this, it's not the code but [13:58.70] it is what we're handed, it says nothing about requiring window guards if you don't have [14:08.33] children under the age of 10. [14:11.31] Not a word. [14:12.86] Not on this paper. [14:14.83] It says the landlord has to supply them but not that you have to have them if you don't [14:24.28] have children. [14:26.04] So I request that this be looked at. [14:30.12] I am very serious about having fresh air in my apartment and I don't want to pay for [14:35.68] forced air around the clock when I have a beautiful north and west windows that I can [14:44.02] get lots of air from. [14:46.00] The other problem is you have a two-year -- you can raise the rent on a two-year lease after [14:55.93] one year. [14:57.17] Why would anyone sign a two-year lease? [14:59.07] So maybe there's something that I'm missing about that and nobody ever offered me a two-year [15:05.01] lease but having read that, I wouldn't take one. [15:09.41] The other issue is the accessibility for this building. [15:23.44] Thank you. [15:25.98] Thank you. [15:39.44] I'm from Beale Avenue in Rockville here to speak to an aspect of the mayor and council [15:43.91] discussion at the close of the 24 Martins Lane hearing lately. [15:47.46] I mentioned the badly out of date city historic inventory may have contributed to this arisen [15:52.92] property situation. [15:54.79] If the inventory had been updated within 40 years, I imagine consideration this property [16:00.15] likely would have occurred more timely and not led to the recent situation where recognition [16:03.97] of the historic significance of this property was determined suddenly surprising a new property [16:08.99] owner with other intents. [16:11.38] Properties do not become historic overnight. [16:14.72] Situations emulating this bring out alarmed communities concerned for their cultural resources [16:18.68] and can ambush property owners that have rights. [16:21.68] Neither is a good situation and only one point of view can prevail. [16:26.37] Having a periodically updated historic inventory is an antidote to this dilemma and the city [16:31.17] administration has neglected action and funding for too long. [16:34.87] There is little stretch to periodically looking around the cityscape and assessing which properties [16:39.05] in the interim have a claim to historical significance. [16:42.73] Placing properties newly on historic inventory takes a little bit of regulatory courage [16:48.01] yet when doing so expresses community consensus intent such as acting with planning earnestness [16:52.81] and integrity. [16:53.81] The recent process for this property is an example of the hazard to or the lack of utility [16:59.86] when that inventory is out of date. [17:03.14] Commissioner Bembo of the HTC commented on this in the proceedings and councilmember [17:06.74] Fulton's first questioning how the circumstances got so bad and wishing not to repeat it is [17:11.02] addressed by this. [17:12.94] Also councilmember Valerio's point that she prefers a graded approach to historic significant [17:17.18] levels is partially addressed. [17:19.41] Having a more historic a more current historic inventory is a first rung on that ladder. [17:24.81] The mechanism to do this already exists but have been badly neglected. [17:29.10] How this should work is as properties become perceived as historic within the city they [17:33.38] should be enumerated on the inventory and a periodic update. [17:36.86] That does not assure action on them yet does two relevant things first calls attention [17:41.18] to them as candidates for preserving trading site awareness and perhaps impetus to document [17:45.50] and designate and second the list puts all on notice becoming a resource for owners [17:50.92] and prospective property buyers to discover existing sentiment to preserve letting them [17:55.72] decide if that's a plus or a minus at least they are informed transparently when they [18:00.41] do minor due diligence thus I encourage the mayor and council to advocate for and fund [18:05.11] an update to our city historic inventory it's long past time to do so and it's ostensibly [18:09.71] low hanging fruit the act of the city community individual neighborhoods or local history [18:14.88] advocates periodically revisiting the question of which properties do we consider historic [18:20.71] answering and recording it is the heart of the matter thank you thank you very much [18:26.42] is there anyone else who would like to speak thank you to all who testified today if you [18:37.78] would like to share information with us you don't have to do it at a podium you can email [18:41.22] us at Mayor Council at Rockville MD gov also another way to share your feedback is to [18:46.26] the community budget survey that's online and will close this week as well as the economic [18:50.74] development survey I also want to acknowledge that we've received written feedback we'll [19:02.59] now move on to our consent agenda we have several items nine a award a contract in [19:10.02] the form of a purchase order to the Mid-Atlantic truck and equipment of Clinton Maryland for [19:14.91] the purchase of one combination sewer cleaner truck in the amounts of six hundred and fifty [19:20.33] four thousand dollars and it's consistent with the carpet of purchase source well contract [19:25.53] zero two one seven two six as CA nine B ratify and approve the city manager to execute [19:32.50] Maryland energy administration FY 26 local government energy modernization program grant [19:37.62] agreements these are grants that support our climate action plan T authorization for [19:46.10] the city manager to execute amendment two to the grant agreement between the city and [19:49.70] Maryland energy administration for the street and outdoor light efficiency grant program [19:53.90] FY 2024 D resolution ratifying the adoption of the Jedi strategic plan and that is what [20:02.56] we have for today does anyone have any questions councilmember Valeri yeah Madam Mayor I have [20:09.94] a question on item B please proceed thank you this questions for the city manager as [20:19.35] I read it was this agreement already signed by your office or by yourself it was okay [20:28.58] is this an occurrence does this happen frequently I know that it seemed that there was a scheduling [20:36.15] issue if you could explain the context for me that would be really helpful it's rare [20:42.47] when we do that it's typically has to do with when a grant agreement has to be approved [20:47.01] per state regulations and that's the case here if we don't have a meeting every week [20:51.69] and we have a gap with the meeting because of holidays then I would go ahead and approve [20:55.92] it with the assumption that to be ratified by the mayor and council but it's on a very [21:00.94] rare occasion okay I appreciate that I think any way that we can get ahead of some of [21:07.87] these deadlines especially when there's money on the table is always a good thing so I [21:11.91] appreciate the info thank you thank you do we have a motion to approve a through D council [21:20.77] membersha Madam Mayor I move to approve consent agenda items a b c and d thank you do we have [21:29.05] a second council member Larry seconds all those in favor please raise your hand and [21:32.69] say aye it is unanimous thank you we'll now move on to a public hearing this public hearing [21:41.48] is focused on the FY 2028 community development block grant also known as CDBG funding I'd [21:55.90] like to welcome Jane Lyons rate or is she here with us all right yes I'm here virtually [22:01.13] perfect thank you very much Jane Lyons radar is our housing programs manager housing community [22:07.63] developments and panel participants by entrapped director of housing and community development [22:12.98] welcome Miss Lyons radar thank you very much Madam Mayor so yes we don't have a presentation [22:20.86] for you tonight before this public hearing but I'll briefly go over what this public [22:25.60] hearing is for which is to learn about community needs to inform the use of funds for the [22:32.01] community development block grant for FY 28 and this will be the city's 53rd year receiving [22:38.37] the federal grant as a sub grantee of Montgomery County and CDBG funds can be used for projects [22:45.29] that primarily benefit low and moderate income persons or neighborhoods recognizing the importance [22:51.23] of healthy quality housing the Department of Housing and Community Development currently [22:55.89] uses CDBG funds to support multi and single family housing rehabilitation projects for [23:01.74] example in the in FY 26 we will be or we are assisting projects with community reach [23:12.90] of Montgomery County habitat for humanity Metro Maryland Rockville housing enterprises [23:18.76] and five different single family homeowners and so as the staff report describes we expect [23:25.24] housing rehabilitation to continue to be an important community need due to high housing [23:30.32] cost within the city of Rockville funding application for CDBG FY 28 are due on October [23:37.64] 1st 2026 staff have held two info sessions for interested parties earlier this month [23:43.73] so we have been engaging potential applicants and that is all that I have to share thank [23:49.53] you thank you is there anyone who would like to speak about CDBG funding for this public [23:59.43] hearing I did hear some feedback from some community who have not been we're not able [24:07.35] to be here and I just said I'd share it don't need responses on the spot but one of the [24:13.58] comments that I received is some of our low-income communities some BIPOC communities have shared [24:20.04] that they're their homes have not been titled it's just been passed on and so they're not [24:27.58] eligible to qualify because the home is not in their name this is something that is not [24:32.91] unique to Rockville but has been an issue in communities across the United States communities [24:39.01] that don't have support on estate planning so I just wanted to share that has been a [24:43.69] challenge for some seniors particularly BIPOC and low-income seniors and I don't know if [24:49.42] there's something we can do about that if it's a requirement from the federal government [24:52.38] but I wanted to raise their concerns that were shared with me councilmember Larry yes [24:59.78] I have I have two questions do one my first question is do we have a sense of the single [25:08.42] family rehab dollars are we looking at an equitable distribution of these resources [25:18.36] are they concentrated in certain areas kind of from previous grant years are we ensuring [25:25.52] that these resources are equitably distributed to those in need yes that is certainly something [25:32.89] that we take into consideration although I think looking at where homes have been since [25:41.38] the program serves low and moderate income homeowners there are certain neighborhoods [25:46.24] that have a higher concentration of low and moderate income homeowners and so I think [25:50.64] looking at the data you would likely see that there's slightly more homes in certain neighborhoods [25:55.12] probably because of those larger demographic trends now that that makes sense thank you [26:00.77] and then my second question is could CDBG resources help owners of single family rentals [26:12.97] add cooling so the program would not be we are not able to use CDBG funds to assist [26:23.39] single family homes that are being rented so we would not be able to assist with that [26:27.56] but if it was a homeowner it would be eligible for adding cooling is an eligible rehab under [26:35.64] the program parameters yes something like an HVAC upgrade would certainly be within [26:41.26] the parameters thank you so much thank you I'll just note that several nonprofit providers [26:49.93] who we engage with the city have used this to restore and maintain quality housing for [26:55.89] some of those units and I know that this particular year there's some collaboration [27:01.16] with Habitat for Humanity for a new new homeownership and new builds so I appreciate the team's [27:06.95] creativity to support those efforts to expand affordable housing mr. chain library do you [27:14.41] want to say anything about the closing of this hearing I believe it will nothing for [27:20.31] me but thank you all right thank you all very much if you have any additional feedback [27:25.21] please let us know but we will consider this hearing now closed now moving on to agenda [27:33.70] item 11 a adoption potential adoption of the shady Grove Metro annexation plan petition [27:40.74] and next 2023 00147 and setting the public hearing date we welcome presenter Manisha [27:48.36] Tiwari who is the research and planning manager the community planning and development services [27:53.83] as well as panel panelist Evan Johnson director of community planning and development services [27:58.59] welcome thank you madam mayor and members of the council so I will for this presentation [28:18.39] I'll provide some project background we can you put the mic just a little bit closer [28:25.54] some of us are having trouble hearing thank you so much thank you so we'll be providing [28:31.77] a little bit of project background and discuss the next steps and actions related to the [28:37.05] annexation so for background Rockwell comprehensive plan was adopted in August of 2021 the municipal [28:50.78] growth element is a required element of the comprehensive plan where a municipality defines [28:59.81] its expansion limits within the municipal growth element as you know we also recommended [29:08.03] a proactive annexation approach where we would take action instead of reacting to an owner [29:15.45] initiated annexation for specific properties in the expansion limits and shady Grove metro [29:22.45] station was identified as one such key property on October 2023 the mayor and council introduced [29:35.04] the annexation of the remaining properties on both the east and the west side of the [29:42.30] station and the CSX railroad right-of-way property the total acreage of land proposed [29:50.91] for annexation at that time was approximately 107 acres the planning commission discussed [29:58.94] the annexation plan last year in February and held a public hearing on April 23rd 2025 [30:08.97] and recommended approval of the preliminary annexation plan the council discussed the [30:15.14] annexation and its related fiscal impacts at the work session in May of 2025 and decided [30:23.19] to delay the annexation to conduct further analysis on the public service impacts and [30:28.83] related cost on April 2026 the mayor and council discuss the annexation of the shady [30:37.22] Grove metro station again and directed staff to modify the annexation area and resume [30:44.39] the process of annexation with only the west side of the vamata property that includes [30:51.31] the shady Grove metro station we included the CSX land right-of-way in the annexation [30:59.41] area so that it provides a date adjacency to the east side should the mayor and council [31:06.85] like to reexamine the option in the future so here's a municipal growth element of the [31:21.65] comprehensive plan which identifies the shady Grove metro station as shown in red which [31:29.80] is a proactive annexation area and adjacent to the city limits and meets all the adjacency [31:37.03] and contiguity requirements for annexation here are the current conditions the red outline [31:51.05] shows the proposed annexation area the annexation include area includes the shady Grove metro [31:59.06] station the vamata rail railroad yard and where vamata will continue to conduct its [32:09.28] service operations if even if the land gets annexed into the city and there's a parking [32:14.75] ride lot there is also a daycare in that proposed area the daycare is owned by vamata [32:24.46] and leased by Montgomery County the property can be accessed through the metro access road [32:30.87] and also through summer well drive on the south from the south side the developable [32:39.12] parcels at this location that are not a part of the shady Grove rail yard the stream buffers [32:47.25] and other environmental features include approximately 15 acres of land so again the [33:06.33] annexation process is generally governed by state law state law requires that municipality [33:15.73] adopt an annexation plan that affirms that the annexation is consistent with the municipal [33:23.60] growth element of the comprehensive plan and that the municipality is able to provide services [33:32.27] the recommended zoning for this property is mixed use transit district 235 which is consistent [33:40.61] with the land use recommendation of OCRM which is office commercial residential mix [33:48.94] as recommended in the comprehensive plan the zone permits high density development [33:54.96] of retail office and residential uses near the metro station that are consistent with [34:01.09] the city's comprehensive plan the annexation plan as included for adoption needs to be [34:09.58] sorry needs to in general determine if the city is able to provide public services to [34:19.27] the property the public services include services not only provided by the city but [34:26.69] also by other entities like water and sewer services like which WSS provides for this [34:35.66] property and there are certain county services that are also will be provided by the county [34:42.80] such as the fire and emergency services so at the current time we don't have our development [34:51.97] plan for this project but in general the city can provide these services as outlined [34:58.33] in the annexation plan and when we do have a development plan the city's adequate public [35:05.71] facilities ordinance and provides analysis is completed during the site development [35:12.37] review which determines the services that are needed at that time for the site plan [35:22.97] and the development is generally not allowed to proceed if the service if the services [35:28.85] are not provided at that time so the state law requires that the mayor and council adopt [35:44.27] the annexation plan and like I noted earlier the planning commission reviewed the annexation [35:52.23] plan at the meeting last year they held a public hearing and it was determined that [35:58.50] the proposal is consistent with the city's municipal growth element the proposed mixed [36:04.20] use transit district zoning designation is appropriate and the city has the capacity [36:09.72] to provide public services therefore we suggest that the mayor and council move to adopt [36:21.00] two resolutions you approve the resolution adopting the shady grow metro station annexation [36:27.28] plan which was included as attachment one and the mayor and council also approve a [36:34.60] resolution to set the public hearing date by the annexation which was included as attachment [36:41.61] to here is the proposed schedule with the key next step on November 16 you are scheduled [36:52.88] to hold a public hearing on the annexation and on December 7 you're scheduled to adopt [37:00.54] the annexation resolution and introduce the ordinance to amend the zoning map to include [37:07.72] the annex properties you could also adopt the ordinance to amend the zoning map to include [37:12.95] the annex property if you waive the labor period however if you want to move faster [37:20.49] we could combine the actions on December 7 and have them on November 16 so you would [37:30.94] just need to hold the public hearing here testimony closer record and then do the remaining [37:38.42] resolutions so that concludes my presentation and so we need three action items from you [37:48.82] adopt the annexation plan with the resolution adopt the resolution for the public hearing [37:55.44] date and let us know if you would like to combine the schedule so can have all the [38:03.32] actions completed on November 16 and if you do so on November 16 you adopt the annexation [38:09.67] resolution the annexation is effective 45 days after the annexation resolution is adopted [38:17.56] so this metro station could become a part of the city end of December December 31st [38:32.14] thank you thank you very very much for this presentation I know several of my colleagues [38:38.30] are very very excited about this this was discussed in the comprehensive plan it was [38:45.17] updated in October 2023 this body took efforts to really explore and be methodical about [38:51.70] this annexation process your team did so much research even looking at making sure that [38:58.85] were properly resourced with Rockville City Police Department to make sure this happened [39:02.57] so just there's so much homework in history in this one project but it supports our economic [39:09.39] growth it supports housing but also it supports some of the issues we've heard from residents [39:14.56] and thinking about safety and how do we create a connected community to support transit right [39:21.56] so also our vision zero and climate action goal so this is a big win for the city if [39:27.98] we can move this forward and just want to open say thank you so much from the very [39:32.18] bottom of our hearts and our minds this really hits a lot of the goal so I will lead with [39:37.48] that I want to just go down the line and see if we have any questions about this project [39:43.50] I will say that I believe I've heard from some folks that streamlining is great if [39:47.98] we can get this done faster and appreciate your proactive recommendation on how to do [39:52.66] that councilmember miles thank you Madam Mayor echo your comments and thanks to staff and [40:00.97] to my colleagues for getting us to this point I'm ready to move forward I have no other [40:06.07] comments or questions at this moment and the thumbs up comes with Larry yes thank you I [40:18.16] support this I do prefer the two separate dates having the public hearing on in November [40:25.45] and then the December approval I think it makes sense so that if there is testimony [40:30.48] that's provided we can be thoughtful and use that input to inform our final decisions [40:36.34] so absolutely agree with this I just would want to keep the schedule that we saw in the [40:42.89] slide in the presentation thank you so much normally I do fully support us operating [40:49.69] out the public hearing but I will just say because we have had this discussion and this [40:56.19] has been out in the community I do support streamlining but I really appreciate the [40:59.91] essence in the commentary because I do believe that we should be given time after public [41:04.48] hearings but for this one given the length of the years of this project I'm interested [41:09.92] in moving it forward I do want to just ask the question of we are currently in group [41:18.04] three which is a progress from where we were on Ramada's list of development projects for [41:27.32] all of our stations how do we continue to move to group two and one because this is [41:33.53] just the plan until we get you know there's a certain element of we have to engage with [41:37.49] them and then can you also just say it is my understanding that Ramada is also open [41:42.37] to unsolicited proposals as well so if you could just share about that process and how [41:47.17] can we help make this a reality thank you Mary it's a fair question gosh a couple years [41:53.11] ago council made it clear to us that whatever we can do to bring in all three of the metro [41:58.59] stations to a place where they can be developed was crystal clear guidance from this body [42:04.63] since that time we've done a number of different things including adopted some master plans [42:10.66] transit oriented development we've had multiple really good sessions with Ramada and yes [42:15.97] all three stations even the one that's not even in the city yet is starting to move [42:19.63] its way up the process there's nothing more you can do at this point other than annex [42:25.40] this property into the city continue to provide clear direction to me which I have to work [42:31.06] with Ramada to make sure that we can move forward and you're absolutely right Ramada [42:35.62] is interested now in taking in some unsolicited proposals so we'll explore those routes and [42:41.06] we'll do what we can but these all three stations that are either in the city or about [42:45.18] to be in the city now have moved up and Ramada is very interested in partnering with us [42:49.81] on joint development proposals thank you so much and I'll acknowledge that it was previously [42:55.91] a no go and then moved to five and now three so there's progress but I we're going to [43:00.70] get to two and then one and I know several of us have also spoken to Maryland State to [43:08.39] help to try to you know share our enthusiasm given some of the housing goals from the [43:14.07] state as well so thank you for continuing to do that I know that you have a train team [43:17.94] dedicated to to moving we did get some feedback on this has been discussed 20 years how we're [43:22.84] going to go from planet implementation our intention is to do that is to bring that [43:26.87] housing economic development mixed-use transit-oriented support thank you councilman Jackson thank [43:33.81] you mayor so I will actually echo many of the comments of the mayor I think that we [43:40.88] have done deep dive but the council and the city staff into and I've seen the the Metro [43:48.75] and I support the kind of streamlining and moving it up if we can I just would say this [43:56.95] has been a long time coming and I know that you know I've been pounding on the city manager [44:04.59] for the Metro Drive you know that the streetlights the crosswalks the sidewalks and this is [44:14.63] a big step and you know taking that on and making it usable and not really as murky or [44:27.92] dangerous is not the right word but somewhat you know perilous situation the one thing [44:36.58] that do want to mention and this is key is the transfer station and having that discussion [44:46.31] with the county sooner rather than later because the transfer station is right next [44:53.01] to the next property or the property that we're talking about and they're talking [44:58.93] about changes to the transfer station that might impact the development of housing or [45:06.37] whatever we decide will be put on the property so I know that we have a work session later [45:16.22] in the month but if we could could move that up however we can because I think that they're [45:22.40] going to be voting or they they have said they want to vote on November the first I'm [45:27.67] not sure that's right but if it is I don't want to miss out on weighing in and making [45:33.76] sure that the the spells the building noise and where they put the building the events [45:44.02] processing facility might have an impact on the development so for all those reasons [45:51.68] I hope that we can move that up and have that conversation because we're going to [45:55.16] be annexing that soon hopefully and we we we would be remiss if not have that conversation [46:01.33] with the county on what they're going to do with a transfer station this may help I [46:05.72] hear you have an answer for that councilmember Jackson we've invited the county to the October [46:10.61] 5th meeting a week from tonight and they've accepted so they'll be here excellent thank [46:15.99] you councilmember Shaw I want to echo my colleagues comments and thank staff for all [46:25.21] the work that you've done on this and I know it's been a long time coming so I greatly [46:28.97] appreciate this and as my colleague shared I strongly support the annexation as annexation [46:35.37] plan and this aligns with our housing goals as well as our transit goals economic development [46:43.90] goals and I also support streamlining to ensure that we can annex this as quickly as [46:51.01] possible so thank you thank you councilman van gregg like the others thank you to staff [46:59.38] and in addition to thank you for all the work you're doing on this annexation plan [47:04.09] I know that I talked about and we talked about other annexation of properties to potential [47:08.91] offset some of the costs and I know that staff has been I guess I would say incredibly [47:15.76] diligent in working through that process meeting with and talking with property owners [47:22.87] throughout the city and I know that's kind of going on its own separate track but even [47:27.59] if it's on its separate track I know no pun intended we're going down the same track [47:32.75] direction to help the city so I know that is actually been a tremendous around of work [47:38.35] and over the past year and so I want to thank the staff for that I also support the streamlining [47:44.29] this process I think at least for the time being it seems like one hearing is satisfactory [47:51.30] if it appears that we need more you know certainly but I also want to encourage residents [47:56.65] to write into us with regard to thoughts I also just had a few questions that I want [48:01.85] to clarify one and I understand there have been a couple different staff reports on this [48:06.31] issue am I correct to understand that as this plan would go forward we are not anticipating [48:13.03] any further additions to the Rockville City Police Department at this time for us to go [48:18.43] forward we're out we have a we have a full complement of police staff we do not need [48:23.99] to add staff at annex the center great another question I just want to clarify is with regard [48:30.56] to CSX because another was language clarifying that they're not going to object does everything [48:36.10] that we've received from CSX show that we're not going to have any concerns with regard [48:40.96] to the standard that we need to meet with regard to CSX and the annexation of their [48:45.78] property yes we have received a letter from CSX and we did a follow-up letter as well [48:53.99] so according to our city attorney that suffices as a requirement for the annexation excellent [49:02.81] so as far as I'm concerned this is this is fantastic streamlining this is an absolute [49:07.97] wonderful idea and staff fantastic work on putting it all together thank you mr. Miller [49:17.39] I believe that we also authorized two overhires in the police department which is already [49:22.07] in play with this in mind is that correct sure people understand from a public safety [49:27.72] perspective we were anticipating those that's correct okay thank you and I want to echo [49:33.13] the comments on the transportation concerns because smells have an impact as well as the [49:42.17] trash trucks I think there may be something like 40 additional trucks a 80 80 trips and [49:51.03] that's where we are now we'll see what happens when the population grows so I just want [49:55.42] to make sure that is something we can highlight as well I know that the council requested [50:00.60] the work session I want to say thank you for moving it up it was previously scheduled [50:03.38] for October 26 so I think having it earlier is better thank you councilman van crack [50:10.76] presuming there's no more comments from my colleagues I would move to adopt the annexation [50:15.48] plan with a resolution for the wamata owned shady Grove metro station and a portion of [50:20.64] the CSX transportation Inc property a and X 2 0 2 3 - 0 0 1 4 7 thank you do we have [50:31.32] a second councilmember Shaw seconds all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye [50:35.71] thank you councilmember Larry Madam Mayor I move to adopt the public hearing resolution [50:42.62] approved on October 23 2023 to set the public hearing date for shady Grove Metro annexation [50:49.42] plan petition a and X 2023 - 0 0 1 4 7 thank you councilmember van crack seconds yes all [51:00.48] those in favor please raise your hand and say aye aye thank you so I think we also [51:05.18] talked about we had four for the streamline approach okay so we will update the schedule [51:10.96] excellent thank you is there anything else that staff needs from the mayor and council [51:16.67] all right moving we're moving on the train fun intended thank you so much for all you [51:22.75] work on this and just for the listening public there are two and excitations in process [51:26.83] in the city one at Westmore and this one and as my colleagues have shared we've asked [51:32.09] staff to go broader and see who else wanted to be in the city as we're going through this [51:36.79] process thank you for that we're now moving on to agenda item 11 be introduction ordinance [51:47.74] of an ordinance to repeal and replace the Rockville City code chapter 21 streets roads [51:53.47] rights of way and public improvements and discussion of chapter 21 and the city transportation [51:58.59] regulations welcome Sean Murphy who is principal engineer in public works as well as panelists [52:04.83] James lapping engineer supervisor and James wood wood James wood acting director of public [52:11.59] works thank you madam mayor members of council my name is Sean Murphy I'm a principal civil [52:24.54] engineer with the Department of Public Works and tonight for your consideration staff are [52:31.23] proud to introduce an ordinance to replace chapter 21 of the city code and to request [52:40.60] mayor and council take certain action tonight to progress that adoption staff will also [52:47.54] be presenting changes to the CTR and that is separately approved by resolution staff [52:55.45] are not asking for any action to be taken at this time the purpose of this work session [53:01.70] will provide a brief overview of the draft code and regulations to affirm what previous [53:10.41] direction for mayor and council has been incorporated into the draft and to discuss any additional [53:16.28] feedback that you might have at this time so I'll go through just briefly the the chapter [53:28.33] by article this time and pointing out the major topics that were discussed at the previous [53:36.40] work session work session where there's fall in in certain articles what I would suggest [53:44.68] is to go through all of the chapter 21 articles to pause and have discussion at that time [53:52.96] before we ask for for you to take action we'll then move on to the CTR section after that [54:07.98] since we last met with you at the end of July the chapter 21 and CTR proposals were [54:16.65] presented in a similar fashion to the mayor and council work session to both our transportation [54:24.09] and mobility commission and separately through a virtual community meeting our plan is to [54:33.26] return at the at your request to hold a public hearing in October the transportation and [54:42.17] mobility commission have recently received the draft texts they've started their review [54:48.98] and staff will return to TMC on October 27th to receive their their formal comments and [54:57.21] recommendations so moving through the draft ordinance starting with the the first article [55:11.38] just general so the entire code was rewritten to to make administrative updates it's been [55:20.63] a while since this code was open so we want to make all those changes that need to be [55:24.95] made try and consolidate and reorganize the text we added a purpose statement to contextualize [55:33.15] the code and to make direct references to city master plans and transportation policies [55:42.26] at our last work session mayor and council supported the topics on private streets the [55:50.92] easement approval process and flexibility and primary access to single-family residential [55:58.82] units article one also establishes the standards and specifications and so as the code gets [56:08.55] updated those standards and specs will get updated as well one of the the biggest comments [56:16.30] that we heard from you all from TMC was in reference to accessibility requirements and [56:24.69] so the US Access Board has published guidelines public right-of-way accessibility guidelines [56:32.06] what we refer to as pro-ag and so it's a staff's intent to to reference those in chapter [56:39.64] 21 and again to implement those through DPW standards and specifications the other topic [56:55.04] we talked about was an administrative approval process for easements staff expanded on that [57:04.18] idea to also include the acquisition of any property be it an easement or a right-of-way [57:14.57] so that's included under article one you'll see that there's a two hundred fifty thousand [57:19.91] dollar limit as to how that could be approved administratively we've taken our cue from [57:25.92] chapter 17 of the code again our intent is to streamline process but in no way would [57:33.48] with this administrative approval limit mayor and council's authority we also heard from [57:40.39] mayor and council about providing providing them with updates as properties as easements [57:48.18] or rights-of-way are required and so providing you all with a report on a recurring basis [57:55.05] to let you know what's been acquired through that through that administrative process [58:01.59] I also want to note that previously staff had asked for feedback on the abandonment [58:08.16] of existing city easements again being subject to mayor and councils approval only and in [58:17.08] our discussions with the city attorney's office rather than making that a code provision [58:22.71] it will be clearly covered by the legal requirements of the easement documents themselves so it's [58:29.76] not included in this in this draft of chapter 21 the other big topic that we talked about [58:40.30] was private streets and that they could be acceptable for new development under four [58:48.84] scenarios those include residential alleys non-residential campuses a complex of two [58:56.93] or more apartment buildings and in limited circumstances in a mixed use zone where that [59:06.62] developer can meet specific conditions demonstrating that that street needs to be private for [59:13.36] reasons for closings for events for example so again chapter 21 would is being clarified [59:24.35] to clearly apply to private streets as has been our practice to allow private streets [59:31.27] under those four scenarios and to only apply to new streets the classification and ownership [59:40.17] of any existing street at the time of adoption would remain as is the primary access requirements [59:53.33] for single family single unit detached townhouse or multiplex residential [60:00.03] We also want to provide flexibility rather than requiring a street in a wider right-of-way. [60:17.47] We also want to provide flexibility rather than requiring a street in a wider right-of-way. [60:31.76] We would allow a shared driveway where access to two or more record lots for single family [60:40.24] uses is less than 150 feet. [60:44.06] Again, both of these changes are in line with the recently adopted zoning ordinance to accommodate [60:57.54] more housing development. [61:05.91] This next article talks about permits, the city's requirements for developers or any [61:14.20] construction to obtain a permit from the department. [61:19.26] Mayor and Council had previously supported allowing private improvements in rights-of-way [61:25.50] and to approve of those through an administrative process. [61:31.49] This would include requiring not just a permit but a license and maintenance agreement that [61:40.06] stipulates who is responsible for the ownership and maintenance of those private improvements. [61:50.03] The code would allow private improvements for temporary improvements that might be related [61:56.20] to construction for permanent amenities that are associated with a development plan or [62:05.20] for permanent improvements associated with a single family residence. [62:12.46] The streetscape amenities that we talked about, these could include a variety of items, [62:17.42] EV charging stations, bicycle racks, outdoor dining and seating, any number of options [62:25.21] that improve that streetscape. [62:29.45] Again, the code would add that requirement to execute the right-of-way agreement for [62:38.46] any private improvements that are allowed. [62:42.87] There were also made under this article just some edits to the requirements for bonds, [62:48.87] for permit conditions, all of the administrative aspects of issuing a permit. [62:56.59] We also took a look at our violation and enforcement section, again, minor administrative [63:03.66] updates to more closely follow the city's infraction and zoning enforcement process. [63:15.68] Article 3 talks about the construction of new streets. [63:25.06] Because Chapter 21 would codify private improvements and private streets, this article is similarly [63:32.79] updated to allow for those private improvements. [63:39.21] The administrative edits would make it clear what is being authorized for public use, [63:46.90] what's being accepted by the city for ownership and maintenance, and what is being approved [63:52.89] under the permit and will be owned and maintained privately by the owner. [64:05.16] Article 4 talks about the design of streets. [64:10.91] When we talked last, Mayor and Council, we heard your support for alternatives to the [64:18.76] dead end of streets, and so allowing a turnaround instead of the traditional cul-de-sac or [64:26.99] allowing continuation through public access easements. [64:35.74] We also talked about allowing, by exception, short dead-end alleys, where that alley is [64:43.05] only providing access to, say, three or four townhouse units only. [64:52.56] At the request of developers and as supported by Mayor and Council, staff have proposed [64:57.96] code to allow balconies and other features on a building to project into a public right-of-way. [65:07.72] And so, staff have coordinated with multiple departments to come up with some standards [65:17.75] to ensure the protection of and the adequate maintenance access of any public infrastructure [65:27.67] below those projections. [65:31.20] Those protections would still allow for street trees, again, any utilities to be underneath [65:40.50] those projections. [65:45.38] We also heard Mayor and Council's support to change our street classification procedures [65:51.63] to simplify and streamline that by administrative process, and, again, based on separately established [65:59.61] zoning maps and adjacent land uses. [66:10.39] The waiver section of Article 4 has been looked at pretty extensively, and so staff have [66:20.42] built on that administrative waiver process for certain dead ends, and we've expanded [66:28.41] that to include limited administrative approval of waivers that are more technical or typical [66:36.68] of urban and infill development conditions. [66:41.62] This would include, for example, the slope of a road or a sidewalk, which the grade, [66:51.64] they would allow for waivers for drainage standards and for sidewalks on service drives [67:01.68] to allow, again, administrative approval if those sidewalks can be combined with other [67:07.82] facilities that might exist on the through street. [67:18.29] Staff also want to more formally approve through administrative waiver dry utilities [67:24.63] that encroach into a right-of-way and to approve adjustments to road sections that would not [67:33.50] otherwise narrow the overall right-of-way or pavement width. [67:38.52] Any reduction to right-of-way or pavement width remains a Mayor and Council approval [67:44.15] for any waiver. [67:49.16] Finally, staff propose to prohibit new one-way streets unless approved by Mayor and Council [67:59.19] through the waiver process. [68:01.93] One-way streets prohibiting one-way streets would allow for improved traffic circulation [68:09.09] and road safety. [68:11.57] Again, any existing streets would remain as is. [68:27.19] In updating DPW's standards and specifications, we've considered all of our typical street [68:35.52] sections with consideration for our transportation policies, for Vision Zero, for complete streets, [68:46.45] for right-of-way accessibility, and we propose revisions to some of the minimum width requirements [68:54.16] that are established directly by code. [68:59.16] To try and summarize these bullets here on this slide, essentially, the changes will [69:05.09] support the buffer widths necessary for street trees, would provide for minimum five-foot [69:13.90] public sidewalks in support of accessibility, and some road sections have a requirement [69:19.46] for wider sidewalks than that. [69:25.37] Also, the adjustments include consideration of travel lanes to try and support slowing [69:33.06] traffic depending on the road classification. [69:44.04] To address some of the new provisions under the zoning ordinance, Mayor and Council supported [69:48.88] creating a new standard for emergency access drives. [69:55.10] Through some of the earlier work session meetings, we heard community feedback on the emergency [70:01.06] access drives, and DPW will develop our standards and specifications for that section to specifically [70:08.88] require barricades or reduce pavement widths to physically restrict unauthorized vehicle [70:17.66] access. [70:24.77] Finally, the street closing article, we heard Mayor and Council's support for administratively [70:32.67] approving temporary road closings, but that staff would provide Mayor and Council with [70:42.54] the transparency of any long-term closures, and we would also, just to clarify, that [70:54.70] the application to close a street, temporary or permanently, could be made by any person, [71:02.83] whether it's a resident or even the city itself, and so I want to pause here before [71:15.69] we take action on Chapter 21 to allow for any questions you might have on what's been [71:22.51] presented so far. [71:23.77] Thank you very much for the comprehensive overview. [71:26.62] I know that this is not the first time this has come to Mayor and Council. [71:29.50] I do want to thank you for reaching out and meeting with the Transportation Mobility Commission. [71:34.55] I know you've also built in another round of feedback after that, which is something [71:37.79] that the entire -- most members of the Mayor and Council requested to make sure that we're [71:41.65] getting feedback from the commissions, as well as the committees. [71:45.96] I'm going to start on this side to see if you have any questions. [71:49.84] Yeah, thank you for this comprehensive review. [71:52.72] This is needed, it's really part of implementation where a lot of the down and dirty issues about [71:59.57] how we're going to get through what we need to within, you know, access, transportation, [72:05.85] pedestrian, so really appreciate all the hard work on this. [72:08.97] A couple questions that I have a little bit more narrowed, and I know that this is kind [72:14.13] of the first time we're getting into this, so this can be some of the stuff that we [72:18.46] can get back to. [72:19.46] I know that when we're talking about the remedies and the appellate ability to challenge decisions, [72:26.99] and I know there's an issue of there's an appellate process for enforcement remedies, [72:31.99] but what about if an administrative waiver is denied? [72:36.56] Is that interpreted as being part of the enforcement remedy's appeal, or do we need [72:42.25] to adjust that? [72:43.25] And I'm kind of comparing Section 2125 with 2141. [72:50.37] I mean, if staff's interpreting it differently, I just want to know, or do we need a more [72:55.27] broadened definition? [72:56.22] That's actually a really good question. [72:58.66] We'll circle back, unless the attorney has something. [73:01.16] As soon as Nick Dumé should be on, he may be able to address this. [73:09.38] Sure, thanks for the question, Councilmember Van Grack. [73:14.08] So any administrative, as you know, certainly, but for the record and the rest of the body, [73:18.78] any administrative decision has an automatic right of appeal under the Maryland Rules [73:23.84] of Procedure, but you're correct. [73:25.92] We did not include that expressly in Chapter 21. [73:30.72] So we focused on the remedies available to somebody subject to an enforcement action, [73:35.60] not sort of general remedies for an administrative decision. [73:39.12] So we can certainly look to add that into the code to make it clearer to folks. [73:43.04] Well, so is that is then, and I think you've then answered my question, are you saying [73:48.00] for the administrative remedy, we're going directly to the Maryland state law enforcement [73:54.00] of an administrative decision, which would bring us to the court system? [73:57.64] Or are we saying that there's another preferred intro city of Rockville Avenue? [74:05.38] We have flexibility as a municipality to add an intermediate step in the appeals process. [74:13.50] Candidly having done a few of these over the years, I think it would probably make [74:17.26] most sense for a final decision, whether it was administratively issued or a waiver [74:23.38] issued by the mayor and council to just go straight to the circuit court. [74:28.09] But of course, the mayor and council could say, no, you know, we would like to kind [74:31.01] of be essentially, you know, review a decision that is appealed of the decision of the city [74:38.37] manager or the director of public works. [74:42.15] I just wouldn't recommend it. [74:43.38] I mean, I think that the circuit court is well equipped to handle administrative appeals. [74:47.60] So if you're comfortable with administrative decisions at all as a final kind of a final [74:52.46] decision making authority, I think it's fair for that to go straight to the circuit court. [74:56.06] Well, no, I'm fine with that. [74:57.62] I just wanted to clarify. [74:58.62] So we're saying that administrative waiver is the final decision from the city, which [75:02.66] is going to go directly to the court system. [75:04.23] Yes. [75:05.58] Perfect. [75:06.58] Okay. [75:07.58] That addresses my concern fully. [75:08.58] So thank you. [75:10.37] Other question I had is with regard to emergency access. [75:13.57] I know there's a whole section. [75:15.13] You've heard us talk about certain areas of the city where there's emergency access [75:18.37] only, um, and I was wondering whether, cause I know we touch on it a bit and we're planning [75:24.36] to touch on it in detail within the road code. [75:27.12] Is there a chance that we can get into a little bit more detail? [75:30.56] Cause I know we've heard from residents, there's issues with regard to some of these [75:34.02] emergency access with regard to what type of blockage is allowed from the city. [75:39.28] Who has access to those areas and what standards we're going to put in with regard to access. [75:45.84] And I know we get into some of that, but I've heard some concerns from residents with [75:50.16] regard to the specificity that could be interpreted, I guess more broadly. [75:56.57] Is that something that you think in kind of the next drafts, we can get into a little [76:00.49] bit more clarity and specificity? [76:02.37] Yeah. [76:07.50] I think, um, getting into that, the specifics of the requirements, uh, through development [76:11.85] of a detail. [76:12.84] Uh, so staff will take a look at, um, developing that before, uh, before we meet with you next. [76:19.63] That's great. [76:20.63] Cause I think that's definitely something that it can perfectly be quick clarified just [76:24.63] cause the last thing I want to do is having someone misinterpret it, especially when we're [76:28.03] dealing with emergency access areas. [76:30.99] Um, so with regard to the, um, you were talking about the access and right to closings, um, [76:45.44] how are we looking potentially here with regard to temporary closure or other pro more permanent [76:52.94] closure that differs into this code versus how we have it now? [76:59.67] So the, uh, the temporary closure, um, would be limited, um, uh, the permanent closure [77:08.62] section is, is really more for the, uh, the, the closing at the abandonment of that right [77:14.26] of way. [77:15.58] Uh, I think, um, limiting closures to, to a couple of years, um, I guess it all depends [77:22.36] on the, uh, the reason for the request, um, could be made, uh, through the temporary [77:29.30] closure, um, section, I guess, what I'm getting at a little bit is I know we've heard some [77:35.38] concerns from members of the public or mostly businesses with regard to some temporary [77:39.38] closures and I just want to make sure we're not making it more difficult for businesses [77:44.30] or communities with regard to temporary closures of streets for whether it's events, businesses [77:49.46] or temporary uses. [77:50.46] And no, I think, uh, having that administrative approval process makes it a lot easier rather [78:00.61] than having to establish a resolution to close the street. [78:05.47] That that's my interpretation as well. [78:08.07] Um, um, I know that's three, I know I've got my colleagues who have a couple more [78:10.87] questions, but, um, thank you for really all your work and really getting into the [78:15.63] details. [78:18.77] I also want to thank staff for your work. [78:20.57] Um, I strongly support this update, um, and I, it, um, it does align with our, um, environmental [78:29.24] goals, pedestrian safety, as well as our economic development. [78:33.79] And so, uh, no questions at this time. [78:37.17] Thank you, Councilmember Jackson. [78:38.17] Wow. [78:39.39] We're going to be quick. [78:41.02] I echo my colleague, uh, Councilmember Shaw, um, thank you for your work. [78:46.26] I know this is a major undertaking and, uh, it's really very thorough and I think it's [78:52.44] going to be a great addition. [78:57.80] Thank you very much for, again, the detailed overview. [79:00.82] I have a few questions. [79:02.98] One is, I want to thank you for listening to our feedback on the balconies, um, that [79:07.26] was really about creating opportunity for air, uh, and for folks to get outside. [79:12.68] We really heard that during COVID. [79:14.24] So I know that there was initial, we can't have balconies over the public right away, [79:18.02] but you really did listen and came back with some, um, creative strategies on how we can [79:22.28] do that while also protecting our right away. [79:24.40] So thank you for that. [79:26.20] Um, some of this work is also going to streamline the review processes. [79:30.66] How much time do you think we're saving? [79:32.18] I know for site plans where, and you know, some projects with the ZOR and the FAST, [79:38.01] we moved from like 18 months to potentially six months, but what does this do to take [79:44.18] us to the next level? [79:45.18] Yeah, I think certainly the, uh, administrative waiver process, uh, is a huge help. [79:51.71] Uh, the other improvement would be, uh, streamlining the, uh, easement approval process. [79:57.58] Both of those previously, uh, currently require, uh, mayor and council, um, consent. [80:03.12] Uh, so saving, saving a few months, you know, here and there, uh, will be a huge help. [80:09.68] So it sounds like it's, uh, very detailed transportation, but it actually was also [80:14.76] supporting economic development and potentially speeding up new housing that may come online. [80:20.00] So I just wanted to, to tie that, um, not for the one-way streets. [80:26.33] I know I asked a question about this, does that doesn't conflict with our housing goals, [80:30.89] correct? [80:31.89] I just want to make sure we're not inadvertently harming any projects that, um, now that we [80:37.25] would have only, we wouldn't allow one-way streets and there is limited land. [80:41.69] If you could just please speak to that. [80:43.45] Yeah, I'll just say broadly, you know, when we did the ZOR and did the road code right [80:48.28] after we intentionally made sure that if we did something in the ZOR and then the road [80:52.52] code, it didn't accidentally then, um, put us behind with affordable housing. [80:58.19] So no, it doesn't, mayor. [80:59.19] I think it actually provides more flexibility, which provides more opportunities for affordable [81:03.37] housing. [81:06.03] And I know we're changing some rules here. [81:07.79] Is there anything we're doing that will potentially harm something that is already in process? [81:12.75] Uh, so just, I just want to think if we're, if there are new rules and requirements, [81:17.65] is there anything that we have to just be mindful of on that front? [81:20.33] Again, I think it's just, just the opposite. [81:22.90] This provides more flexibility if something's already in process, they'll use existing [81:26.32] code, not the new code. [81:28.08] Okay. [81:29.08] Thank you. [81:31.55] Uh, the other thing is we've heard from the Transportation Mobility Commission, the importance [81:35.51] of, uh, thinking about, uh, supporting disability in PORAG. [81:40.69] Can you explain how we're going to build in the commitment to PORAG in this work? [81:46.21] Hey, good evening, mayor and council, I'll take that question. [81:51.25] Um, I think it's really important that we acknowledge the objective of the code. [81:58.01] We included a purpose statement, which now references, uh, all modes of transportation [82:04.17] and our, our commitment to improving accessibility. [82:07.55] Um, we, we now are recommending and including a specific reference to the PORAG in the [82:14.96] code. [82:16.15] And then also through a variety of different methods, adopting the PORAG standards through [82:21.41] our standards and specifications, which will make that the city's policy and requirement [82:27.91] for all new development to adhere to the PORAG. [82:30.97] And then also as we perform our own rehabilitation of city streets, we will also be implementing [82:37.15] the standards of PORAG. [82:38.99] So this is a true commitment to improving accessibility in our community, both through [82:45.56] the adoption of the code, but also through our, the, the, the publication of standards [82:50.34] and specifications that reflect that commitment. [82:52.48] Thank you very much. [82:54.58] And I know we'll get specific feedback from the transportation ability commission, our [82:58.36] pack and our back, as you implement some of those updates so that we can, um, see that [83:04.36] embedded before we finally approved, um, back to the one way piece, I just wanted to note [83:09.28] there was something in the comprehensive plan, um, that made reference to one way streets [83:14.29] on in the twin brook neighborhood. [83:16.21] And this was based on community feedback to reduce the impact of cut through traffic and [83:21.13] study the visibility of one way circulation systems throughout the twin brook neighborhoods. [83:25.81] We've heard a lot of feedback from twin brook and, and safety, uh, they're, they're surrounded [83:30.05] by state roads all around them. [83:32.64] And this is something that we've heard. [83:34.40] So I just wanted to see with the new rules, how we also honor some of what we said to [83:40.39] the twin brook community. [83:41.39] I just want to reiterate that the inclusion of the prohibition of one way streets is [83:47.89] for new construction for new roads. [83:50.29] So it doesn't preclude us from taking an existing road and introducing a one way restriction [83:56.40] on that road we've done at other places on East Montgomery Avenue, for instance. [84:01.25] So it's even though we're suggesting that all new roads, uh, adhere to the standard [84:06.70] of one lane in each direction, it doesn't mean that we can't change the exist an existing [84:11.46] road if there's a transportation need to do so. [84:14.68] Thank you. [84:15.68] Sometimes when we create policies though, it creates a new culture and a frame of mind. [84:19.42] So how will we, are we still going to honor this review is what I'm asking. [84:23.57] Yeah, absolutely. [84:24.54] Okay. [84:25.54] Thank you. [84:26.54] Thank you very much. [84:27.64] That is super helpful. [84:28.69] Council member Larry. [84:30.90] Thank you, Madam Mayor. [84:31.87] Um, okay. [84:33.05] So thank you. [84:34.18] I was always the staff. [84:35.46] I feel like that should always be a blanket statement, but I'll make it an extremely [84:40.30] explicit one. [84:41.74] Um, I noticed under street closures that, um, currently as defined, uh, renters don't [84:52.01] get noticed of temporary street closures, um, that the certified mail only goes to property [84:57.91] owners, uh, on the assessment records. [85:01.89] Could the notice go to occupants or residents, not just the owners so that renters are also [85:07.56] aware of street closures? [85:09.95] Uh, yeah, I think it, I, I think it'd be difficult to, to target, uh, renters, um, [85:20.28] certainly if we provide that to, uh, their, their HOA, to the, to the landlords and to [85:25.82] have that disseminate, um, that, that notice, uh, to their, um, to their occupants, um, [85:34.07] I think would achieve, uh, that, that notice. [85:36.41] Okay. [85:37.86] That might be something if maybe in the next iteration we can look at streamlining that [85:43.01] communication, um, not making it dependent on, um, a property owner who doesn't really [85:49.70] have the impetus to, to, to pass that along, but I think everybody, um, deserves to get [85:55.10] the same information at the same time as well, just as a matter of, of course. [86:00.94] So thank you for that. [86:02.58] Um, I also noticed that, um, and I realized, and thank you Mr. Woods for, um, clarifying, [86:09.92] uh, that this is, a lot of this is really just for new development and keeping an eye [86:15.67] on it. [86:16.76] Um, I think that that makes it, um, the standard actually increases significantly, not decreases [86:24.40] because if you have a new development, you should be able to provide the best, uh, infrastructure [86:29.85] across the board. [86:31.35] Um, however, I noticed that, um, in, I think it's section 21-64D, that secondary residential [86:40.75] paving goes from 26 to 29 feet. [86:44.94] Um, and I, I noticed, is there a discrepancy in, uh, the staff report says three feet? [86:51.31] And I think the slides that I, the last thing I saw was two feet. [86:56.20] Can you clarify? [86:57.52] Uh, so the, the paving width is, is being updated for that, uh, road to allow for, uh, [87:05.38] two 11-foot lanes in a parking lane, uh, but the right-of-way width itself, uh, remains, [87:11.34] um, as it is today in the current code at 60 feet. [87:15.03] And so we think we can achieve, uh, a safer, uh, travel way, um, by adding that three feet [87:20.88] to the pavement, uh, without impacting, uh, development. [87:24.75] Gotcha. [87:26.04] So, um, however, we do know that there are studies that show that when we, um, widen [87:32.27] streets, that speeding does increase. [87:35.64] And we do know then that, that pedestrians and bicyclists are less safe. [87:40.04] So is it, could we keep 26 feet or pair a wider section with, um, uh, requisite, uh, [87:48.59] uh, traffic calming? [87:53.36] I'll take this question. [87:56.39] So, uh, I think the, the real reason why we have the dimensions of the roadway that are [88:01.71] specified in the standard is, uh, mainly for fire access, but also, um, to ensure that [88:08.58] there is adequate space for parked cars. [88:11.25] In our existing secondary residential roadway section, you may have parked cars on one side [88:15.75] of the street and you can't get two-way travel, um, past each other. [88:19.42] Um, so what we have done to address, uh, pedestrian safety in the roadway section is typically [88:26.50] you'll see, uh, narrowing of the roadway at an intersection, or you may have a crossing. [88:31.78] Um, you see a lot of new townhouse developments that the parking lane is kind of protected [88:36.67] at intersections. [88:37.67] So although the, in the pavement width is 29 feet through the section, as you get to [88:44.03] intersections where you will see pedestrians, we have other measures to increase safety [88:49.34] at those locations. [88:50.34] Okay. [88:51.34] Thank you. [88:52.34] That is actually very helpful because that was the first thing that I noticed. [88:54.50] I was like, wait a second, what are we doing with more, uh, uh, more space? [88:59.55] We just know that people, you give them more space, they're going to speed. [89:03.61] Um, okay. [89:04.57] And I have one more question and then, um, I will, I will definitely pass it along, [89:09.37] but, Madam Mayor, I do have more, uh, question. [89:12.87] Um, the last thing that I have in here, and thank you, by the way, for the, um, the inclusion [89:20.19] of, um, adding, uh, an explicit reference to Proag in the code. [89:25.81] I really appreciate that and I know as the liaison to the Transportation Mobility Commission [89:30.52] that, um, the commission appreciates that as well, um, is going to be a standard that [89:35.22] will be a lot, uh, around for a while, so we might as well reference it. [89:39.40] Um, my last question is, uh, in section, uh, 21-41, C6 and 21-59, B4, it allows for the [89:53.31] director to reduce pedestrian and bike facility widths, including sidewalks down to five feet [89:59.19] without council action. [90:01.37] Um, the waiver findings ask only whether a waiver impairs, quote, "public health safety [90:07.51] or general welfare," nothing specific to vulnerable road users or Vision Zero. [90:13.52] Um, and, and unlike land purchases, we don't have an annual report of administrative waivers, [90:19.26] so it's kind of a black box, for lack of a better word. [90:23.48] Could we add, would you, would, would, uh, your thoughts be on adding a, a waiver finding [90:29.48] that the change is consistent with the Vision Zero action plan and doesn't reduce safety [90:34.55] for people walking, rolling, or biking? [90:36.70] Uh, that's a great comment, um, I think we can consider that, uh, so thank you. [90:42.74] That would be great. [90:43.86] Thank you so much. [90:44.86] Um, and then, I guess the second, uh, part of that is, could administrative waivers [90:51.15] be reported to us and to the Transportation Mobility Commission once a year, kind of the [90:56.06] same way that the land acquisitions are? [90:58.42] Uh, I don't see why not. [91:02.19] Okay. [91:03.95] Thank you for, uh, listening to some of my, my ideas. [91:06.43] I, I really, I got a lot of feedback, of course, um, from folks, but I, I appreciate your [91:11.85] openness to it and, Madam Mayor, I'll pause there. [91:15.96] Thank you. [91:16.96] Just to clarify, I think in the brief book you note that, um, you would be willing to [91:20.70] do the periodic reports of required rights of way and easement. [91:24.50] Are you building that and are you specifically needing input from us? [91:28.72] We can do all the, all, we can do all the above, Mayor. [91:30.64] All the above. [91:31.64] Okay, thank you. [91:33.31] Councilmember Fulton. [91:35.33] Thank you. [91:36.33] Thank you. [91:37.33] We're going to go to Rogue Road. [91:38.33] Nice job, guys. [91:40.80] I appreciate it. [91:41.92] Thanks. [91:42.92] Dr. Miles. [91:43.92] Thank you, Madam Mayor. [91:44.95] Similarly, I don't have any. [91:45.95] I appreciate responses from staff back in July. [91:47.14] Uh, I appreciate your view and meeting with us here tonight, the one I was munching [91:51.06] on there. [91:52.06] I'm still trying to wrap my head around, but I got some clarity from that discussion [91:55.05] we had previously. [91:56.05] So thank you. [91:59.24] Councilmember Shaw. [92:02.41] So, uh, I just wanted to build on Councilmember Valeriy's, um, really great comment about [92:07.92] reaching out to renters. [92:09.56] Um, I know that in my building, we do receive a notice, uh, from the landlord, um, in, in [92:17.67] Rockville Town Center, there's a lot of closures for a lot of different reasons. [92:21.75] So I think in that area, a lot of the tenants do receive notices regularly. [92:26.43] And if not, we see notices on the street. [92:28.63] Uh, we see notices in a lot of different places. [92:31.33] Um, but I do think that in order to reach out to tenants, uh, for all types of notices [92:38.18] from the city, it requires a city renter role, which is something that, um, as, as [92:44.86] a body we can consider, but, um, that would mean that every single time there's a new [92:50.50] tenant with a new lease, uh, that they have to, uh, register their email with the city [92:55.74] so that the city has their email. [92:57.58] Um, but I just wanted to share that as an option to, uh, to reach all tenants. [93:06.91] Thank you. [93:09.06] To what extent are you including closures in Rockville reports? [93:11.54] I don't think that's, I have seen that too much, but I know that you do for big events. [93:18.18] I would agree with you, Mayor. [93:19.18] I think it's really just the big events. [93:20.34] I don't think it's all temporary closures. [93:22.42] Okay. [93:23.42] I was just thinking, cause I know that gets out to all residents. [93:25.70] I was just thinking that's an interesting tool and you do a nice email as well, but [93:30.96] the paper one does go to every resident. [93:33.06] Yeah. [93:34.19] I'm thinking, let us think a little bit more about reaching, um, non owners, um, other [93:39.90] places I've been, we would send it to occupants and that's the way to cover it. [93:43.70] It's just, can we identify all those occupants and have good addresses? [93:48.92] I think everybody raises some great points. [93:50.72] What I don't want to do is create a standard that we can't meet to meet every single renter, [93:56.45] but if we can cast the net wide enough to catch as many people as possible, I think [94:00.57] that's a great idea. [94:01.57] Excellent. [94:02.57] Thank you very much. [94:04.02] Council member Larry. [94:05.90] Thank you, Madam Mayor. [94:06.90] Um, okay. [94:07.93] I only have a few more, um, so unless I'm reading this incorrectly, uh, section 29 [94:17.30] dash 59 a one lets the director require extra pavement and turn lanes to quote, maintain [94:24.68] acceptable levels of service, which kind of cuts against the CTR is new philosophy in [94:30.54] some ways. [94:31.60] Um, when a turn lane is added under this section, is there a process in which, uh, [94:38.42] someone is checking that the added about any additional added crossing distance for [94:43.20] pedestrians? [94:47.21] Can you repeat the code citation? [94:48.21] I think you said 21 59 I need a whiteboard up here or something. [94:52.41] Um, it is section 21 dash 59 a one. [94:56.65] Yeah, I think what that's actually referring to is that in certain locations where, uh, [95:16.02] where there's either a turn lane that's necessary, um, and a bike facility that's necessary, [95:22.49] that may necessitate a wider right away than would otherwise be needed for that road classification. [95:28.69] And so it's what it's saying is that director can require that additional right away be [95:32.62] provided at those locations so that you can fit both, uh, a bike facility and the necessary, [95:41.23] um, transport or the necessary, um, travel lanes in that configuration. [95:45.23] It doesn't mean that we would necessarily require additional lanes only if they were [95:50.39] already required. [95:51.29] Yeah. [95:52.52] No. [95:53.52] And I think, um, thank you for that. [95:54.52] Um, I think in, in general, and I appreciate the, the mentioning of the bike facility. [96:00.30] I'm just always cautious about any widening because then for the folks who are non bicyclers, [96:07.05] um, that extra time for crossing could determine, um, a level of safety there and, uh, comfortable [96:15.43] pedestrian level of comfort. [96:16.91] So I just wanted to, to flag that, um, in, uh, I think in general on the waiver section, [96:26.87] um, not that I think that, um, any folks would, uh, administrate administratively approve [96:34.96] a waiver that does this, but would it benefit from including, uh, language that says that, [96:42.36] you know, you cannot administratively waiver standards as applied under the ADA or ProWAG. [96:48.64] Yeah. [96:52.97] That's fair. [96:53.97] That's a fair assessment. [96:54.99] Um, you know, those standards become, um, federal law once promulgated by the department [97:00.77] of justice. [97:01.76] Um, we wouldn't really even have authority to waive that standard beyond, uh, there are [97:06.95] limp, there are exemptions for what's technically feasible, um, and that would be administered [97:12.52] by the, by the director. [97:14.92] Um, but that would be a rare occasion and, uh, and not something that we would do at [97:20.82] our discretion. [97:21.82] It would only be one that's technically infeasible. [97:24.00] Gotcha. [97:25.03] Maybe in those instances, um, that would be the exception that comes directly to, or could [97:30.35] come to mayor and council to make that sort of determination because, um, who knows, we'll [97:35.25] be on mayor and council at that point, but that might be, um, worthwhile to include, [97:40.77] but thank you for, for that clarity. [97:42.98] Um, I only, I have two last questions. [97:48.21] I promise. [97:49.21] Um, the next one is around, um, the term adequacy. [97:54.64] It seems that, um, the CTR is kind of still measuring success in whether or not cars are [98:00.84] delayed. [98:02.09] Um, and so adequacy is still kind of being judged by vehicle volume to capacity ratios. [98:07.13] Um, trips are really only defined as a number of trips by car and not necessarily by, um, [98:14.13] you know, pedestrian trips or bicyclist trips. [98:16.84] Um, when an intersection fails, mitigation is intersection improvements, which could [98:23.49] result in more lanes or, um, additional facilities for cars at the expense of pedestrians. [98:30.42] Um, could we, for sites, especially on the, um, that may be in the high injury network, [98:38.20] um, uh, zone, if it were, could the transportation report include crash history and a safety [98:45.01] review? [98:50.29] Um, well, we're going to cover this a little bit when we get to the CTR, uh, updates, um, [98:54.81] in some slides that we have provided, um, but a couple of things, yes, we can, uh, [99:00.92] look at crash history, um, when, when analyzing an intersection, um, uh, but in general, one [99:09.91] of the changes that we are proposing is to actually not require mitigation for an intersection [99:17.67] that, um, the development's impact doesn't actually cause the intersection to fail. [99:24.02] Um, previously we would require mitigation if the, um, the intersection was, um, decreased [99:33.87] by its, by its, uh, capacity by more than 10%. [99:37.57] And that would require, um, a developer to potentially add a travel lane or a turn lane [99:42.71] or some other, uh, mitigation just simply to offset their impact at the expense of [99:48.65] other modes of transportation potentially. [99:51.41] And by eliminating that requirement, we're now saying, which is a somewhat transformational [99:56.43] change to say, we're not going to require a developer to offset their impact unless [100:01.79] they bring that intersection all the way down to a failing intersection. [100:06.14] So if it goes from a B to a C, you don't have to offset your impact because we recognize [100:11.47] that there are other modes of transportation that are also utilizing that intersection. [100:16.58] And just simply adding capacity is not going to necessarily benefit those other users. [100:20.48] Gotcha. [100:21.48] No, that, that makes sense. [100:22.98] And thank you. [100:23.98] That was a really, probably one of the best explanations of that, that I've heard of [100:28.76] that concept and none of this is very easy, um, to kind of wrap your head around. [100:35.18] Um, the last thing is I just, um, if you can, um, skip to the timeline for, um, uh, [100:47.40] this whole updating process, I think it is that the transportation mobility commission [100:53.30] gives us formal recommendation on October 27th, but we have the public hearing on, uh, [101:00.66] the row code on October 26th, would it be, could we keep the record open an additional [101:06.92] day so that the commission could, um, submit their comments. [101:11.09] I think sure it's just a timing weirdness, but I just wanted to flag that. [101:16.00] Yes. [101:17.09] Awesome. [101:18.40] Thank you all so much. [101:19.40] And I really, I really appreciate it. [101:21.56] And I know that, um, the communities, um, really appreciate it as well. [101:29.96] Thank you very much. [101:31.04] Any other questions? [101:32.04] Councilman Valeri. [101:37.13] Um, on that note, um, Madam Mayor, I'd like to introduce the ordinance, uh, I introduced [101:44.70] an ordinance to repeal and replace Rockville city code chapter 21 streets, roads, rights [101:50.19] of way and public improvements and discussion of chapter 21 and the city transportation [101:55.62] regulations. [101:57.22] And that implies that we're also going to have that proag mentioned in that. [102:01.85] Yes. [102:02.95] And I defer to Mr. That we'll, we'll have in the, the final draft, the distinct reference. [102:10.53] Okay. [102:11.53] With that, um, uh, friendly on the fly amendment. [102:13.84] Thank you. [102:15.28] I had that too. [102:16.28] Do we have a second? [102:17.56] Councilman Fulton second. [102:18.56] Oh, we don't need it. [102:19.56] Actually. [102:20.56] It's introduction. [102:21.56] All right. [102:22.78] There we go. [102:24.09] Um, thank you very much. [102:25.49] And the, and the public hearing is the other piece. [102:30.00] So, um, do my colleagues, uh, support the public hearing on October 26th, just thumbs [102:36.72] up. [102:39.29] Okay. [102:40.19] Thank you very much. [102:44.29] That implies also, I know that we didn't, we haven't said that the public hearing would [102:46.97] have a closing date yet. [102:47.97] So we'll keep it open until we actually, not only beyond the transportation bill commission, [102:52.46] but until we actually vote. [102:53.80] Correct. [102:54.76] Exactly. [102:55.76] Thank you. [102:59.28] Thanks. [103:00.28] Is there anything else? [103:01.28] Yeah. [103:02.28] We'll continue. [103:03.28] We have a couple more slides now on the CTR. [103:04.28] Thanks for the chapter 21 part. [103:09.79] Yes. [103:10.79] Thank you. [103:11.79] Thank you. [103:12.79] Okay. [103:13.79] Thank you. [103:15.01] Thank you. [103:16.01] Thank you to the CTR and these slides will look familiar. [103:16.99] They are essentially what we presented to you at the last work session. [103:23.57] One of the biggest changes. [103:26.10] One of the biggest changes was to the title. [103:30.08] So do you try and clarify what the CTR really is? [103:37.45] We are proposing rather than to call it the comprehensive transportation review to retitle [103:43.23] it at the city transportation regulations, also known as the CTR. [103:52.53] And so the CTR really is establishing the adequacy standards in accordance with the [104:04.55] city's APFO for vehicle capacity. [104:10.26] It's compared in this table to separate codes and regulations that that would otherwise [104:18.03] cover traffic and parking under chapter 23, site development under the zoning ordinance, [104:25.56] street classification and standard design requirements and waivers under chapter 21 [104:31.22] and other roadway safety requirements in other codes and transportation policies. [104:45.46] What we were just talking about the capacity mitigation change to the CTR. [104:51.67] So rather than requiring developers that add 10 percent capacity, rather than requiring [104:59.35] them to mitigate that 10 percent increase, as long as that intersection can still operate [105:07.37] at an acceptable level of service, then it would be acceptable to the city. [105:16.82] As Mr. Woods explained, we want to try and limit our impacts to other users of the road [105:23.35] way, rather than just making improvements to intersections where they might not be needed. [105:35.71] Again, changes to the transportation report requirement, eliminating the need to do an [105:43.80] on-site report for applications with less than 30 peak hour net trips, instead developers [105:51.42] would be asked to analyze two intersections closest to the site to analyze for traffic [106:01.25] flow, but not related to any capacity requirements. [106:11.49] And then the third and major change under the CTR, reducing the threshold for developers [106:19.40] to make a transportation improvement fee to make a payment for the TIF, the transportation [106:30.66] improvement fee is useful and it allows the city to make capital improvements to its sidewalks [106:39.29] and other transportation public infrastructure. [106:50.35] So at their September 22 meeting, the TMC received the draft chapter 21 and CTR text. [107:07.21] We talked about the biggest comment being accessibility standards, incorporating those [107:12.63] into the code and into the department standards and specs. [107:19.71] We had mentioned, I think, in the staff report about previous comments that the TMC provided [107:27.63] to the department back in 2023. [107:32.27] We talked through those. [107:33.27] I think the primary concerns have been addressed. [107:36.18] It is really, again, addressing pro-wag as the biggest concern. [107:44.95] Like we said, the timeline for adoption, staff will return to TMC at the end of October [107:51.83] to hear any more comments that they might share with staff. [108:00.98] And so post adoption for chapter 21, tentatively scheduled for December, again, staff will [108:09.37] make updates to our standards and specifications. [108:13.36] We will present to you the template easement and legal agreements to seek your approval [108:21.87] for those to be approved administratively on future developments. [108:27.99] Outside of the CTR, staff will publish transportation development guidelines to try and separate [108:35.35] more of the policy from the guidelines, the submission requirements. [108:57.15] Again, there is a quick look at the timeline. [109:03.52] We will hold our public hearing on October 26. [109:08.03] We heard that we will keep the record open for any comments that come in after that. [109:13.15] And then hopefully move forward with adoption of the ordinance on December 7th. [109:23.36] Are there any other questions on the CTR portion? [109:26.66] I knew we were excited and jumped ahead on some questions that covered in this section [109:31.18] as well as we introduced it already. [109:32.78] So I think we're good, but there may be some final questions at Councilmember Larry and [109:37.18] then Councilmember Fulton. [109:44.84] Well, thanks. [109:46.35] I wanted to -- I had two questions. [109:48.95] One, I actually went back and looked at the current CTR and was comparing it to this one. [109:54.10] Great job. [109:55.10] It is so much easier to understand. [109:56.10] It so much reflects what it is we're trying to do more holistically here and it's easy [110:00.35] to read. [110:02.39] One question. [110:03.63] The multimodal infrastructure contribution. [110:07.58] Is that a wholly new -- I love it. [110:11.11] Can you speak more to when -- it says there would be a multimodal infrastructure contribution [110:17.67] whenever there are 350 more peak net hour trips. [110:21.94] But there's not a whole lot there about what that might be. [110:26.00] The Director of Public Works gets to decide what it is, which is totally fine. [110:30.36] But can you help explain more about -- make me understand the multimodal infrastructure [110:35.05] contribution and how it will help achieve our goals? [110:45.42] I want to let Mr. El-Shaafi answer that question. [110:47.82] Good evening. [110:56.43] Thank you for the question. [110:57.77] So as you see, we have different levels of contribution for the transportation improvement [111:02.19] fees. [111:03.25] So these are the trips and the square footage and the units of residential units. [111:11.19] The 350 trips, as you can imagine, 350 trips is a huge number of trips. [111:16.46] And in this case, in the last 20 years, I did not see any of those. [111:20.39] We did not reach the 350. [111:22.36] If you remember maybe 20 years ago, we have Falls Grove. [111:25.20] So Falls Grove was more than 350 trips. [111:27.88] And in this case, we don't just take money from the developer. [111:31.08] We actually kind of open the box for any other improvements because they are doing [111:35.57] a full neighborhood. [111:38.41] So this contribution that you are asking about is kind of almost doesn't have a limit because [111:43.37] they are developing a whole neighborhood that can include new streets, new intersections. [111:52.06] So we give it up to the director of public works that we can ask for any kind of requirements, [111:58.81] almost like unlimited amount of money. [112:01.68] Transportation improvement fees are very limited. [112:03.48] So maybe like if we calculate the 350 trips, let's say maybe it will come to like half [112:07.80] million dollars and maybe half million dollars will not be good enough to do the improvement [112:11.44] that we want to do in a big neighborhood. [112:14.44] That's incredibly helpful. [112:15.44] Thank you. [112:16.44] So am I right to understand it? [112:17.44] The TIF, which we just made, lowered the amount of trips for, should cover most things [112:22.24] and most projects. [112:23.90] The multimodal infrastructure contribution is for huge projects and larger neighborhoods. [112:28.93] Correct. [112:29.93] And the TIF is, as you probably know, it's not for any vehicular improvements. [112:35.32] It's 100% going to pedestrian and bicycle safety. [112:39.11] So all the projects you will see in our CIPs, pedestrian, bike, safety, sidewalks, it's [112:43.28] all funded by this TIF, which we are making little change that we are, with this change, [112:49.53] we are going to get more TIF than in the past. [112:54.99] For example, we had some developments that if they had vested trips, like replacing [113:01.28] a site that has already some trips and they are coming, not adding any more trips, they [113:05.64] don't pay anything. [113:06.92] Now we are asking them to pay. [113:08.34] I think that's... [113:09.66] I'm sorry. [113:10.66] I think that's fantastic. [113:11.66] Just one follow-up, because that's fantastic and I'm greedy on pedestrian safety. [113:16.23] Is 350 the right number? [113:19.88] Should we allow this unlimited requirement for 300 or more peak hour trips? [113:29.32] We can look at it to see what is 300 trips, 350. [113:32.72] We can actually come up with a number and tell you what 300 trips or 350 trips are, [113:37.88] because they are always related to a number of square footage of an office building, [113:41.68] for example, or a number of residential units. [113:44.38] So we can come to you and say, okay, well, 350 equivalent to 1,000 units, for example. [113:49.34] Maybe that's good enough. [113:50.34] We can come back to you with a number. [113:51.97] Thanks so much. [113:52.94] That was all I had. [113:53.94] Councillor Valerian, then Councillor Mangrok. [113:57.91] Thank you. [113:58.91] And I'm glad you went first, because my question kind of dovetails with this, is on the TIF [114:04.79] and the multimodal infrastructure contribution. [114:10.54] The TIF is not new, correct? [114:13.47] That's what I thought. [114:15.92] When were the TIF rates last updated? [114:18.01] Does anybody know, and is it maybe time to assess that, take another look at it? [114:25.53] Yeah, but I don't believe the transportation improvement fee rate has been updated in quite [114:35.33] some time since the CTR was last revised. [114:39.36] It's certainly something we can look at. [114:41.28] We didn't propose an increase through this process, though. [114:43.60] Yeah. [114:44.60] No, I just want to just throw that out there for your getting feedback from us, but also [114:50.46] to my colleagues that that might be something to also look at, if that is keeping up consistent. [114:57.22] I want us to remain competitive, obviously, and not deter development and growth, but [115:03.93] if we haven't looked at it in some time, it may be that we are doing ourselves a disservice [115:08.37] there. [115:11.17] Sticking with the TIF, and again, thank you to Council Member Fulton. [115:14.09] I don't have to ask my multimodal questions. [115:17.59] Is it possible, and thank you to Mr. Beshafi for kind of explaining a little bit, touching [115:23.73] on what the TIF contributions go towards. [115:29.63] I don't think, unless I'm mistaken, it's not codified how those funds are allocated [115:37.02] in the code, correct? [115:38.45] I don't think it is. [115:42.20] You mean how they can be spent? [115:43.84] How they can be spent, yes, sorry. [115:47.36] It's certainly not part of Chapter 21, but I would have to defer to our finance team [115:52.76] to understand exactly how that that money is then protected for only being used for [115:58.11] that purpose. [115:59.10] I think that would be great, Mr. City Manager, I don't know. [116:01.76] This question kind of crossed Mr. Woods and yourself as far as like how we can ensure [116:08.21] that those go toward the necessary improvements in infrastructure. [116:11.65] Mr. Mihaela, go ahead. [116:13.39] Many times I say it goes into the general fund, this is a case where it would not actually [116:16.87] go into the general fund. [116:17.87] It would be in a restricted account that only dollars that go into this can be for transportation [116:22.75] related improvements. [116:25.37] Transportation related improvements. [116:26.37] Okay, so I want to just note for myself and for my colleagues that maybe it is that we [116:33.82] prioritize improvements in areas that historically may not have had that kind of improvements [116:44.76] that we bring everything up to the same level across the city. [116:49.53] We're still dealing with some historical inequities as referenced in our Jedi strategic [116:55.37] plan and anything we can do to highlight communities, neighborhoods, intersections, [117:03.04] any place that is kind of overdue. [117:05.72] I think it would be a good conversation point and perhaps something for us to discuss at [117:10.38] a later date if we can keep those protected and create a sense of equity from it. [117:17.94] So I just wanted to flag that as well and thank you. [117:22.21] Thank you very much. [117:23.21] Councilman Van Grack. [117:24.21] So I have a question because we're talking about these transportation improvement fees, [117:28.49] this multimodal infrastructure contribution, which absolutely right goals, right direction. [117:34.60] How is what we're comparing here compared to some of the local jurisdictions that we're [117:41.02] essentially competing with for development and I want to make sure there isn't a free [117:47.00] rider problem potentially going on for what we're clearly trying to do, but potentially [117:51.76] could lose us development. [117:52.76] Yeah, I'm sorry Councilman Van Grack, I don't have that information tonight, but it's certainly [117:59.44] something we can report back to you on. [118:01.72] Okay, and we know that Montgomery County doesn't have the same structure as us, so it's not [118:08.90] an equivalent fee that we compare the rates to. [118:12.70] They don't have the same process in place to collect that. [118:18.40] That's my understanding as well. [118:19.56] So if there's something that we could maybe do with regard to the data, like for example, [118:23.88] in the fast five years, how many developments would have paid the TIF under this standard, [118:30.02] but wouldn't have paid it otherwise and how does this particular, what we're proposing [118:35.12] here compared to whether it's Montgomery County, Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, some of [118:38.98] these other jurisdictions that developers might be looking at and how it compares. [118:42.78] Now, obviously, if we're talking, you know, something that isn't significant, we want [118:47.40] to go forward with this. [118:48.40] This is the right direction, but I just want to make sure that we're in the right direction [118:53.20] as people are looking to invest in our city. [118:56.22] We could do a quick analysis on that. [118:57.78] Great. [119:00.79] Thank you. [119:01.79] Thank you. [119:02.79] I have a similar question to my colleagues. [119:03.79] Just really, I love the multimodal focus here. [119:06.94] It's my understanding that some new projects also pay an impact tax, which is supposed [119:10.96] to support transportation, pedestrian, safety, vision zero. [119:13.88] So how does that interplay with potential increases in the TIF? [119:17.47] Yeah, those are two separate things. [119:22.86] So the transportation impact tax, which is collected by the county, again, cannot, only [119:28.34] can be used to increase capacity on existing roadways. [119:31.02] So those are two separate objectives and goals. [119:35.46] Any impact tax that is collected by Montgomery County for city development does come back [119:41.22] to us and we can utilize it. [119:43.17] But it's for very specific uses that need to be approved by the county. [119:47.50] So that wouldn't go towards pedestrian safety type improvements, which is why the TIF is [119:51.26] so necessary. [119:52.26] I'm just wondering, do we need to fix that system as well, the MOU? [119:58.41] because we need flexibility. [120:00.00] But there is already a major impact tax and sometimes projects in the millions of dollars. [120:05.97] We need flexibility to improve pedestrian safety and multimodal transit. [120:10.35] So I'm just wondering about the layering and if we can fix the problem at a source. [120:16.22] That's not something we can fix through the MOU because it is in the county's code. [120:20.52] We can advocate to that. [120:21.52] But we certainly could do so, yeah. [120:23.10] I think that's an agenda item. [120:25.18] I know I would like to see, I don't know what others think, but I think that we should look [120:29.57] at that. [120:30.57] I know that the impact tax was, they're looking at the impact tax broadly and taking feedback [120:35.15] and I think this is a chance to raise that issue. [120:37.59] Needs have changed. [120:38.95] And I know that impact tax was developed a long time ago when there's a lot more focus [120:43.15] on just one portion of transportation. [120:45.85] So I think that would give us greater flexibility. [120:48.53] And related to that, I just want to see similar to my colleague how this would impact, no [120:53.22] pun intended there, the overall cost. [120:57.84] So I'm trying to find a way to get to the pedestrian safety but also be competitive [121:01.52] and make sure that, you know, with federal interest rates rising and some of the tariffs [121:08.43] that are coming on that we can still actually see some projects coming forward. [121:12.09] That's my overarching concern. [121:16.28] So if you could help us with that and then let us know what we can do to advocate if [121:21.10] we need to write a letter or testify, those are some things I would recommend we do. [121:26.16] I'm seeing some shaking hands here. [121:30.13] Who supports asking the county, and maybe we can write, do you want to send the old [121:34.71] new business instead, or do you want to hear just follow up on? [121:38.05] I feel like you have a little bit more time before you guys give me direction. [121:44.03] I just want to talk to you about it a little bit. [121:45.79] Okay, perfect. [121:46.79] I do want to make sure that we're thinking about the bigger issue, what you're trying [121:49.27] to address is getting more support from multimodal transit. [121:52.59] And the current system is not giving us the flexibility we need. [121:56.11] So that's what I want us to figure out. [121:57.59] How do we fix the system there? [122:03.77] We've introduced this. [122:04.67] We have a couple questions from us. [122:06.50] Is there anything else you need from us? [122:08.07] No, thank you very much. [122:09.26] Excellent work. [122:10.26] Thank you so much. [122:11.26] We appreciate it. [122:25.00] I will take a quick five minute break. [122:26.28] I see staff are waiting. [122:27.72] Please come back in the next five to six minutes so we can get started. [122:31.32] I need a waiting. [122:32.25] Thank you. [122:39.02] Welcome back, Rockville. [122:40.02] Today is still September 28, 2026, and we're reconvening meeting 22-26. [122:45.98] And our next agenda item is focused on pooling requirements, agenda item 12A for multifamily [122:51.92] and single-family rental properties. [122:54.12] We have with us Keena Campbell, Chief of Inspection Services, Community Planning and [122:57.64] Development Services, as well as panelists Evan Johnson, Director of Community Planning [123:02.08] and Development Services. [123:05.01] I see other panelists feel free to speak. [123:07.25] And thank you so much for being here today. [123:12.56] Good evening. [123:13.56] Good to see you all again. [123:15.16] My name is Keena Campbell, Chief of Inspection Services, and I would like to introduce Sharnita [123:19.32] Jackson. [123:20.32] She is the manager for the code enforcement team. [123:26.22] So we are here to discuss cooling requirements. [123:30.56] Can you please get a little closer to the mic? [123:32.72] Sorry, how's that? [123:34.58] Better. [123:35.58] It's perfect. [123:36.58] Okay. [123:38.34] All right. [123:39.34] So we are here this evening to discuss cooling requirements for the City of Rockville for [123:43.82] multifamily and single-family rental properties. [123:50.37] An outline of our presentation, first, we will go over the purpose, the overview of [123:56.32] the prevalence of air condition in the City of Rockville. [124:00.56] We will do a comparison of legislation between the state of Maryland and Montgomery County, [124:06.50] and then we will also seek some feedback from you all. [124:11.69] I don't want to double-click. [124:20.08] Can you see? [124:21.09] Make sure it's on. [124:25.49] Thank you. [124:30.91] Sorry. [124:32.46] That's okay. [124:33.74] While we're waiting, I'll just note that this is something that we discussed from [125:08.31] the mayor and council and really appreciate staff doing the homework to analyze the state [125:12.97] rules as well as the county so that we can support our residents so that everyone has [125:18.96] access to habitable living conditions, especially as we're seeing increased temperatures related [125:24.13] to climate change. [125:25.13] Yep. [125:27.82] Thank you. [125:28.82] And just to expand on that a little bit, this conversation started over a year ago. [125:35.59] Once we started looking at the Chapter 18 rewrite, had stakeholder meetings, community [125:42.22] engagement forums. [125:43.22] This was also an item that came out of some of those forums, the fact that there was [125:48.62] legislation around us and nothing here in the city. [125:51.94] Thank you. [125:52.94] And I will just say, mayor and council commented on that prior to that, and I know that we'll [125:57.67] update the record on that. [125:58.67] And it really is nice to see that the community also step forward with those concerns. [126:02.69] While we're waiting, I'll also just note that we raised this also during the Linelow [126:45.30] Tenant Code, and you aptly said that's a different section. [126:48.87] So this is our building code that we're looking to update and appreciate you walking us through [126:53.70] this. [126:56.87] Yep. [126:59.01] Okay. [127:00.01] So part of our conversation tonight is to discuss a comprehensive data driven evaluation [127:05.69] of the cooling conditions within the city's rental house and stock. [127:09.87] Also we want to discuss the assessment of how these conditions compare to the newly [127:13.83] adopted state requirements and the existing Montgomery County standards. [127:19.21] And lastly, we want to discuss Rockville's needs to implement aligned enforceable air [127:23.85] conditioning legislation that protects residents and assures compliance against all rental [127:30.15] types. [127:39.53] Okay. [127:41.33] So currently, there are 12,918 multifamily rental units in the city. [127:49.16] In preparation for this conversation, we did some digging and we were able to confirm [127:55.60] that out of those 12,918 12,918 units, all but three units in our current multifamily [128:06.89] house and stock are equipped with central air condition. [128:09.69] There is a building, it is the Reading where there are three units. [128:15.42] They do not provide central air condition in that, in that building. [128:19.50] However, they do provide those three units with a window units. [128:24.32] So there is still a means for cooling even at that property. [128:28.86] So we were able to arrive at for our multifamily, not this, I'm sorry. [128:37.87] So for our multifamily stock currently, all of, all of our multifamily properties are [128:44.31] provided with either central AC or a means for cooling to no more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit [128:50.98] during the summer months. [128:53.57] So for the single families, there are currently over 2000 single family rentals in the city, [129:03.89] 2255 to be exact, and that is as of right now, that number can fluctuate up or down [129:09.69] at any, at any time someone can decide not to, not to rent their home. [129:14.37] However, we were able to determine just since may when we, when we started collecting that [129:21.03] data, that the number is not as good as the, as the multifamily number. [129:28.96] We have inspected 234 single family dwellings since May 1st. [129:35.11] So there's an update to the slide out of that 234 properties that have been inspected. [129:42.39] Currently 91 of those properties had air condition or a means for cooling. [129:48.38] So we definitely there were able to establish that there is, is a need and there isn't, [129:53.88] there isn't an equity there in the single family dwellings versus the multifamily properties. [130:04.71] So this slide here just shows us the differences between the camp, the county legislation [130:11.51] and the state legislation. [130:14.39] The state legislation was just enacted over the summer and it actually goes into effect [130:22.83] October of this year. [130:25.48] And it's for apartment buildings with center more units and just to kind of do a little [130:31.78] side by side for each category here, Montgomery County's cooling requirements have been in [130:37.71] effect for a few years, actually since 2020 and their, their requirements are for multifamilies [130:46.40] and townhomes. [130:48.05] So you'll see that both the state and the county's requirements exclude single family [130:53.61] dwellings from the, from the, from the law at this time. [130:58.97] These two jurisdictions are similar right now and that you have to, you have to cool [131:03.57] to 80 degrees or below from June 1st through September 30th. [131:10.77] Both of these jurisdictions will allow central air or window units. [131:15.73] They both exclude historic properties from their legislation. [131:22.59] And what's unique about the state requirement is that it includes a trigger. [131:27.78] So if there are major electrical or heating projects that are undertaken, then that can [131:34.66] kick it into where you've now got to go back and retrofit or provide cooling in that, [131:41.24] in that property. [131:43.18] So again, a little bit unique there for the state. [131:50.30] So again, this slide is just kind of outlining a couple of key points between the two. [131:57.44] And I'll just, we'll say again that a key difference for what we're talking about here [132:02.53] for the city and what these other two laws provide is for the single family dwellings. [132:08.78] We are proposing that the single family dwellers be included in with cooling requirements [132:13.49] here in the city. [132:15.06] So that was a little segue into here, what we're, we're proposing is that air condition [132:23.10] and be provided a means for cooling be provided for all multifamily and single family rentals [132:29.16] in the city. [132:30.87] That, that means that 80 degrees Fahrenheit will be the max temperature. [132:35.31] So you've got to be able to cool to that and all in, in the timeframe that that's required [132:41.74] will be June 1st through September 30th of each year. [132:45.62] And we are proposing that the legislation be effective June 1st, 2027 and just to pause [132:51.22] on that a little bit, that date kind of goes in line with what we're doing with the building [132:58.04] code. [132:59.04] We expect to be back early in the early next year with the building code changes. [133:03.95] So as you mentioned, mayor, we thought that this was the, this was the perfect place [133:07.51] for this legislation to be when we do chapter five. [133:11.61] So when we update chapter five, what we're proposing is that we will explicitly say [133:18.10] in our amendments that on new construction, new multi new residential buildings, apartment [133:24.80] buildings must be provided with a means for cooling and air conditioning. [133:28.72] That is not currently a building code requirement. [133:32.20] While we're not seeing any new construction that's being built without air condition, [133:35.68] people are building with central layer these days, but we will just explicitly state that [133:39.36] in our, in our amendments. [133:41.73] So that is one thing second in the building code, we will add in for new single family [133:48.32] dwellings and air condition requirement in the property maintenance code where right [133:53.44] now we have requirements for heating. [133:55.88] We will update property, the property maintenance code to also add in the cooling requirements. [134:00.72] So we, we hope to kind of pick it up in more than one place, but all as a part of the [134:05.14] chapter five bundle. [134:11.15] So this slide, we're just explaining how we are proposing to kind of stagger the, [134:19.44] the adoption or the effectiveness. [134:23.25] So again, the multifamily we're thinking June 1st, we can make that go into effect [134:28.21] right then because we don't see what we have an issue there that doesn't where we're already [134:33.08] at a hundred percent compliance for the multifamilies, but the single family so that we can give [134:38.95] those property owners some time to come into compliance. [134:42.47] We're proposing to stagger for a fought for a year. [134:48.23] This will also allow us internally to prepare so that we can contract better. [134:52.71] The single families are, are definitely more fluid because again, someone can, can take [134:58.72] their property on an offline, you know, a multifamily is going to stay as a multifamily [135:03.90] versus single family is more fluid. [135:06.16] So that'll give us an opportunity to make sure we've got our processes in place to, [135:10.76] to track those properties internally. [135:14.94] And as I said, it also will give the landlord some time to understand the requirements and [135:21.22] to plan and, and you know, budget and be able to upgrade their properties to avoid violations. [135:30.18] A couple of ways, more than a couple, quite a few ways that we are proposing to engage [135:37.59] the community and let them know about this change coming. [135:41.15] We will distribute flyers, Rockville reports will be another avenue that we will use to [135:49.57] make this announcement. [135:50.73] The website we propose to have landlord orientations where we will, this will be especially beneficial [135:59.10] for like first time landlords provide some education and support to landlords to let [136:05.93] them know not just about this requirement, but, but others that are key to being a landlord. [136:13.28] And then we will also send out reminders via our renewal letters for those properties [136:19.59] that are currently licensed. [136:21.27] We do send out reminders that you need to renew and we will include in that, in those [136:25.61] letters this new legislation. [136:31.66] So for the single family property owners, of course there will be some expense to bring [136:38.79] their properties into compliance. [136:41.69] We will also as a part of our education campaign, put the word out there to different programs [136:49.99] that are available for those homeowners to apply. [136:53.66] There's the mitigation fund that actually is a program that we've had maybe the last [137:00.64] three years. [137:02.99] It kind of came about as a way and Mayor, I think that you may have been one of the [137:07.39] ones instrumental and requesting this fund for it's a fund for those who may get a violation [137:16.45] and they, they can't, they don't have the means to make the correction to satisfy their, [137:21.59] their property maintenance violation. [137:24.31] So that fund is still out there and we do have an application process in place. [137:29.53] So that could be an avenue for those who just who don't have the means to make their, [137:35.36] the improvement to their property. [137:37.27] There are also CDBG based funding that's available again, we will put the word out [137:44.63] to the public so they'll know that these programs are out there. [137:48.42] The homeowners will have to have to qualify. [137:51.37] There are eligibility qualifications to go along with this program, but again, it could [137:56.76] be a means for bringing your property into compliance. [138:05.72] So now we're at the point where we're ready to seek your feedback. [138:09.00] I guess the first question, do you support requiring air conditioning in both single [138:13.98] family and multifamily units for the months of June 1st through September 30th? [138:19.85] And then do you support the staggered implementation that we've laid out for the single family [138:23.53] rentals? [138:27.22] Thank you. [138:28.22] I have a baseline question just to help all my colleagues know, and I apologize. [138:31.90] I didn't send this in advance because I just learned about it because I asked the county, [138:35.78] why didn't you do, why didn't you do single family? [138:37.92] I heard one of the things that came up was egress windows in some basement apartments [138:42.70] was something that came up as part of their discussion. [138:46.54] I'm not going to ask the answer now, but just to think about are there units that we would [138:50.70] be like, we would be losing housing because there are some basement level rooms where [138:57.13] there's egress windows, but not necessarily a place to be able to stick a mini-split [139:01.45] or AC. [139:02.45] So I just wanted to ask that question. [139:03.45] You don't have to answer right now, but just so we can all think about that of how we would [139:07.19] address that. [139:09.82] Dr. Miles. [139:11.82] Thank you, Madam Mayor. [139:12.82] Thanks for this presentation. [139:13.98] It was something similar being discussed on a recent news story in another jurisdiction. [139:22.90] I believe particularly it was like New York City in particular and sort of weighing both [139:28.63] the need to meet the health challenges that occur in extreme heat. [139:34.16] And in their case, less the case here is its impact on the grid, the electricity grid, [139:40.24] so and so forth. [139:41.24] Those aren't the issues we're facing, but I'll answer your question simply. [139:44.84] And I think this, as I mentioned, is a very timely topic. [139:47.16] Yes, I support requiring air conditioning in both single family and multi-family. [139:51.51] And yes, I support a staggered implementation schedule. [139:54.68] Thank you for informing us and listening public about the avenues that homeowners, landlords [140:02.14] can use to access funds if they are strapped for resources for making the modifications. [140:07.91] But it is something that is needed both from a health perspective for people with various [140:13.38] illnesses and just our ability to live in this warming environment. [140:18.34] That's all. [140:20.07] Thank you. [140:21.07] Thank you. [140:22.13] Councilmember Fulton. [140:23.75] Thank you. [140:24.83] So I had two questions. [140:25.83] The mayor started to get to why doesn't don't the state and the county require it for single [140:32.01] family housing? [140:33.01] Like, in order for me to kind of evaluate what I think we should do here, I would love [140:37.66] to know the rationale for the other jurisdictions cited and sub question. [140:42.73] And I should have asked this question earlier, but like, I'm also curious, I think that's [140:46.71] what Councilmember Miles said. [140:49.23] We've got the state and the county, but what about everywhere else? [140:52.10] Like, is this a wave that we're behind? [140:54.94] Are we on the front? [140:55.94] Are there like I just would love me stop and let you answer the first question. [140:59.18] If you can. [141:00.54] Why did the state and the county not require it for single family? [141:06.43] So I haven't seen why the state excluded single family dwellings. [141:12.35] But I do know I was able to find on the county level. [141:18.73] There was a lot of pushback from the the real estate association for the for the state [141:25.13] or county came with a lot of feedback. [141:28.51] And there was a decision made a couple years ago when they implemented this that, you [141:34.87] know, we'll get more support if we exclude the single families at this time. [141:39.66] But there is a bill that's kind of floating around right now in the in the in the Montgomery [141:44.30] County Council that will put the single families back on the table and exclude the exclude [141:50.24] the exclusion. [141:52.47] That's helpful. [141:56.19] When it comes to single families, I was also thinking about the egress windows. [141:59.89] So the the resident that came to community forum today and said she just likes to open [142:03.16] her windows to get air flowing. [142:05.86] If we're requiring a window unit, like is that even I feel like there might be some [142:13.04] negative consequences and you might actually be removing choice if we do this in some [142:16.80] scenarios. [142:18.72] So I do want to be more thoughtful about the single family, too. [142:23.80] I guess that was most of my question, like means of cooling. [142:29.91] I would be curious what when we say means of cooling, if I'm renting a room in my house [142:35.31] and there must be a means of cooling, I don't have an HVAC. [142:39.04] That means there must be a window unit in like the one window in that room, right? [142:46.49] Yes. [142:47.49] So because the options would be essential air or a window unit. [142:53.74] So OK, I'll stop there. [142:54.94] I'll answer your questions. [142:56.63] I do support requiring air conditioning in multifamily rental units June 1st to September [143:01.77] 30th. [143:02.77] I don't know yet about single family units. [143:06.13] I would just want to understand more. [143:10.59] And I guess number two depends on my answer, number one. [143:12.53] So we should stagger it. [143:13.53] But I'm still not convinced on single family just because I don't know enough yet. [143:19.37] Councilmember Larry. [143:20.34] Yes. [143:21.66] Hi. [143:22.66] Thank you. [143:23.52] So I have a couple of questions broadly speaking. [143:31.93] Are we seeing of the single family rental so far that you've seen that have no means [143:40.31] of cooling? [143:41.49] Are we seeing this concentrated in certain areas, neighborhoods, across the city? [143:48.86] Can you kind of give me a flavor of where you're seeing this in the initial, that little [143:54.37] sample that you have looked at so far? [143:59.62] We can get back to you with the breakdown. [144:02.09] I don't have the-- I'm sorry. [144:03.86] If you can move the mic closer to you. [144:05.38] I'm sorry. [144:06.38] It's OK. [144:07.38] I can get back to you all with that breakdown. [144:10.82] We don't have the data right now separated out that way. [144:13.82] But that is certainly something we can get back to you all with. [144:17.38] Thank you. [144:18.38] I would really greatly appreciate it because I think that that could in part inform some [144:24.45] of our questions, but also just as a matter of equity. [144:31.54] I think that that's something that we should consider because I am really distressed that [144:37.44] of 234 single family units so far, only 91 had any means of cooling. [144:44.66] I think that that is not something to be proud of, frankly. [144:50.92] And while I appreciate what my colleagues have noted as perhaps some unintended consequences, [145:01.54] I also know that this year and to Council Member Dr. Miles probably knows this as well. [145:08.10] We had the highest number of heat related deaths in the state of Maryland. [145:12.64] I don't think that-- I think there are things that we can do to avoid that and I would [145:20.42] hate for that to happen in the city of Rockville. [145:25.17] So thank you and I look forward to seeing the data. [145:30.14] So unfortunately, the system that we have right now, enforcement seems to start on a [145:35.20] complaint to try to change that trajectory. [145:39.60] Is cooling something that can be checked during routine rental license inspections instead? [145:47.82] Yes. [145:48.94] OK. [145:49.94] Yes. [145:50.94] Because I know that we're just trying to shift things a little bit. [145:56.28] So let's see. [145:57.66] I also want to note that many single family renters pay their own electric bills as well. [146:04.39] I think that as we implement this, is it possible that we could connect tenants to [146:09.44] energy assistance so that a unit that has AC can actually run it? [146:14.10] I think that that's a kind of critical component and I don't know Mr. City Manager which departments [146:19.35] that might overlap with, but I don't want to adopt something and then for folks to [146:27.19] not be able to afford it because our energy bills are out of control right now. [146:32.33] So thank you for that. [146:38.45] What I'm thinking in general, Madam Mayor, just I'll end with, I would really like to [146:45.80] get to a point where we could shorten the single family runway to this policy and look [146:55.05] at requiring temporary cooling, whether that is it does not have to be window, it could [147:00.26] be portable as well for folks that, to Madam Mayor's point about basement apartments with [147:07.80] a window that is not conducive to a window unit, you'd be surprised that all basements [147:14.12] are comfortable to rent in, been there, done that, don't want to go back. [147:19.49] But portable AC air conditioning is also another option and if we can connect landlords [147:28.37] that are really struggling financially and can, as you noted in your slide, can show [147:34.49] that hardship. [147:36.78] If we can find ways to connect folks to resources because we don't want to lose housing, but [147:43.76] we also don't want to lose humans, so it's a bit of a balancing act. [147:47.84] But yeah, no, I appreciate where you're coming from. [147:54.24] It's really not, based on the data that you shared with us, we're not really talking [147:59.14] current multifamily because current multifamily seems to be almost 100% that people have [148:04.26] air conditioning. [148:05.26] We're really talking about a single family and I don't, as somebody who was a single [148:11.41] family home renter in Rockville, I don't think that the property manager should have [148:19.48] been off the hook in any way and frankly was making a certain amount of a profit off of [148:27.69] my family. [148:28.69] So I think air conditioning is at that point where it is a basic human right, so I differ [148:37.39] with my colleague, I want it to speed up if possible and find assistance for landlords [148:44.38] that might not be able to provide a window unit or a portable until it can be fully implemented. [148:50.59] Thanks. [148:54.20] Thank you very much. [148:55.20] I really appreciate that you not only listen to our requested, let's explore cooling requirements, [149:00.41] but you actually looked at our housing stock to see where we were. [149:04.37] So I appreciate the multifamily and single family look. [149:11.26] I definitely support this, I helped raise this. [149:17.07] I do think that it's important to move forward with the multifamily as noted. [149:24.05] During drop-in, we heard from someone who said that a multifamily unit didn't have [149:29.84] AC, although it previously may or may not have been in the lease, but it wasn't a code [149:34.80] violation when the AC died and it was a very hot summer. [149:40.38] So while most multifamilies have AC, there may be situations where it goes out for an [149:46.10] extended period of time and then it's not a code violation. [149:48.06] So I think this strengthens the requirement to get that AC backup. [149:53.62] So I really, even though it looks like we're good for multifamily, there are situations [149:56.94] and we know with extreme heat that we've seen compressors go out and ACs and HVAC [150:01.46] go out and it seems like they're lasting less time these days. [150:06.11] So I do think it's important to put a mark in the Senate regarding multifamily. [150:12.57] I will also share my personal experience. [150:14.21] I grew up in a multifamily unit on an upper floor with no AC and it makes it difficult [150:20.55] to sleep. [150:21.71] It makes it difficult for people with asthma to breathe and sometimes people open fire [150:27.04] hydrants to try to cool off and then you have no water on top of it. [150:33.06] This is a real issue for humanity and to make sure people feel safe. [150:37.97] I had a chance to listen to the Council of Governments talk about how we're seeing an [150:42.15] increase in the number of hot days. [150:43.71] I know they divine extreme heat as days above 95 degrees and I think they're anticipating [150:49.60] by 2030, there'll be 65 days or more that'll be above 95 degrees. [150:56.43] So and I believe this year in Maryland, we've seen about 59 fatalities. [151:01.15] So I do think this is a public health issue. [151:04.33] I also support it for single family units as well. [151:08.83] I do want to, as we move forward with the policy though, consider the nuances of what [151:14.18] we have to address. [151:15.22] I support the programs to help people convert their properties to bring this to light. [151:20.67] I think the education is important because you don't always need an HVAC system. [151:25.92] The New England area has been retrofitting and they have been putting mini splits. [151:29.72] A lot of people don't know about mini splits and I think that's part of the education [151:34.57] for our community. [151:35.57] You know, sometimes the single family homeowner may not have the full team of what a multifamily [151:42.40] would know what their options are. [151:44.52] So I just think that perhaps we need to get more used to the idea of mini splits as they [151:48.84] do in the New England area and that would not have to go into a window. [151:53.30] It could be put into the wall and it's pretty simple to put throughout and they can cool [151:59.53] a number of rooms, not just a one room. [152:01.73] Sometimes the window units don't have the same range as a mini split and it's a lot [152:06.58] cheaper than an HVAC. [152:08.34] So I just, I think that some technical assistance on what options might be is critical for this [152:16.12] as well as potential, the funding programs you talked about. [152:20.13] I asked the question about how much this could cost a single family homeowner to upgrade [152:25.35] and just to level set on what I was told. [152:28.84] It could be anywhere from 5,000 to $20,000. [152:33.29] So I just, I wanted to note that it is not insignificant. [152:37.17] I do have concern about the impact on the renter. [152:40.52] So I want to be able to, I understand the runway you're putting here to help people [152:45.37] spread cost out over time and the assistance programs. [152:49.90] I want to make sure that we're protecting people and thinking about someone who has [152:57.89] thin margins, a single family homeowner who's renting out may not have the same assets [153:01.93] as a multifamily property. [153:04.40] So I wanted to note that. [153:05.96] I do want to get information about the egress question because I wouldn't want units to [153:10.09] be lost in total. [153:12.64] And I don't know if a portable unit would be acceptable in this code. [153:16.44] I think that's a good clarification. [153:18.62] So I appreciate my colleague raising that. [153:20.56] Would that help me the code or not? [153:23.72] I do want to understand what the county has done on historic properties as well. [153:31.35] And I think those are the key questions that I have at this time. [153:37.06] The one other thing that you made me think about is, you know, you get a rental license, [153:41.54] but especially for single family homeowners who may, they may be the first time they're [153:45.46] renting out. [153:47.25] I do think it would be nice to have some sort of video education so that everyone's getting [153:52.65] the same information. [153:53.65] There are a lot of new state laws, you know, city laws that I think will be helpful to [153:58.57] say this is what you should be thinking about if you're trying to rent out your home. [154:02.75] Here are some of our requirements because I know we have it in print, but when you're [154:06.78] new to this, it might be difficult and people may not comply as they should. [154:14.26] Same thing for tenants to know their rights. [154:15.94] I just wanted to say, could we, and there are some jurisdictions, actually universities [154:19.74] do a really good job at this, of that kind of education. [154:22.76] I think I've mentioned that before, but I'm hopeful that we can think about that as well. [154:26.77] Thank you. [154:28.37] Councilmember Jackson. [154:29.53] Thank you, Mayor. [154:30.53] I'll be pretty brief. [154:32.13] I think a lot of discussion from my colleagues has been really helpful and really thoughtful. [154:38.93] I thank you for the presentation. [154:40.93] I think it's very good and very thorough. [154:46.13] I think you have a good plan in place. [154:50.48] And I would note, as has been mentioned here before, it's getting hotter. [154:56.00] And I think it's past time that we do something to require air conditioning, both in multi-family [155:05.40] homes, which is great that it's almost 100%, and then single family. [155:12.88] So to answer your questions, do you support requiring air conditioning in both single [155:16.96] family and multi-family rental units? [155:19.60] Yes, I do. [155:21.83] Do you support a staggered implementation schedule for single family rental units as [155:26.75] described? [155:27.78] Yes. [155:28.78] For all the reasons that have been stated here, I understand that homeowners might [155:34.06] need a little bit of time to implement air conditioning in their units. [155:41.81] But as has been stated, we should keep in mind that the residents, the renters, are [155:48.48] really, it's really about them. [155:52.98] And so, while I understand that there might be a burden on the homeowner, I just think [155:59.18] that, again, if we're stated here, it almost is a human right, and it's a basic necessity [156:09.10] these days. [156:11.01] And it's something that we should have done long ago, but we're here now, and I think [156:17.42] we should do it post days. [156:19.82] Thanks. [156:22.26] Councilor Buschaw. [156:23.42] So first off, I did want to actually thank community members and tenants for bringing [156:29.07] this issue forward over several years, and also all of my colleagues for responding [156:34.73] to that, and staff for a really great presentation. [156:38.40] I had some questions around, oh, and I also appreciate the data as well. [156:42.72] That was really very helpful. [156:47.08] I had some questions from tenants as well about this. [156:52.50] Well, first off, I think that's a really great engagement plan. [157:00.86] One of the things I think that could be added, and I'm not sure if this was already in there, [157:05.42] but that landlords can check a box or confirm in some way every single time they're renewing [157:15.53] their license, if they have a cooling unit, or if they have a means of cooling within [157:22.74] their unit. [157:24.40] Just to make sure, and just so that everyone is reminded of the law. [157:32.08] And then also, this is one of the major questions from tenants about this. [157:40.73] Just because it's in a code, that doesn't mean that tenants will necessarily have that. [157:47.64] So what is your way of enforcing this? [157:51.08] And I know we talked about inspections, but I know that some of the landlord-scheduled [157:57.42] inspections sometimes are not even long enough between each inspection for a tenant to actually [158:04.66] stay in their unit. [158:07.37] So what way do you expect to enforce this? [158:21.95] Rental license renewals would be the area we'd catch it mostly. [158:25.69] A license would not be renewed at all for multifamily or single-family, if it's the [158:29.88] will of the council. [158:31.08] They wouldn't get renewed enough if they have their conditioning unit. [158:33.32] On top of that, and others have brought this up, if in between rental license approvals [158:40.17] and inspections, we get a complaint, and that's a code enforcement violation, we'll go out [158:44.39] and write a NOISSA violation. [158:46.15] Okay. [158:47.21] Yeah, because I do think it's important in addition to the landlord-scheduled inspections, [158:52.25] considering that Rockville has very acute housing instability. [158:56.26] Some folks aren't here for a year, but could be here through a summer that they know how [159:03.86] to make a complaint and request so that their unit will be inspected as opposed to waiting. [159:11.31] But I think the renewal process or just the license process and that touchpoint that we [159:17.11] have with landlords is actually the best way. [159:23.13] Is there a waiver process for some single-family rental landlords? [159:30.54] No, we were not proposing that there be any type of waiver process. [159:36.16] Okay. [159:37.13] I thought I saw something in the staff report when we're rolling this out that if a single-family [159:45.50] landlord needed more time or something that ... [159:48.27] Yeah, so on a case-by-case basis, during the rollout, we would evaluate if there was [159:57.51] a determination needed for more time, but again, on a case-by-case basis, so that wouldn't [160:02.67] be like a waiver, and I think Montgomery County does have some type of opt-out, so no, there [160:09.71] would be no waiver process. [160:12.07] It could just be a more time based on a specific circumstance that we would evaluate case-by-case. [160:19.12] I think that one of the ways in which, and maybe you're thinking about this and evaluating [160:23.60] a waiver, is to consider if the tenants are vulnerable, like the age of the tenant. [160:31.49] If there's ... I'm not sure how we could figure this out, but if there's like respiratory [160:36.09] issues or if there's an infant or something, I think that's really important to figure [160:42.66] out the urgency, and I can certainly support Councilmember Valeri's point about utilities. [160:52.78] They are very high. [160:54.67] I know in multifamilies, we also pay utilities, they're usually divided by the units, the [161:03.02] total utility and water is usually divided and broken down by the number of units, and [161:09.30] so everyone pays the same thing, but it depends on the landlord, and it is particularly high. [161:18.73] I do think just thinking about having, and it was shared that housing is a human right, [161:25.45] I certainly believe in that as well, but also tenants are making decisions right now [161:32.05] between groceries and rent and gas and all of these other things, so just also I would [161:39.02] be remiss if I did not put in a plug for rent stabilization as a way to make sure that [161:43.86] people are continuing to stay in their units and are able to afford things and don't have [161:49.46] to make decisions like this. [161:51.56] Thank you. [161:54.73] Councilmember Vanquak. [161:56.51] Thank you for listening to us and getting this together. [161:58.87] I know you've heard it from the Mayor and Council, and it's something that we really [162:01.67] wanted to see. [162:02.99] I absolutely support requiring air conditionings in multifamily rental units. [162:09.91] We even, as the Mayor said, heard it today during walk-in where someone had said that [162:14.31] there was a air conditioning unit that was busted in someone's apartment, and after years [162:21.74] it wasn't fixed. [162:24.40] Right now, if it's in their lease, it can be potentially enforced. [162:28.39] Without that, it can't. [162:29.83] With what we have here, it can be enforced. [162:31.99] This is really a good tool for the city and enforcement, but I also want to talk a little [162:37.23] bit about, or at least invoke a discussion with what some of my colleagues have talked [162:44.12] about, and that's related to the single-family rental units. [162:48.07] As I understand it, it's, you know, depending on the figures that we've looked at, somewhere [162:51.87] between 17 and 38 percent of the units don't have a cooling opportunities. [162:59.20] Now, I went and looked at some of the legislative history at some of the other jurisdictions [163:04.83] have done this, and it seems like, as Councilmember Fulton was saying, there can be some complexities [163:11.15] with regard to some of these single-family units, whether it's one room that's being [163:15.47] rented, whether it's an entire multi-story unit that's being rented, where the temperature [163:20.75] is taken, because if you have central air, the basement might be able to reach it, but [163:25.95] the upper rooms wouldn't. [163:27.59] There's also issues such as when you have a limited amount of windows in one particular [163:33.91] area that someone might want to open, but they might not. [163:38.08] So I want to take a little bit of a deeper understanding of what the consequences are [163:44.80] with such an avenue. [163:49.34] Have we looked in a little bit of the legislative history of some of the other jurisdictions [163:53.26] to understand a little bit more, as some of my colleagues were saying, about rationale [163:59.30] and basis of some of these single-family units? [164:06.21] Not that deeply. [164:07.21] Okay. [164:08.21] And as I stated earlier, I do know kind of how Montgomery County and its latest iteration [164:14.77] came to exclude in the single-families, which, again, I think that there were some professional [164:20.37] organizations that did play a role, and to get something across the finish line, they [164:25.89] said, "Okay, we'll exclude the single-families," but again, they have that back on the table [164:30.51] again to put the single-families back into the requirement. [164:33.99] But other than that, no, I don't have any other info. [164:37.90] Let me ask you this. [164:39.02] Could there be some type of, as opposed to a blanket requirement, and I know there's [164:44.14] a discussion of potential opt-outs, right, because we could always have an opt-out, [164:49.38] but some type of more general understanding of single-family units, like, for example, [164:56.96] there could be some exception with regard to basement units that don't have windows. [165:01.32] There could be some exception for multi-level units, as long as there's certain areas that [165:05.80] can reach that level requirement within it. [165:10.19] And I know I'm kind of talking out of something that hasn't necessarily been proposed here, [165:16.59] but something that addresses it more than just a blanket requirement for every single [165:22.10] room in every single unit. [165:25.03] Yeah, it sounds like what would be helpful is if we look at some other jurisdictions [165:32.51] as well and see, you know, pressure or discount as an example, Frederick, see who has done [165:37.90] what and even maybe look outside the state and see if we can get some additional information, [165:44.42] see, you know, what others are talking about, and come get back to you with some better, [165:50.46] some more information or a better plan. [165:52.14] Yeah, I'd really like that. [165:54.06] So along those lines, another question I had is with regard to opt-outs. [165:58.94] What is staff's thoughts with regard to, depending on what we do there, right, with [166:02.74] regard to single-family, with regard to opt-outs? [166:05.65] I know that if someone's going to do a multi-family, a single-family unit that potentially has [166:13.21] a lot of rooms, might need to meet that cooling requirement, have a central air, is a lot [166:18.98] of cost involved. [166:20.39] And we also want to make sure that we're affordable at the same time. [166:24.48] What was the discussion or thoughts with regard to a potential opt-out? [166:28.94] Go ahead. [166:37.31] We could certainly, what I would recommend is that we actually come back with some additional [166:41.11] language that would include opt-outs, splits as a way to get the cooling requirement lower. [166:47.41] But also an opportunity, because I've seen this in other jurisdictions, where the cooling [166:52.10] requirement is only in sleeping quarters, not the whole house. [166:55.73] So that's another way to do it, too. [166:57.64] In some areas, areas that I've lived and worked in Arizona, that doesn't work, because [167:02.72] it's just too hot and a whole dwelling. [167:05.22] But in some areas, and I would think Middle Atlantic might be this way, perhaps you could [167:09.24] limit it to cooling requirements in sleeping areas. [167:11.60] So what I'd recommend is that we come forward with some different language options there, [167:16.20] in addition to the additional data points that you all requested. [167:18.76] Because I think we have a little bit of time, because as Kena mentioned, we think it makes [167:22.75] the most sense to do this as part of our update of our entire building code. [167:26.32] So we'll bring it back as a package, if that's okay with the body. [167:29.34] I think that makes perfect sense. [167:30.58] I like that direction. [167:32.13] Thanks. [167:33.57] That's all I have. [167:34.82] Thank you. [167:35.82] I see Councilmember Valeri, Councilmember Shaw, and Dr. Maus. [167:40.22] Yes. [167:41.22] And thank you. [167:42.22] It was a very good presentation, and thank you to your entire team for pulling this all [167:47.13] together. [167:48.13] I know it's not easy. [167:50.40] Do we currently have an opt-out or a waiver for heating? [167:54.26] No. [167:55.35] Okay. [167:56.35] So on that basis, there's no way I would support an opt-out or a waiver for air conditioning. [168:00.95] Both can be equally deadly, especially in this area. [168:04.80] But thank you. [168:06.43] I didn't have time to look that up quickly, so I appreciate that. [168:12.75] To kind of the point of some folks mentioning basements, and what we would determine would [168:20.88] be an accessory dwelling unit, would this requirement, would they count as a single [168:29.94] family rental? [168:33.60] So if basically do ADUs count as single family rentals under this rule, or would they count [168:41.22] as, would that be a multifamily, would it be covered by the multifamily? [168:46.47] I'm presuming it would be the single family. [168:49.44] It would be the single family if a rental license is required for that ADU, which is [168:55.12] only required if you're, if it's a non-family member. [168:59.14] I'm sorry. [169:00.14] A non-family member. [169:01.14] Correct. [169:02.14] Correct. [169:03.14] Exactly. [169:04.14] That's what I'm kind of getting at, because we don't want to, sorry, no, I was apologizing [169:07.09] the microphone. [169:08.09] That's what I was trying to get at too, because we don't want to discourage folks from having [169:15.87] a rental ADU, and we want to keep that door open, pardon the pun. [169:23.45] That is extremely, and that would be, again, that would be a basement unit that could be [169:27.81] a detached, as long as we have those same components in place. [169:32.96] I appreciate that. [169:34.46] And again, I think that there is another option outside of creating an opt-out or waiver, [169:43.05] which is just really distressing to me. [169:47.02] We could make a requirement, which would be more affordable, that a landlord provide portable [169:53.12] cooling on request during the grace period. [169:56.65] So giving people time, either they're going to invest in retrofitting and putting in HVAC, [170:05.54] or to Madam Mayor's point, the, what did you call them? [170:09.42] Mini-splits. [170:10.42] Mini-splits? [170:11.42] I've never heard that. [170:12.42] I just know it as like the European style air conditioning, as somebody who was just [170:15.66] in Rome in 100 degree heat. [170:18.14] That is how, and that is, talk about historic properties, like that's how people stayed [170:23.58] cool. [170:24.64] And there were a lot of people who died over the summer, and yeah, I think all things are [170:29.38] possible where there's a will, there's a way. [170:32.10] And if that is the way that we can keep people safe during the grace period, the onboarding [170:39.10] for the single family, then maybe that's something that we can look at. [170:43.68] And thank you again, and thank you to, for the presentation. [170:47.08] And my final point, I think when we get the data, you know, just from even the smallest [170:53.37] sliver of the single family units that don't have cooling, I think then we'll see what [170:59.96] is, I believe, an equity issue. [171:03.27] Because I don't, my gut tells me that there are certain communities that don't have cooling, [171:09.00] and they may be more concentrated than in other parts of the city. [171:13.45] But I look forward to the data, and thank you both. [171:17.90] Thank you, Dr. Miles. [171:20.54] Thank you, Madam Mayor. [171:21.58] Quick follow-up. [171:22.83] We have been discussing it rightly, so providing a means of cooling. [171:28.39] I was going back to the slide, you don't have to go to it with regard to the various funding [171:34.26] avenues available for landlords, the mitigation fund, the CDBG funding, referral-based sorts [171:40.78] of sources. [171:42.22] Can those funds also be used to help make homes, make dwellings more energy efficient? [171:50.79] Meaning that, I mean, one aspect of it is to certainly provide a cooling unit, but to [171:55.13] the, you know, what the issues being faced in New York City as a big example. [172:00.90] But I think we have to be more mindful about how we use electricity, and to the extent [172:04.02] we can make our houses more, our homes more energy efficient, perhaps it would reduce [172:08.26] to some extent the need to use. [172:09.50] So the question, again, is can some of those funds be used to make homes more energy efficient [172:15.36] in addition to providing a cooling unit? [172:17.47] The quick answer is yes. [172:18.47] All right, that's all. [172:19.55] Thank you. [172:20.55] Thank you. [172:21.61] Councilmember Shaw. [172:23.82] So I do think the idea of just having one, you said the sleeping quarters as an option, [172:31.86] but I would also want to consider the tenants that work from home, and how they would be [172:39.23] impacted by that, and their work life would be impacted by that. [172:43.65] So just another thing to consider, Councillor Jackson. [172:48.59] Thank you, Mayor. [172:49.59] So to follow up with Councilmember Valeri's point, I don't support the opt out option. [173:01.04] I do think that waivers might be appropriate because we can't anticipate what everybody's [173:08.37] situation will be, but having an opt out just defeats the purpose of why we're doing this. [173:17.95] I could go with the different areas for the cooling, like the sleeping space, if I was [173:27.61] convinced that it wouldn't be prohibitively hot in the other areas. [173:34.73] I'm really not sold on that option yet, but I just want to reiterate, I'm for a waiver, [173:44.24] if I see the language, but definitely not the opt out, not the opt out at all. [173:53.31] Thank you so much. [173:54.31] I wanted to correct something I said. [173:55.31] There was actually 61 deaths in Maryland, according to the Maryland Department of Health, [174:00.81] 1,595 heat-related illnesses and 1,650 heat-related EMS calls. [174:07.07] So it's clearly an issue in our state, and we have seen it in the city. [174:13.89] I just heard a couple things, and I want to just, as you come back to us with more [174:17.26] information, I know this is a work session for us to talk about all the issues. [174:23.18] I heard folks questioning bedroom versus whole, optimally would love to have the whole [174:29.75] home be comfortable, but I appreciate the desire from colleagues to get some information [174:34.13] and research for that. [174:35.91] I didn't hear whether the portable AC could meet code or not. [174:41.55] I believe many splits should already be able to, but I think the portable AC, particularly [174:47.01] if there are units that can't have many splits or a window AC is just how we would handle [174:51.13] that so we don't lose living space or units. [174:59.88] I would like to get information about what the estimated cost of this kind of program [175:04.42] could be and then how much we might have to put in this assistance program. [175:11.97] Earlier we heard from CDBG that we couldn't use this for cooling requirements, but in [175:15.61] this presentation we heard that we could, so that also should be clarified. [175:19.04] I'm not asking, I know you guys have to think about it, but I just want to make sure that [175:23.47] we're thinking about how do we get to yes on this, what's it going to cost, and how [175:28.99] do we get there. [175:32.83] Thank you. [175:34.09] Mr. Mahalie. [175:35.09] Not to open up a can of worms, but I'm curious, there were enough new ideas and questions. [175:39.33] I'm wondering if it would be beneficial for us to do some limited community engagement [175:44.57] before we bring it back to just something on lines of survey, public meeting, just [175:49.71] saying to the community, the city is contemplating requiring air conditioning units, phase and [175:55.54] approach, just some basic questions, just to bring that back to you, so you can hear [176:01.65] what the community is thinking, instead of us just bringing back specific language and [176:05.52] then going out and adopting it, is that some good to council, you want to see some language [176:09.20] first? [176:13.20] Go ahead. [176:14.20] Worms. [176:15.20] Who wants to get, wants the community engagement? [176:17.38] Did you have a question Councilman Fulton, or you raise your hand for yes, you want [176:20.30] community engagement. [176:21.25] Yeah, I have a question comment. [176:23.58] Go ahead. [176:24.90] It hadn't dawned on me, but I think if we're coming back anyway with other information, [176:30.50] this body always wants to hear from the community before we make any decisions or formulate [176:34.10] thoughts, so yes, I think that's a great idea, I think we should do it. [176:37.30] I won't repeat that well said, go ahead, Councilmember Larry. [176:41.66] I would be open to community engagement if there's a way to ensure that the engagement [176:47.60] that we get from renters is equivalent to the engagement we get from small single family [176:53.20] home landlords. [176:54.20] I think the outreach can say we'll reach the same number, but you can't necessarily [177:00.35] guarantee who responds to as we evidence with the budget survey. [177:03.87] Agree. [177:04.87] We'll do the best we can. [177:06.87] Yeah, no, and I appreciate it, I'm just saying that the power and balance does not favor [177:13.65] the renters in this space, and that's my only, I am normally the community engagement, [177:19.89] like yes, do it. [177:21.17] In this case, I think it could be tricky enough that it gives me pause. [177:27.83] I also think just some basic human rights and dignity don't require community engagement, [177:33.68] but that's just me. [177:34.65] Thank you. [177:37.22] I think here are things like city, you know, renters need now additional energy support [177:43.80] as some of my colleagues have said I mean that there may be some interesting things [177:46.48] for us to consider. [177:47.48] Councilmember genre. [177:48.48] I would also just like to get more information on portable AC units how much they cost how [177:54.89] if they're available. [177:55.89] I mean, I was trying to get one. [177:58.71] A couple of years ago and it was just really challenging, especially in the summertime. [178:04.29] So I just want to just learn if that is like a feasible option. [178:08.65] Dr. Miles. [178:11.35] Thank you, Madam Mayor, putting a plug in support of more community feedback. [178:17.21] I think that I do agree with my colleagues that providing AC is necessary for comfortable [178:27.05] living. [178:28.05] It's a safety issue, but I am, as was mentioned, I think by at least the mayor, we want to [178:36.04] make sure that the people who are providing the housing the landlords, not providing [178:41.16] essentially unfunded mandate right mandate and do something and I recognize we do have [178:45.32] some funds on board. [178:46.32] We just want to hear them to hear as our one of our jurisdictions to the south of us is [178:51.10] dealing with a number of multifamily units that have been just under repaired the complaint [178:58.06] from the landlords like we just can't recover our funds. [179:00.26] They've had some other reasons why they weren't able to get rent from some of the renters [179:05.51] and just let the buildings go to, you know, to crap and I don't I don't foresee that [179:10.48] happening here, but I do want to hear from all parties on this important issue so we [179:15.16] can assess the need and see how we can help them in any way possible to make sure we're [179:18.37] providing safe and comfortable housing for all. [179:20.77] That's all. [179:22.73] Councillor Michelle. [179:25.04] So I'm happy to support more community engagement. [179:28.20] I just I think that this is needed and I've heard from a lot of tenants that this is needed. [179:34.18] So as long as that doesn't like prolong tenants getting AC and moving this forward, I'm fine [179:42.00] with that, but I mean, I I think most tenants want AC in their building. [179:48.10] So Councillor Jackson. [179:53.35] Yeah. [179:54.42] So just to add in my voice, I agree totally with Councilmember Shaw. [180:00.03] I think that as long as this doesn't delay what we're trying to do then getting the community's engagement is fine, but just keep it on track. [180:12.76] Thank you. I'll note when I was doing my homework, some jurisdictions I believe that have been able to successfully do all cooling requirements for all different kinds of units. [180:22.73] I think Houston, Texas, places that are hot, Phoenix and Albuquerque, New Mexico. [180:28.01] So it might be some good examples of how they rolled that out and lessons learned that we can learn from and not repeat issues that they've had. [180:38.64] I want to thank the council colleagues for your comments today. [180:41.76] I know this is something I'm very passionate about. [180:43.76] We need cooling requirements and wanted this to get on agenda. [180:46.79] I know we had to wait for the building code to make that happen. [180:48.79] I also want to thank the community for sharing their feedback and reiterating this need. [180:54.94] So I look forward to this come back to us. I will say I think that there's enough information to not delay the multifamily. [181:01.91] I think we're just trying to figure out how do we deal with a single family in a timely manner and get it done. [181:07.10] So regardless, I don't think that this should impact the multifamily timeline. [181:13.25] And I would like to see the options in a time efficient manner on the single family as well. [181:20.17] I don't want multifamily units to go offline and people not being required to fix them as we're hearing some tenants are saying is happening now. [181:30.14] Thank you all. We really appreciate this presentation. [181:45.10] We're now moving on to mock agenda. [181:47.10] We did have a leadership planning team meeting that video will be posted online. [181:51.19] Does anyone have any comments for agenda item 13? [181:54.57] I will just note, Mr. City manager, I noticed that you were able to get the move for the solid waste removal project to October 5th. [182:06.39] So there will be an updated brief book to reflect that. And that will come out. [182:10.67] Council member for Larry on this topic. [182:16.35] I just wanted to flag that on our next meeting that and I'm not sure where this falls under. [182:24.70] But the equity statement is not doesn't cover the entirety of the agenda item. [182:31.95] So I would be interested in, I'm not quite sure Miss City Clerk kind of where that falls in the chain of command. [182:41.20] But for instance, I don't think that there was an equity statement on the cooling agenda item. [182:47.17] I don't know if it's you or Mr. Mahalik who kind of does the quality control there. [182:51.16] But those are two items that I was looking in particular on the equity statement and just want to make sure that however we're doing it, I don't presume to know. [183:01.48] But I will say it helps me when looking at some of these issues to determine if there is an equity angle that I might be missing. [183:09.64] Just a follow up question with that with in the Jedi strategic plan, part of the strategy is to look at the methodology that we're doing with impact statements. [183:30.59] Is that correct? [183:31.59] That's correct. [183:33.71] OK, you have because I would also just some of them I'm glad that they're there. Some of them are just very different depending on the department or the issue. [183:46.62] And it would be good to see if there's one particular methodology as well as including data and identifying who was burdened and who is benefiting. [184:06.58] All right. We're now moving on to old new business. Dr. Miles. [184:10.25] Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just wanted to know if there's appetite on my colleagues about following up. [184:16.40] I think we sent a letter made to the county council as they were contemplating what to do with the Dickerson incinerator. [184:22.75] I think there's going to be a meeting tomorrow of county council where they're going to talk about options. [184:27.77] Is there appetite among us to voice support or opposition to a particular option? [184:33.03] I would propose if there's appetite to write a letter in opposition to moving trash via semi trucks down to Virginia. [184:45.60] I just don't know if there's appetite for that or where we stand or if we want to see the hearing first. That's all. [184:49.68] Thank you. It's my understanding that there is not only appetite for that, but we're asking the county to actually come before the mayor and council in addition to presenting to the county council and answer our questions directly on October 5th. [185:03.22] And following that meeting when we have all the information that we will be drafting a letter. [185:08.60] And some of us have also been talking to Gaithersburg about collaborating on that as well. [185:12.95] So they might do a letter. So I totally support what you're saying. [185:15.95] So do we want to wait? I guess the question, do we wait or do we want to send something as they're discussing tomorrow? [185:20.91] I'm open to whatever you all think is best. So I think that they're they're proving this before Thanksgiving and asked to present to us. [185:27.94] And Mr. I had wanted to do a letter right away, but Mr. Mihillik, I think rightly said, let them present to us. [185:33.85] And I think that's fair. But it only be by Monday, which was a week from today. [185:39.32] And then we can draft a letter on Tuesday if that's what you support that, I think. [185:44.54] OK, Councilman Bancroft and Councilman Shaw. I was just going to add, if that's the plan, and I understand that plan, we should have staff be ready to be able to either coordinate with Gaithersburg [185:58.20] or stand alone very immediately after that work session so that that should be built in as best we can, not knowing that that is given a very likely scenario after the work session, presuming we're going to go that direction. [186:15.24] Thank you, Councilman Jackson. Did you say anything? You're just saying right. OK, I'm hearing support for all the things we've been outlining. [186:23.34] And this is a really important issue to our city. Again, they'll be moving from train transit to truck transit and the city is right there at the transfer station and it would be putting additional trucks on city streets. [186:38.99] It also might have an impact on our greenhouse gas where we're so close to meeting our numbers for 2030. And then to my colleague's point, the smells might also be a factor because the trains have, to my understanding, have more of a contained structure versus trucks have a tarp or less odor control potentially. [186:59.93] OK, just to follow up on one more point. If they were to go the truck route, I think it would be transporting the garbage to a community that's already kind of not been treated so well. [187:13.93] Yeah, it would be a low income community in Virginia. Yes. And it would be require hours to get to. Yeah, Councilmember Jackson. [187:30.71] Thanks, Mayor. And I just want to reiterate because I don't think we've discussed it. There also is the possibility of building that advanced processing facility somewhere on the truck for station property. [187:44.67] So where they're going to put that advanced processing facility, as I understand it, and maybe we'll get some answers, includes things like composting. [187:55.87] So that generates gases, smells, etc. So it's really kind of important that we get some answers and then formulate a position and then send it off to the county council. [188:08.43] Thank you so much. This is an important issue and they may be making a decision in November. OK, so I have an item we have the budget and economic development survey. [188:24.06] It's my understanding those close October 1st and September 30th. I believe that for the budget server we're less than 400 responses. [188:35.14] I was just going to ask if we might keep it open for an additional week since it's so much shorter, but I just wanted to see the rationale. [188:41.14] Mr. Mahalik, I know we wanted to get it before the budget is created on your side so that you can actually use the inputs. Would that have a major impact? [188:49.52] If it's so well divided to keep it over open another week, I don't think that's a problem. Colleagues, do you support keeping it open another week? [188:58.99] OK, thank you very much. Do we have a motion to adjourn? I was going to say, come to the state of the city tomorrow at 9. Council Member Van Krak. [189:16.39] Echo that sentiment and motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Council Member Foltz in seconds. All those in favor? [189:23.58] Aye. [189:24.57] It is unanimous. Thank you everyone for joining us tonight. Thank you to staff. Thank you to our residents. [189:28.93] - Thanks. [189:30.40] - Just missed under 10.