[0:09] All right. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the committee meetings for September 29,

[0:15] 2026, the elected body president, Mayor Mary Robyshow, council member Sarah Breason, council

[0:22] member Aaron Bromley, council member Christine Hall, council member Jennifer Philippi, council

[0:28] member Allen Cells, council member Christopher Zach. I'm Randy Knight in the city administrator,

[0:34] along with City Attorney, Joe Kusak, and Deputy City Clerk,

[0:40] Rachel Reigns.

[0:41] And we welcome everyone to the committee meeting for this evening.

[0:46] And the purpose of these committee meetings are for the City Department's

[0:48] to convey vital information, essential to city operations,

[0:53] and provide updates to the Marin Council.

[0:56] And to also discuss items that will appear on upcoming agendas.

[1:01] And while this is a public meeting, it's not a public hearing.

[1:03] So we certainly welcome members of the public, but we do not take public comments or questions

[1:08] during these committee meetings unless specifically authorized.

[1:11] Public comments and questions are received at the 7th and 4th Monday of each month in

[1:16] city council meetings and on the 5th Monday in open forum.

[1:19] We do encourage our residents to reach out to city departments if you need it, any information

[1:24] or have questions regarding service delivery.

[1:27] We also encourage you to visit Roswell365.com and our other social media platforms, Roswell

[1:34] Connections, for information about meetings, events, and departmental information.

[1:39] The first item on the agenda for the evening is the approval of the Committee Meeting

[1:44] Minutes for September 15th, 2026.

[1:47] We'll annotate a motion by Councilmember Beeson, second by Mayor Robyshow, any further discussion?

[1:55] I would like to thank you for that.

[1:56] Thank you.

[1:57] Thank you very much.

[1:58] Item number two is listed on the regular agenda.

[2:02] Consideration for the mayor or city administrator to award a task order with utility asset management.

[2:09] For the Charleston Drive stormwater pipe lining project in the amount of $133,488.

[2:18] With a total project authorization of $146,836 presented by Thurand Valentine and a room director of environmental and public words, this Valentine.

[2:31] Thank you, Mr. Knighton. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. This item on the agenda is another stormwater project that's from our stormwater CIP program.

[2:42] I can go over, again, what the Capital Improvement Program involves in its catalogs,

[2:50] prioritizes and designs that needed the construction of major improvements or placements of our storm water system.

[2:58] The project we are bringing to you tonight is Charleston Drive.

[3:03] It's in the neighborhood off of Lake Charleston Drive and it involves 205 linear feet of 24-inch

[3:10] and 36-inch CMP, and it is going to be spray-in-lined concrete.

[3:16] A portion of it is actually in such bad shape, it's going to be replaced with CMP prior to

[3:20] the spraying end of the concrete, but it'll be the whole spray end will be uniform.

[3:27] Part of the replacement is 40 linear feet of 36-inch CMP, and that's what I was just talking

[3:34] about.

[3:34] The 24-inch is actually underneath the road.

[3:36] road. The road will be open during the entire construction period and construction time

[3:43] is expected to last about 30 days. The city of Roswell sent the scope of work to all

[3:49] pre-qualified stormwater lining contractors on August 11th and the city received one response

[3:55] which was from utility asset management for 133,488. The city actually sent the scope

[4:03] to the 4th pre-qualified stormwater contractors and two of the contractors have actually merged into one company

[4:11] so that brought us down to 3 and then the other two contractors indicated that they did not want to bid because the project was too small.

[4:19] Staff recommends awarding the task order to utility asset management in the amount of 133,488 dollars with a contingency of 13,348

[4:30] for unforeseen conditions for a total budget authorization of 146,836, and I'm happy

[4:38] to take any questions or comments. Thank you, Ms. Felenton. Any questions, comments? Council

[4:43] members, Zach? Yeah, this is more of a procurement question, but I'm not sure if you'd have

[4:48] the answer. How often in what's our process for refreshing the on-call list?

[4:57] It's three

[4:57] It's a good question that I should know.

[5:03] Any further questions or comments?

[5:06] All right.

[5:06] Seeing none, we'll let it take a motion on this item.

[5:08] Motion by Council Member Cells, second by Council Member Philippe.

[5:15] Any further discussion?

[5:17] Seeing none, all in favor?

[5:19] All right.

[5:19] That passes unanimously.

[5:20] Thank you very much.

[5:23] Item number three, consideration for the mayor and or city administrator to sign a

[5:27] contract with Dominica recreation products in the amount of 1,468,683 dollars and 14 cents

[5:39] with a total project authorization of 1,542,117 dollars with a replacement of playgrounds

[5:50] at East Roswell Park, Grove Way Community Park, Roswell Area Park, and Sloan Street Park.

[5:56] this will be presented by Mr. Malone, the recreation parts historic and

[6:03] cultural affairs department. Thank you sir. Appreciate it. I am happy to be here

[6:08] tonight to present this item. I'm thankful that I have our Deputy Director, Mr.

[6:14] Taylor Smith with us tonight. I am going to go through a very exciting project that

[6:20] we're happy to bring before you. This is the playground replacement project in

[6:25] in lieu of going through each individual park

[6:28] and identifying playgrounds independently

[6:31] and going through independent procurement mechanisms.

[6:34] We decided to package them all together

[6:37] and we put this out for a request for proposal.

[6:40] We received eight respondents as we go through this process

[6:44] so we wanna take you through that with us tonight.

[6:47] To give you a little background,

[6:50] our standard playground warranties average about 15 years,

[6:54] There's a lot of environmental factors that play into that.

[6:59] Our department has two staff members that are actually certified playground inspectors

[7:06] through the National Recreation and Parks Association.

[7:09] That is a very difficult certification for them to obtain, and we have two of our parks

[7:15] coordinators on staff that actually carried that certification.

[7:19] The reason we do that is they perform weekly and monthly inspections throughout all the

[7:24] playgrounds in our system, which we have about 15 that we service.

[7:29] And because of those inspections, we're able to get ahead of any ongoing maintenance

[7:33] and replacement that may need to be done, which actually takes that 15 year kind of average

[7:40] lifespan of playgrounds, and generally we're able to extend that to about 20 years as we

[7:47] start to look at how we're able to manage our playgrounds.

[7:50] It's important to note that there are four playgrounds that were suggesting replacement

[7:55] Sloan Street, Roswell Area Park, East Roswell Park, and Grove Way.

[8:00] We've identified the years that those playgrounds were originally installed as you'll see most

[8:06] of those are within the 25 to 30 year, I'm sorry, 20 to 25 year span.

[8:12] The playgrounds, I think it's important to note from an industry standard playgrounds in

[8:18] In the early 2000s, we're built on this wow factor of high towers, large slides.

[8:24] We've seen a progression over the last couple of decades in playgrounds that they are

[8:29] no longer creating these high tower components as they look at it and they're looking more

[8:35] into the inclusive play.

[8:37] When I say inclusive play, that is not only as you look at mobility issues, but that could

[8:44] be individuals that have hearing disabilities as well as site disabilities. So think of that as

[8:51] you go through these concepts tonight. A lot of that plays into the factor of these designs.

[8:57] The funding for this project comes from the 2022 bond funding. We'll go through the each

[9:04] individual site just so you can see the location. This is the Grove Way Community Park site.

[9:10] It is located at the upper soccer field, located within Grove Way Park, adjacent to the Grove Way community and the Dreamfield of the Adaptive Dreamfield that's there.

[9:24] This shows you a few of the concepts you'll notice in these concepts in lieu of creating independent shade structures.

[9:31] They've incorporated shade structure into the feature, so it's kind of built into the design.

[9:37] That helps with the overall layout, as well as providing shade throughout the play structures as you look at it.

[9:47] This shows you a few of the swings.

[9:48] Please note that while it isn't listed in this image, there is adaptive swings that will be at this location.

[9:55] That was a priority because of the adaptive dream field that is adjacent.

[10:00] It's very important that we had access for all.

[10:03] This shows you the Roswell Area Park site that is located between Fields 2 and 3.

[10:12] That is the main playground feature within Roswell Area Park.

[10:16] It's one of our largest playgrounds.

[10:23] You'll see we did try to keep some of the larger towers in play as we look at that site.

[10:29] But again, a lot of those features are going to be climbing and things that will engage

[10:34] with the movement and accessibility as you look at it.

[10:38] East

[10:43] Roswell, this is the playground that is adjacent to the entrance into the disc golf course.

[10:49] It is the largest playground within the East Roswell Park.

[10:54] We recently went through the replacement of the smaller playground structure when we were doing the improvements to

[11:01] the East Roswell Park and surrounding areas.

[11:04] So this will, after the completion of this one, that will be every playground in this park will have been recently renovated.

[11:10] So if you some of the play apparatus, this swing structure actually has the shape structures

[11:17] built over it, which is important.

[11:22] It is important to note that as we look at these concepts, we are not changing any of

[11:26] the footprints of any of the playgrounds, which means there will be no tree removal in any

[11:31] of these replacements.

[11:33] Also it's important to note that all material that's being removed from the current playground

[11:38] structures, we will be recycling all

[11:41] metal opportunities as well as the

[11:45] contractor will be taking it through

[11:47] specialized plastic recyclers as

[11:51] they're looking at what we can do to

[11:53] recycle all the old products.

[11:58] Sloan Street is a pocket park that's

[12:00] located off Sloan Street.

[12:02] It's a little bit of a smaller playground

[12:04] but it is the oldest in our system

[12:06] currently constructed in 2007.

[12:15] This gives you a timeline.

[12:17] We are bringing it to you tonight.

[12:19] If we move this forward, it would go to Mayor and Council on October 13th.

[12:23] Contract would be signed in late October.

[12:26] The goal would be to be under construction in January so that we could have almost all the

[12:30] playgrounds renovated and completed before summer starts, which would be late May early June.

[12:38] We did have eight respondents.

[12:40] We had three finalists that we came and interviewed.

[12:44] We are recommending the Minico recreation products.

[12:48] The contract authorization would be 1,468,683

[12:53] with a total budget authorization of 1,542,117.

[12:59] Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[13:02] Thank you, Mr. Marlone.

[13:03] Council Member Beeson, then we'll go to Council Member Bromley.

[13:08] I'm quite the connoisseur of all of these playgrounds.

[13:11] having a six and a nine-year-old who have been playing on them since they were babies.

[13:15] Speaking of your babies, can you go back to the East Roswell Park rendering?

[13:27] So is the one in the far background the toddler playground?

[13:31] Correct. You're going to see a smaller for a younger age group larger for the older.

[13:35] So the natural one in the next slide is not replacing the toddler one entirely,

[13:40] because I know you have it outcropping up like a small kid playground there.

[13:43] Yeah, so you're seeing in the background of this you're going to see the toddler

[13:46] and the larger one, this is just another new play feature that's actually being added into that space.

[13:53] Again, it engages more of that climbing aspect when it comes to the play features.

[13:58] That is, Taylor, you know the name of this. What is the name of the product?

[14:03] It's a fiberglass and concrete material that they make, like Stephen said, for more of a natural play feature.

[14:12] Yeah, so it comes out. It's a lot of fun for them to get all over.

[14:16] Just making sure we weren't getting rid of the small scale slides, because I know that

[14:18] that's kids five and under that's all they have. And just sliding down the log thing is not going

[14:24] to be a spun. And then with the Roswell area park playground, are we only doing the tower structure,

[14:34] not the zipline structure that currently exists? Because there's three playgrounds at Roswell area

[14:38] park. We're only doing the one that's closest to the main drive, not the other two, correct?

[14:45] That is correct. You're exactly right. So the only playground being replaced at

[14:49] Roswell Area Park is the one immediately adjacent to the covered pavilion.

[14:54] So if you know where the covered pavilion step out there, that playground in that area,

[14:57] where we have the gravity slide. Yes.

[15:00] That is remaining as well as the smaller top of the playground adjacent to it, as well as the fence and playground is all remaining. Okay, understood. I'm just making sure that those place structures weren't being consolidated into just one large one. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Romney. For these structures, what is the life useful life that they have? Taylor, correct me if I'm wrong. We would get a 15 year warranty on all materials.

[15:28] So in year 15, we'll have to replace them all.

[15:32] Well, 15 years is just when the warranty would expire.

[15:35] So we would do everything in our power to extend the lifespan of those materials

[15:40] by potentially doing replacement improvements.

[15:43] We may have to go in and change out some elements of it,

[15:46] but that doesn't necessarily mean that the product would be in failure at 15 years.

[15:51] Think your experience could you double the life of it?

[15:54] I don't know that we've ever taken a playground to 30 years.

[15:57] I would say generally we're pretty comfortable within about the 20 to 25 year

[16:01] Span dependent on the product is pretty standard for us 30 years. I believe would be pushing it and

[16:08] Just to be clear, does this pay with the bonds from 2022? That's correct. Yes, ma'am. Thank you

[16:15] All right any other question your comments pertaining to this item

[16:21] Seeing none will entertain a motion

[16:23] Motion by Council Member Beeson, second by Council Member Brumley, any further discussion?

[16:30] Seeing none, all in favour?

[16:31] All right.

[16:32] This will move.

[16:32] Very excited to.

[16:34] Thank you, sir.

[16:35] We're honored to have your public comments as the commentator.

[16:38] We're asking for your answer.

[16:45] Thank you very much.

[16:47] That's my title.

[16:48] Thank you very much.

[16:48] The next item on the agenda item number four consideration of amendment to the development

[16:56] impact fee ordinance that will be led by Mr. Leatherman.

[17:23] Thank you Mr. Knighton and by way of introduction I have Carson Bice with me of Tishler

[17:28] Bice he is here as our representative and has been our consultant on this project for the

[17:34] past over a year now as we've worked through the impact fee evaluation and recommendations

[17:39] that you have before you.

[17:41] I ask Carson to join us because he will be able to walk you through the technical components,

[17:46] not only of what's required in our impact fee analysis, but the results that we have associated with it and can answer much better

[17:53] than I can in any technical related questions that you have here at committee.

[17:57] So I'll do the first couple of introduction slides and then turn it over to Carson to walk you through the plan

[18:02] and then wrap it up with questions and recommendations.

[18:05] Just by way of schedules and some of this started before you, many of you were elected.

[18:11] We started back in January of 2025 and as required, we had an advisory committee that

[18:18] was designated as our Roswell Development Authority working with staff and Carson throughout

[18:24] the entirety of this process.

[18:26] Coming into 2026, we have the fifth and final advisory committee meeting with a recommendation

[18:30] that we're moving forward to you tonight at our committee presentation.

[18:34] What is also required is to move this through the Planning Commission, the first and second

[18:38] reading at Mayor and Council.

[18:40] And so at the end of this, what I'll be asking for is any other questions and or recommendations

[18:45] that you may have that you want us to look at, as we transition this into the Planning Commission

[18:49] for some additional recommendations from them.

[18:52] And then again, we'll bring this back in October for first and second reading, but also hopefully

[18:58] to get most of your technical questions answered tonight here at committee.

[19:02] I'm going to turn it over to Carson from here, but I just want to note that the last time

[19:06] that we updated our impact fees was in 2015, as I said, we hired Tissler Bice as part

[19:14] of our procurement process to represent and support the city as we've gone through the

[19:17] evaluation.

[19:18] And so, appreciate that and turn it over to Carson.

[19:22] Thank you, Jeff.

[19:24] Thank you.

[19:24] I appreciate that.

[19:26] Thank you.

[19:27] Good evening, Mayor.

[19:28] Members of Council.

[19:29] I'm Carson Bice.

[19:30] So let's start with the definition of water impact fees because I know this body was not

[19:37] in place when we did the study in 2015, 2016, but impact fees are one-time payments designed

[19:43] to offset new gross impact on different infrastructure systems.

[19:49] Impact fees are meant to offset the need to raise taxes to pay for services.

[19:54] Impact fees help take some of the burden off new development as is associated with the

[20:00] So, and it's associated costs from existing residents within the city.

[20:06] So, there are 29 impact fee acts in the country right now and Georgia happens to be one

[20:12] of those states and the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act was enacted in 1990.

[20:17] It sent schools for local governments that wish to charge new development for impact fees,

[20:23] and impact fees may be used for infrastructure improvements, for debt service, for growth-related

[20:28] infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, impact fees cannot be used for infrastructure

[20:35] replacement, correcting existing deficiencies, or used in operations or maintenance. We can't

[20:42] comingle these funds into our general fund. We have to count for them separately and publish

[20:47] an annual report each year. So there is a requirement in Georgia as well as a few other states where

[20:56] local governments that wish to impose development in fact fees have to have an adopted conference plan. South Carolina is very similar in that regard.

[21:04] The conference plan must include what is known as a capital improvement element in order to be in compliance with development in fact the act.

[21:13] Now, impact fees can be used for, but not limited to in Georgia, but relative to Roswell,

[21:22] we can use them for recreation parks, police, fire, and transportation.

[21:31] So in terms of the math involved in a conceptual impact fee calculation, step one, we determine

[21:38] the appropriate demand indicator service unit.

[21:41] We use these sort of terms interchangeably for that particular type of infrastructure.

[21:46] So for example, we're talking about parks, typically the demand unit or service unit is the number of people per housing unit.

[21:54] If we're talking about transportation, that demand unit can be average daily vehicle trips or vehicle miles of travel or person trips.

[22:03] So that's the first step. We define what is the indicator of demand for that type of infrastructure.

[22:08] Except two, we determine the infrastructure units per service unit typically called what

[22:14] we call a level of service standard.

[22:16] So let's use parks again as an example.

[22:18] We would compare the number of developed park acres or the total number of park acres

[22:23] to the total population in the city at that given point in time to determine a level of service

[22:29] of let's say 1.4 acres per thousand residents or so many vehicle miles of capacity versus

[22:37] vehicle miles of travel, for instance.

[22:39] Step three, we then establish, well, what does it cost us as a community to replicate

[22:46] this infrastructure going forward?

[22:48] So using parks, again, as an example, what does it typically take or cost us to purchase

[22:54] an acre park?

[22:55] What does it cost us to replicate the type of improvements or amenities we have in our

[23:01] park system now in terms of, you know, trails, gazibos,

[23:05] remadas, bathrooms, lit ball fields, et cetera.

[23:11] So, as the first step in developing the impact fees,

[23:15] we have to demonstrate a nexus of needs.

[23:18] So, we have to document that Roswell has grown,

[23:21] that growth is going to continue in the future.

[23:24] And so, we have to make a projection

[23:25] of what we think the residential and non-residential

[23:28] development future may hold for Roswell.

[23:31] In order to do that, we sourced a number of different sources, so population projection

[23:37] is based on alternatives in the current 2040 conference plan.

[23:41] We've been projected housing units using persons per housing unit factors that we determined

[23:47] using the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data, which lets us know what the average

[23:54] number of persons are in a single family unit versus a multifamily unit.

[23:58] Employment data is from the 2050 metropolitan transportation plan, and then we back into the non-residential square footage using what we call employment density factors, which is, for instance, the number of retail employees per thousand square feet, the number of office employees per thousand square feet in order to get an employment projection.

[24:17] So, you can see here we are projecting about 7780 new persons and about 3,199 new housing

[24:29] units.

[24:30] A total employment of about 3,340 new employees.

[24:36] And that equates to about 1.43 million square feet of future residential space.

[24:45] So when we look to how we calculate impact fees, the way to think about impact fees are we can look to the past, we can look to the present and we can look to the future.

[24:55] So when we look to the past, we call that a cost recovery or a plan based approach.

[25:00] It's usually for when we either through foresight or an accident, we have oversized infrastructure.

[25:06] We really see this used a lot with utilities where, for instance, if a wastewater treatment

[25:12] plant that has 10 million gallons a day of capacity, we're currently utilizing six.

[25:17] And so we're buying into that excess capacity.

[25:20] We can also do that for non-utility expenses.

[25:23] So for instance, if a jurisdiction has recently built a public safety building or an aquatic

[25:27] center and it's been oversized to serve new development, we can recoup new developments portion

[25:34] of that excess capacity. We also look to the present that's by far the most common method

[25:40] of calculating impact fees and it's what to think of it it's sort of formulaic like insurance

[25:46] replacement methods where we document what are the level of services today what does it cost us

[25:52] to replicate that in terms of you know cost per square foot or cost per acre etc. And then the third

[25:59] Another method is we look to the future, we call that a plan-based approach.

[26:03] A plan-based approach is typically used with utilities and transportation and any other

[26:09] infrastructure category that has an adopted master plan, more importantly, an adopted funding

[26:16] plan because in most cases, adopted master plans are elevating levels of service.

[26:23] We've already talked about how we can't use impact fees to correct existing efficiencies.

[26:27] So if you're going to do a plan-based approach, you have to identify the growth share versus

[26:32] the non-growth share and identify the funding strategy.

[26:35] And it's a little risky because if we were to have an economic downturn, the city would

[26:40] still be on the hook for the same CIP, it's just that the impact fee revenue would be less

[26:44] and we'd have to come up with additional funding from other sources.

[26:48] And so that's why that incremental expansion or the looking at our present base is by far

[26:54] are the most popular way to calculate in that case.

[26:58] And it is important to note that sometimes we mix

[27:00] a match methodologies, sometimes an incremental expansion

[27:03] method will be used for the say part plan,

[27:05] but using that aquatic center example,

[27:08] you may have a buy-in or a plan-based approach

[27:10] for sort of a one-time facility.

[27:13] So in terms of how we calculated fees for this update,

[27:18] for parks, we use an incremental expansion approach.

[27:21] police. We also used incremental expansion fire was incremental expansion and we did use

[27:26] a plan-based approach for the transportation fee. This table also shows that the fact that

[27:33] we're recommending a city-wide service area because you are providing these levels of service

[27:38] on a city-wide basis. It also shows the cost allocation for each of these infrastructure

[27:43] categories. So let's talk about the results of the impact

[27:47] actually study itself.

[27:49] So parts and recreation includes a component

[27:52] for park improvements in community centers.

[27:56] A component for a land is not included in this update.

[28:00] As the city does not anticipate purchasing additional

[28:05] park land over the next five years,

[28:07] that could change.

[28:08] Our recommendation was that we revisit this after five years

[28:11] and see if adding additional park purchases is appropriate.

[28:17] both components of this parks and recreation fee use

[28:20] the that incremental expansion method

[28:22] when we're looking to the present in terms

[28:23] of your current levels of service.

[28:25] And the focus of this impact fee will be on improving

[28:29] the existing parks that you have in the city

[28:31] with additional amenities and infrastructure improvements.

[28:37] So I love this graphic.

[28:38] We didn't come up with it.

[28:39] Your staff did.

[28:41] It's very, very bold that we may have to copy you

[28:43] and give you a royalty every time we use it.

[28:46] But the way to, so as we work our way down the table, so we have the, again, as I said

[28:51] earlier, residential, you know, the demand for parks is from residential units.

[28:55] So we look at the number of persons per unit from multifamily versus single family.

[29:00] We then look at what's the level of service in terms of improvements per person.

[29:04] We then look at what does it cost to, on average, based on our current asset inventory to provide

[29:10] these improvements.

[29:10] So we get our cost per person.

[29:12] We also look at our existing level of service for community centers and figure out what

[29:17] it costs per person for that.

[29:18] Then we look at what is our projected growth over that next 10 years and based on that

[29:23] projected growth applied to these level of service standards, what does that mean in terms

[29:28] of what we have to provide an infrastructure.

[29:31] So you can see here that we would have to provide about 3.2 million in new park improvements

[29:36] in about 10.1 million in new community center space.

[29:39] So that's the growth share. So we're talking about $13.3 million, $13.4 million.

[29:47] The city can choose to build $15 million worth of improvements or $20 million worth of improvements.

[29:54] New growth is only going to pay for $13 million of that, right?

[29:57] So anything above that we're elevating.

[30:01] Now, one of the things we didn't mention earlier in our overview of impact fees is this idea that we have to guard against new development paying twice. That's why we have credits in some of the impact fees. So, the idea here is, if I pay you an impact fee, but you're going to use a dedicated revenue, like, like, splost, or you have debt payments on your existing infrastructure, you're going to issue debt on your future infrastructure, we have to give a credit because I'm going to pay you an impact fee.

[30:30] but I'm also going to generate revenue in terms of sales tax or potentially

[30:34] property tax is going to go to pay debt service or sales tax is going to be used to

[30:39] pay debt service. So I'm paying for the same infrastructure twice. So that's what

[30:43] we have this credit. In this case we have a debt service credit per person about

[30:46] twenty-seven dollars and then we add all this math together we get a single

[30:51] family fee of forty two hundred and forty nine dollars a person or excuse me

[30:56] per unit and 3,099 for a multi-family unit.

[31:03] Let's move on to police.

[31:05] The impact fee component here is for bricks and mortar or facilities.

[31:10] It is important to note that the Georgia Development and Be Act limits us to infrastructure

[31:14] that has a 10-year useful life, which is why we don't see police cars.

[31:18] And this impact fee, which we're allowed to do in other states outside of Georgia,

[31:24] The components that we use for this fee, for police space, is that incremental expansion

[31:30] approach.

[31:31] And a similar table, but in this case, the fees are allocated against residential and

[31:37] non-residential development.

[31:38] We use what a measurement called functional population, which is a measurement of, it looks

[31:44] at a resident population, their community patterns, it looks at how many folks come into the

[31:50] city to work during the day that live outside of the city. How many folks that live in the city

[31:55] leave our city to work outside of the city to get what we call a functional population split,

[32:00] which is 69% residential, 31% non-residential. We then look at our service units there,

[32:07] our police level of service in terms of square foot per person and square foot per vehicle trip.

[32:12] And then we get our fees of $859 per unit, $153 per thousand square feet.

[32:20] for the industrial category, for example,

[32:23] we do have a debt credit here as well.

[32:29] Refire, the impact fee includes components

[32:31] for apparatus as well as bricks and mortar.

[32:35] Apparatus typically have a useful life of 15 to 20,

[32:38] sometimes 25 years, refire a DMS.

[32:41] We did use that incremental expansion approach

[32:44] for this fee as well.

[32:47] Again, we use that functional population split of 6931.

[32:50] We look at residential fees on a per person basis, the non-residential fees on a per vehicle

[32:56] trip basis.

[32:58] So we get these different cost factors, and the maximum supportable fee for a single

[33:04] family unit is $1498 per unit, and for an industrial property it's $266 per thousands

[33:12] per foot.

[33:18] Transportation, use the plan-based approach that mentioned earlier, it includes components

[33:22] for both streets and pedestrian improvements so the way to think of this is more of a multimodal

[33:28] street fee. The methodologies, plan bays, we use average weekday vehicle trips for the

[33:36] capacity or the traditional roadway capacity methodology and we use person trips for the multimodal

[33:44] improvements and for roadway costs we get cost of $432 for vehicle trip, pedestrian crop

[33:53] cost 97.31 per person trip. We do give a credit for the future projection of

[34:00] T-splots revenue because again we don't want new development pains twice.

[34:04] Once through the impact fee and through the T-splots revenue that they would

[34:08] generate. And so we get a maximum allowable transportation impact fee of $130

[34:13] per vehicle trip and $3188 per person trip.

[34:21] Now this chart here shows you the

[34:23] in maximum allowable fees calculated by T-Survice following the Georgia Development Fee Act.

[34:32] What this means is, based on the assumptions and the development projections in the study,

[34:38] we can't just say, well, I feel the fee should be $10,000 instead of $9,275.

[34:43] Based on these assumptions, this is the maximum supportable.

[34:47] In this case, the full freight, when we look at recreation parks, police, fire and transportation,

[34:51] as well as the city's administration fee of 30% or 3%.

[34:56] It's $9,275 for a single-family unit, $6,728 for a multi-family unit.

[35:03] And then we'll work our way down the non-residential chart.

[35:07] Commercial development has the highest impact fees, $8,142 per thousand square feet,

[35:12] followed by office and other services at $3,613 per thousand,

[35:18] institution of $35,000, $90,000, and an industrial at $11,000, $23,000.

[35:31] One of the things we do when we look at impact fees because the question is how does this compare to our current fees and then how does it compare to our neighbors?

[35:41] When we look at the current fees which were done by square foot of living space versus the proposed update, which is by the type of unit,

[35:52] The larger impact fee or larger house size had a fee of $4,135, where the single family unit now has $9,275.

[36:02] From a non-residential perspective, all the fees are increasing.

[36:06] Again, it's been 10 years since the impact fee study was done, so it's not surprising that they're increasing.

[36:12] increasing. The largest increases, obviously, are for commercial, but all the fees are increasing

[36:18] across the board. And when we compare ourselves to other communities, and we're looking at

[36:24] single-family units, because that's typically how we compare this. And I'll be honest with

[36:29] you, I'm not a big fan of this, but I know why we do this, because it really isn't comparison

[36:32] of apples to apples or oranges, because there are a lot of caveats that have to be explained

[36:38] way. So for instance, how long has it been since our neighboring jurisdictions have adopted

[36:43] their fees? Number two, when fees were proposed that they adopt a 100% or that they adopt

[36:50] some percentage thereof, what components are in the fees. So for instance, sometimes we'll

[36:56] see, you know, our park fee only has park improvements and recreation centers in it, but another

[37:01] jurisdictions park fee may have land, recreation centers, trails, an aquatic center, senior

[37:08] centers, etc. So there's a lot of different nuances that go into this. You can see that when

[37:14] we look at the proposed fees, we are now in the top 10% regionally compared to our peers.

[37:22] We're 92 75 for a single family unit. Milton now is at 10,652. I can tell you that we are looking

[37:30] to Cherokee County right now. We're about to have draft fees there. They're going to go up considerably.

[37:36] We also are finishing Hall County right now, those are going to go up considerably.

[37:41] And so this, keep in mind, this is a moving target.

[37:45] And with that, I think we're ready for questions and answers, right?

[37:48] Or do you want to go ahead?

[37:51] So I think, sorry, just real quick, we had, coming out of our briefings with three on three,

[37:56] as we had a question associated with one of the transition from the square foot method

[38:02] in the previous study to the way that we're calculating a

[38:07] recommending a per person calculation and just wanted to open

[38:11] that up with the conversation. Carson and I have talked a

[38:13] little bit about it and I think if you just want to respond to

[38:17] what the options are, we have as the council just to put that

[38:20] out on the table as well.

[38:23] So back to the map when you're talking about that.

[38:26] Which one?

[38:27] This one?

[38:28] OK.

[38:29] This one or the recommendation for us to have that.

[38:34] This one?

[38:34] Yeah, OK.

[38:40] Can we switch?

[38:41] Yeah, here we go.

[38:42] Yeah, can we switch back to the E-square?

[38:43] Yeah, you can.

[38:45] And so it's really, it's a policy decision for you all.

[38:52] The feedback we got was the, and we get this a lot, is from an administrative perspective,

[38:59] it's much more burdensome when it's done by size of house.

[39:04] The upside to it is, from my perspective, is at least a better proportionality,

[39:10] and to, it helps with housing affordability, because we're not working anywhere in the United States

[39:15] where housing affordability is an issue, and so in most communities we work with,

[39:19] unless you've got wonky demographics like a retirement community and you know

[39:23] on the coast and Florida most communities who work in there is a relationship

[39:27] between the number of people, number of vehicles which influence generation

[39:31] rates as units get larger and then it levels off at some point and that leveling

[39:37] off point is what differs from community community so it's more of a policy

[39:41] decision about you know what you want to do as a city do you want to go to the

[39:45] one-size-fits-all fee structure like this or do you want to keep it by size and house

[39:51] And if we just hold comments on that, I'll get the other two questions.

[39:55] In this study, we have separated out police and fire within this study.

[39:58] I asked Mr. Qsac just to look up some of the history, what we see in the state of Georgia,

[40:05] and then of course we can comment further on kind of the methodology of why we had the

[40:09] combination of the fee in 2015 and the recommendation for splitting the two.

[40:16] So, and there was actually the COE specifically on impact fees at the last city, county,

[40:22] attorney, I guess, conference, but it mainly, it was talking about the litigation that

[40:27] has picked up surrounding fees.

[40:29] There's been an increase of litigation surrounding the impact fees because there's a

[40:32] certain process you have to go through, but separating out the different buckets of fire

[40:37] and police at least gave you some, I'll call risk reduction as opposed to having them in

[40:42] the same bucket just from generating the proportionality of those fees that go in there and how you

[40:47] reallocate them. So it's more of a, it creates an easier accounting method to have each separate

[40:53] fund because then you can determine the proportionality that gets spent on each fund. So that's,

[40:58] that's why the trend has gone to police and fire being separate as opposed to public safety being

[41:04] all in one bucket. It's easier to defend it lowers the risk tolerance for the city if we're

[41:10] In fact, these ordinance was ever to be challenged.

[41:15] That's a revolve.

[41:17] So, yeah, that was my question.

[41:19] And it was specifically my question because as policy makers,

[41:25] the fewer buckets that we have, we of course have more public safety

[41:30] is in one bucket.

[41:32] We have more decision making power as to where those funds are.

[41:37] and we're less likely to have stranded funds

[41:41] if police needs more funding in a period

[41:45] versus fire or vice versa.

[41:48] I just can't find in the statute

[41:51] where it requires it to be split

[41:54] and I'm not sure about what cases are.

[41:57] I can't, I mean, I agree horribly

[42:00] with what this gentleman said.

[42:03] And there is not only in Georgia, and you've had some recent court cases here, but all

[42:10] over the country, things are being scrutinized much, much greater after the issue.

[42:15] I understand that, but are they being scrutinized for police and fire?

[42:19] Are they being scrutinized for all across the board?

[42:21] And the problem we have with public safety is that in terms of the percentage of assets,

[42:28] it's overwhelmingly fire AMS.

[42:29] police typically has one built, right? Fire stations, you will have multiple fire

[42:35] stations in a training center, so they may have 80% of the assets. And the last

[42:40] thing you want, and to use your word discretion, is to then spend the money 80%

[42:48] toward police when fire has 80% of the assets. So that's why it's much more

[42:55] approved to separate out into police versus fire AMS.

[42:59] Professor, I had a second.

[43:02] Councilmember Cells.

[43:06] Yeah, I've been getting some thoughts about this.

[43:08] And thank you for addressing the square foot issue.

[43:11] I believe I was someone who brought this up.

[43:12] And the issue, just to frame it in the way

[43:15] that we were talking about it on 303.

[43:18] So that's about four years of property tax on the average

[43:21] house in Roswell.

[43:23] And for, you know, we say we want to be family-friendly,

[43:27] a most family-friendly destination city in the United States.

[43:32] Well, you know, and particularly for start homes,

[43:37] things like that, it's a real challenge.

[43:39] So I hear you on the square footage may be what I'm taking away.

[43:44] It's almost an insurance kind of conversation

[43:46] about risk versus the lawsuit versus that,

[43:50] That's what we're talking about.

[43:52] So is it your counsel that say if the goal was to make it

[43:59] something closer to zero for the smaller homes and something

[44:02] more than 92.75 for the larger homes, what I heard you say

[44:06] is I don't think we can go above 92.75 on any single home.

[44:09] Is that the essence of it?

[44:12] No.

[44:13] It would be greater than 92.75.

[44:16] 92.75 is the average.

[44:19] Perfect.

[44:19] Okay, so we could we could some units would be much greater some units would be much less

[44:26] But over the 10 years you'd likely get the same amount of revenue because you're gonna have a certain number that are smaller

[44:33] Larger, but it's the average right and we talked about

[44:37] So we've got we basically built out city for the most part so we're not talking about a lot of green fields and

[44:43] We talked about houses that are raised and replaced and they would be facing this right?

[44:49] Okay, that is a policy decision.

[44:52] Well, I think we're in our conversation.

[44:53] It is today the case, is that, is that what?

[44:56] If they have not paid impact fees in the past, as part of...

[45:00] Our ordinance, then we do assess them impact fees if they apply when they're doing a new build on that same lot. Okay. Well, I think the conversation that we were having was that as a policy matter we want to inset, you know, development of single family homes at the lower end to the extent that we can. Three of us, four of us were at a breakfast this morning and the Georgia average for regulatory cost for a new construction

[45:29] is 24.6, I think, is the number that I recall or is it 26?

[45:34] I think it was 26, actually.

[45:35] Maybe it's higher than that. It was a big number.

[45:38] And he pointed out that it was basically what the land

[45:41] percentage used to be is now the regulatory burden.

[45:46] And this is, you know, this is exhibit A,

[45:50] of our contribution to that problem.

[45:53] I get why we're not arguing the premise that we need to do it.

[45:56] You know, because there are things

[45:58] someone moves in is four years of property taxes for an entry fee hour ages? No, it's not,

[46:04] but if we went and sent other things, we had to wait against that. And so that, I think, for us,

[46:09] that was, I don't know what Joel's conversation was in the three-on-three, but that was what we were

[46:13] focused on. Yeah, and I think, you know, the opportunity within this conversation is to take direction

[46:21] from the body, and if you want to, as a body, give us direction to re-look at the fees

[46:28] per unit calculation and adjust that on a square footage and bring that back and through

[46:33] as the recommendation, we certainly can go, make those adjustments, and then bring that

[46:39] recommendation through in October.

[46:42] It's essentially just adjusting, and I think as Carson mentioned, and I want to make sure

[46:47] that we're clear on this is when, or if we were to choose the per square foot calculation,

[46:55] it would apply to a single family and multi family equally.

[46:58] Right.

[46:58] So you can't separate the two.

[47:00] Right.

[47:00] You have to, the methodology has to be the same on residential units.

[47:05] That's correct.

[47:05] Does the, does the number, the value have to be the same?

[47:09] In other words, you've got, you've got two thirds one third, or excuse me, yeah, two

[47:14] three-thirds as it were right is that is that also a problem so the first

[47:20] square foot may be different it's the multifamily unit you're gonna fall

[47:23] between the 600 and like the 1200 to 1400 square foot so don't pay

[47:28] attention to those two numbers it'll just be by a square foot it's just that the

[47:33] larger units are gonna pay more than the 92 75 and the smaller units to a certain

[47:38] point are gonna pay but they would be the same dollar per square same dollar per

[47:41] square foot, same cost per person, right? It's just what's our number of persons. And so, and what

[47:47] you'll find, and this always trips up people, is that since we're using persons for housing units,

[47:53] right, which is the universe of housing units, it includes your vacant units, is that lots of times

[48:01] the fee category shows less than one person in a unit at a certain size. That's because we're looking

[48:08] at the fact that you may have 1,000 units at that size, but only 870 of those

[48:14] occupied at any given moment, right?

[48:17] Okay, so just play it back if it's going to be basically if we do it that way, we're

[48:22] going to insist something which I don't want, which is more of a free standing

[48:25] coordinate.

[48:27] But on the single family side, yeah, I get that.

[48:30] I'm hesitant to say this because I don't like to, you know, force my opinion on things,

[48:38] But it's the market because you do something doesn't that that's going to have the

[48:44] price if the market is everybody wants a 5,000 square foot house in Roswell that's where they're

[48:48] going to continue to build yeah yeah because you go to this doesn't mean all of a sudden you're

[48:52] going to be building 1200 square foot units that's a good point the the apartments in in

[48:57] Roswell are on the high end if any new apartments are going to be significantly more per square foot

[49:03] but then a single family home.

[49:05] Would you like to speak in a word, say,

[49:06] on monthly basis, so, thanks.

[49:08] That's one of the best thing.

[49:11] So that question, my question also came out of my,

[49:15] three on one, it was just me.

[49:17] That was a question that I'd asked as well.

[49:20] In theory, can you go back to the methodology

[49:23] of how you got to this recommendation?

[49:26] Which?

[49:27] The police, the fires, the, yeah, you walk through

[49:31] the infographics, I guess. So at the very bottom here, you've lumped it all into single

[49:36] family and industrial. How come multi-family is not represented in the fire impact fees

[49:40] at the bottom? That was just to show the process, not 100% of the fees. Got it. Okay.

[49:46] There is also commercial fee, there is also institutional fee, there is also multi-family,

[49:51] but that was just getting really crowded in all of the different opponents. So this is just

[49:55] the purpose of methodology. For ease of interpretation. Can you go back to the recommendations,

[50:02] My understanding is that we currently use the square footage approach on residential,

[50:06] but I don't understand the motivation for moving away from it.

[50:09] And I'll explain, I get what you're saying in terms of the number of people per unit

[50:15] and how it averages out to his question about the two-thirds versus the three-thirds of the 6,000 versus 9,000.

[50:22] But I don't understand how you're not accounting for the economies of scale that are inherent in multi-family.

[50:27] Because single-family all have their own ties to water lines.

[50:31] They all have their own, like a fire service comes out.

[50:35] They're only serving that household, same with police, as opposed to multi-family.

[50:41] You're servicing multiple people at the exact same time.

[50:44] So and same with transportation and how units move.

[50:47] So I don't understand how that economy is a scale isn't taken into consideration in using

[50:52] lots of sun versus the square footage amount.

[50:56] So I'm not sure I understand all of that but so let's talk about fire so you're

[51:02] not likely to have multiple fires at the same time in an apartment. No but you'll

[51:06] have multiple units take it at the same time as opposed to your one single

[51:09] family home. Right but here's the thing most fire calls are EMS in nature. 80 90

[51:17] percent which is a function of the presence of people and that's why we use people

[51:22] with the denominator in the fire EMS.

[51:26] Just like we're using vehicle trips

[51:28] for police and fire for the non-residential side

[51:33] because if we if we used employees,

[51:37] office would have the highest fire police impact fee,

[51:40] but we know more incidents that happen

[51:42] at retail establishments because it presents to people

[51:44] and trip rates account for the fact

[51:46] that the equal trips account for employees coming,

[51:51] visitors coming. So the other point is that there are no perfect financing mechanisms, right?

[52:00] Property taxes and account for the fact that the amount you pay has no bearing on how much

[52:05] services you concern or you consume, same with impact fees. We can't be perfect, but you're right in

[52:12] that, if you're applying that, if one unit catches on fire, another one's likely to catch.

[52:18] I'm just using

[52:19] to say that an account for numerically or empirically that having 80 people on one acre is more

[52:33] cost effective than three people on one acre.

[52:38] We can't assure that. We don't have an

[52:40] empirical evidence of Roswell which shows that. Got it. So you're doing it based off the data.

[52:43] And then my secondary question to that, and you referenced it a minute ago in terms of housing

[52:47] affordability. You said that you believed that this approach would support housing affordability.

[52:52] My counter was during my briefing, I had asked, so for example, and this is similar to

[52:58] Council Member Sells's point, if you have a 3000 square foot home, how is that going to be charged

[53:05] the exact same as a 7,000 foot home or a 1500 foot home? You're not incentivizing the best allocation

[53:14] for land use by blanket charging each single family home as opposed to basing it off

[53:21] of size.

[53:22] Because if I'm a developer and I'm going to get hit with the same amount of charges

[53:25] either way, why not build the giant McMansion as opposed to the affordable starting home.

[53:30] So can you walk me through your thought process on the affordability?

[53:33] Yeah, I'm not arguing either way.

[53:34] I mean, this wasn't my decision.

[53:35] Well, you just thought that it was more affordable.

[53:37] It's both or legitimate methods, both are reasonable in terms of collecting impact fees

[53:44] in terms of being challenged, it's more a policy choice by the jurisdiction, and I will

[53:50] show you, I agree, to your point, what we propose in here, you're exactly right.

[53:59] But then go to the other side, where you do it by size of house, there's also a set of pros

[54:04] and cons.

[54:04] So it's really what you guys want to do.

[54:07] I think, though, and Carson, I want to put words in your mouth, when you were answering

[54:11] During the question related to changing the fee per unit to a square foot cost, you

[54:18] were saying that it has the potential to support affordable.

[54:22] I think you guys are actually talking about the unit.

[54:25] So yeah, so yeah, if you do have a market for smaller units, I mean the thing that more

[54:34] progressive communities like about the size per unit or the fee per unit approach is that

[54:40] And it makes a fee now behave like a tax because smaller units are typically less costly.

[54:49] And the more expensive units are paying a higher impact fee, and so some communities

[54:53] like that, right?

[54:54] Because it's sort of a progressive destructure.

[54:58] But I happen to agree, it does help with housing affordability, equity, I think it improves proportionality.

[55:05] So we're big fans of the first work of a cost, but we, but it's a policy choice.

[55:12] I understand that it's committee to the elected body.

[55:15] I think I'm still in the frame of mind that I prefer the square footage approach as opposed

[55:18] to the fees per unit approach.

[55:20] But I appreciate that.

[55:21] But the downside is to this gentleman's point is that if you're serious about housing

[55:29] affordability, as you've also got these larger homes that are $12 or $13 or $14,000.

[55:36] But at the same time, when you look at this, in terms of what does this mean on an average

[55:43] mortgage, assuming 20% down, 30-year mortgage, it's less than $100 a month at the high end

[55:53] it was $15,000, you know, $5,000 to $6,000.

[55:57] It's, you know, probably $40,000 to $50,000 a month

[56:01] in terms of what its impact is on a mortgage.

[56:05] A lot of people attach itself to this huge amount, right?

[56:10] But there's all of these different amounts

[56:12] that get rolled into the cost of a house.

[56:14] And so what does it really mean on a monthly basis?

[56:16] I guess I'm thinking more from the incentivization

[56:18] of developers unless the end is obviously going to be a pass-through if you understand what we're saying.

[56:24] But more so, the return on investment for a developer.

[56:27] If I'm going to buy a single parcel that is hypothetically half an acre,

[56:33] I can either put a very, very large house on the half acre that takes that most of the lot

[56:38] or I could subdivide that acreage and make it a third of whatever the square footage is going to be with two smaller homes.

[56:46] If it's going to be cost prohibitive or higher cost for them to front on the impact fee side

[56:51] I don't want to disincentivize the smaller sized homes as opposed to the very very large homes that we're here in

[56:59] Roswell we're losing a lot of our smaller homes like our historic ranch homes like anything that we're post-World War 2

[57:05] We're losing those to being raised and flipped into very large homes that an average person can't afford and I'm not even

[57:13] talk about like affordable housing I'm talking about like I don't think most

[57:17] of us at this table could probably afford the houses that are being built

[57:20] right now in the historic district. I'm just playing devil's advocate here

[57:25] and I think I said this earlier I've never seen a going to a progressive going to

[57:32] a progressive fee structure all of a sudden change the market because your

[57:37] your current fees are by size of house and you're still getting the lower taxes.

[57:43] Correct.

[57:44] Right.

[57:45] The market is what the market is.

[57:47] Now, what we have seen is that in jurisdictions, particularly with transportation, where if you're

[57:55] trying to encourage higher density mixed use nodes, we have proposed what we call a trippy change

[58:02] district where, if you meet certain minimums in terms of density, mix of uses, locational

[58:10] criteria in terms of other modes of transportation, that you get a reduced impact fee because you

[58:16] have a higher incidence of internal triplication.

[58:19] I mean, that's mixed years of lower treatments, that makes sense to me.

[58:22] It's like a floating zone.

[58:23] Right.

[58:24] And it can help to incentivize, mix use versus, because we're talking about standalone.

[58:30] Stand alone.

[58:31] But we have used this trip exchange district format in a lot of communities and it seems to help incentivize that type of behavior.

[58:41] So is that something that we would request that language from you guys?

[58:45] We'd be a collaborative effort between us and staff in terms of determining what that criteria is in terms of density, mix of uses and connectivity.

[58:54] activity, and it's a policy you're trying to incentivize a policy that you have in different

[59:00] documents in the city, and that's what I mean, people forget that impact fees are a

[59:04] land use regulation.

[59:05] It was a great.

[59:05] Great.

[59:06] And there's a way we can craft impact fee methodologies to help you achieve what you're trying

[59:10] to achieve.

[59:11] Perfect.

[59:11] Yeah, I'm looking at it from the land use approach.

[59:13] I agree wholeheartedly be to raise impact fees.

[59:16] Most cities in the United States, and this is in three different studies, I've shown that they're

[59:21] vastly underestimated their impact fees either because they're extremely

[59:24] out of date like hours or they think that it's going to negatively impact

[59:27] development or whatever it may be, but they're not paying for their cost on the

[59:32] services for the development they're adding to the community. So love increasing

[59:36] them, but I want to make sure that we're not disincentivizing the types of

[59:40] development that we want and we are incentivizing the types of development we

[59:43] want like the mixed use corridors, especially in the targeted nodes that we

[59:46] have like in our comprehensive plan. But if that's something that we could

[59:50] requests from staff and y'all for us to review. I think I just want to ask for Carson is so we are also working.

[1:00:00] Through our economic development impact fee waiver program, an incentive program, is that where you would recommend putting in that kind of structure, or do you recommend putting it in with your impact fee ordinance? Well, I think you have to do the impact fee ordinance because there's that you're the only act in the country that allows you to waive it with a non-residential development for catalytic economic element projects, right? And so I think I would probably put it in the impact fee ordinance.

[1:00:29] and it's a mixed use note or a trip exchange district kind of thing, but yeah.

[1:00:36] I mean, I need Mayor Robe show, then we get, I think, Councilman Robe show.

[1:00:41] Hall, sales, hall, whole Mayor Robe show.

[1:00:44] So two questions specific to the waving perspective you made a statement about the three criteria

[1:00:50] one being transportation slash connectivity.

[1:00:54] Is that defined somewhere by law or that it's just, yeah, we would determine.

[1:00:58] It would come up because while we like to say we're building, you know, when we talk about transportation a lot of where we're looking at some of this mixed use development, it is going to have a major effect on transportation because we're doing on some major transportation loads a lot.

[1:01:15] Second part and Jeff, I just want to make sure I understand you made a statement in regards to if they if they paid an impact fee before it doesn't does that mean

[1:01:25] in regards to taking down some of our older homes and building these larger homes.

[1:01:30] Does that mean because that original home may have paid an impact fee sometime 20 years ago?

[1:01:36] There is no impact fee for a rebuild.

[1:01:39] Did you want to come up in and recover kind of how we assess impact fees associated with new builds and existing construction in the way that that's insurgative?

[1:01:47] That will be helpful and should be much more effective.

[1:01:49] Yeah, when I was trying to say it's associated with the plant land or the building itself.

[1:01:59] So we have a date, I do not have it on the top of my head right now, where the impact

[1:02:04] fees started to be assessed and raw as well.

[1:02:07] So we use that date when we're looking at whether or not a property that's having a

[1:02:13] total demo or whether or not they're doing a large renovation, adding an addition that's

[1:02:19] more than half of the house, adding a lot of bedrooms, we use that as the likelihood of them

[1:02:25] having paid them and if they have not paid them we assess them.

[1:02:30] So we don't know if that's 20 years ago, 30, we're not 100%.

[1:02:35] I know obviously since this was just updated 10 years ago.

[1:02:39] Yes, I think 19 what?

[1:02:42] 19, 92.

[1:02:43] Yeah, 92.

[1:02:44] 92.

[1:02:45] I was going to say that it's in the 90s.

[1:02:48] It was not, you know, that was the 2015 was possibly

[1:02:53] even updating that initial impact.

[1:02:58] Can you go back and get the exact date?

[1:02:59] That date, because, yeah.

[1:03:01] But we use that date, we have it on file.

[1:03:05] It doesn't come up a lot.

[1:03:07] So, you know, it becomes a conversation between

[1:03:09] building permitting and planning and zoning

[1:03:13] where we establish when the initial house was built.

[1:03:16] But we look at the plat, we look at the county records, and we assess an impact fee if it falls before that date.

[1:03:24] And we can verify that no impact fees were paid.

[1:03:28] So that technically, I mean, council, that's anything, if it is 92, that's anything, 34 years are.

[1:03:36] Yes.

[1:03:37] 35 years are old, or we would say we know they could not have paid an impact fee.

[1:03:42] Yes.

[1:03:43] Okay.

[1:03:44] I'll still remember all sales, sales was very good.

[1:03:51] My mind was just to follow up with worship was going that we already, we've already been

[1:03:56] using that as a lever the impact fees for after that.

[1:04:01] Yeah, leaving of impact fees and using them as incentives, we will and we have been in parallel

[1:04:08] working on updating your policy related to incentives and impact fees and

[1:04:14] waving of impact fees kind of behind the scenes as the comp plan is finishing

[1:04:18] up and as well as the studies finishing up. So I mean my question is is it again

[1:04:23] is it better to leave it there or to put it into this other thing which

[1:04:30] concerns me of strapping our hands too much that's all. I think you know and it

[1:04:36] It sounds like I'm hearing some consensus with the desire to understand and bring forward

[1:04:41] some opportunities within the commercial mix use district as Carson has described.

[1:04:46] Coming out of committee, we can get together with his team and bring some recommendations

[1:04:50] forward and continue to work on that component and then we'll cover the square foot method

[1:04:57] on the residential here in a moment as the conversation continues.

[1:05:04] of course and for the benefit of Miss Sarah Beeson and my daughter can I get your last

[1:05:09] name because you're the first person to ever call me a progressive was for one non-progressive

[1:05:25] to another last name, last name is Vice-BISC.

[1:05:30] I'm going to have to equip this.

[1:05:32] Incended to my daughter, I just said you said it.

[1:05:36] All right, we've got some gift this.

[1:05:39] Good be back.

[1:05:39] Councilmember Bromley.

[1:05:41] So I thought that the end of the presentation

[1:05:44] that you had an advisory committee that

[1:05:46] made four times who was part of that advisory.

[1:05:50] Because the Roswell Development Authority

[1:05:51] was established as the advisory committee.

[1:05:53] And that was by Council back in 2025 when we first started the process.

[1:05:58] So the RDA appointed people?

[1:06:01] The entirety of the RDA was the advisory committee.

[1:06:03] The RDA is the advisory committee.

[1:06:04] And they, so they gave input about which one to use or not, they're aware of the changes

[1:06:12] that were about the drastic changes that were about to.

[1:06:16] Yeah, and we can report back to the advisory committee based on this conversation.

[1:06:21] So they were fully aware that they are a recommending body bringing forth their recommendation to this committee.

[1:06:28] And they've gone through a number of different meetings led by our team along with the side of Carson's team to get to this point as required by state law.

[1:06:37] But they also recognize that ultimately the policy decision authority is here in this room with the mayor and council.

[1:06:43] And they recognize that as we go through this process, things may change based on the desires

[1:06:48] that you all have for both economic and redevelopment and community, but we'll actually report back

[1:06:53] to them as we go through the process so that they're aware.

[1:06:58] All right.

[1:06:58] Many further questions.

[1:06:59] I thank you for looking for a direction more than anything.

[1:07:02] Is that correct, Chef?

[1:07:03] It is.

[1:07:04] And so I think, you know, the one direction that we have is before we come back for the final

[1:07:09] review is reviewing the incentive opportunities that we potentially have.

[1:07:13] And then it sounds like there is consensus among the council and I'll look to the group to bring back and change our fees per unit to a per-square-foot fee assessment for the residential component and bring that back as part of our overall process.

[1:07:35] I'm obviously a mean on that, but I want to make sure to from a staff perspective, when you're talking about that it's extra lifts for the staff to take it from the square footage approach, is this like it's a couple extra steps, or this is a couple extra staff members?

[1:07:49] Like what's the difference in?

[1:07:51] Yeah, it's what we do today. It's just a matter of just establishing the square foot on the residential side, doing the math calculation to make sure that we get it right.

[1:07:58] you're using multiple fee tables and so it's a little bit extra work just to go

[1:08:03] through and make sure that you have the quality control in place but nothing

[1:08:07] that we can't do with our existing system and the existing people okay just

[1:08:10] making sure thanks council member Hall just the comment you should you should

[1:08:15] bride an AI program and they'll do it in seconds validated for us any other

[1:08:23] questions or comments I think we have the feedback and direction we need so far

[1:08:27] So we'll go back and assess and bring that back to you.

[1:08:31] Is that correct?

[1:08:32] All right.

[1:08:32] Yeah.

[1:08:32] The next steps will be planning commission, and we may, it may take us, right now we're scheduled

[1:08:38] for the 20th of October.

[1:08:40] With the direction of the council, we may not hit the planning commission date of the 20th

[1:08:45] in order to get the updates and the adjustments that you all have requested so that you have

[1:08:49] a recommendation from the planning commission based on your direction today.

[1:08:53] So we may kick that meeting back just a little bit, but then it'll come to first and

[1:08:57] second reading as soon as planning commission provides their recommendation here shortly.

[1:09:02] Awesome.

[1:09:03] Mahal?

[1:09:04] I'm sorry.

[1:09:05] I want to follow up message or a question from our meeting on the industrial.

[1:09:11] We had talked about that.

[1:09:13] Is that that's changing or can you please remind me what my question was related to that and

[1:09:19] we thought it was a parcel on.

[1:09:21] Yeah, so we have an industrial use that used to be, I don't remember the name, it was

[1:09:27] There's a different category.

[1:09:28] Are we aware about that?

[1:09:29] Yeah.

[1:09:29] We were talking through it.

[1:09:30] But there is a different category in the previous fee structure that no longer exists in

[1:09:37] our code section.

[1:09:38] And so we were looking through and making that adjustment.

[1:09:41] But I'll make sure to get that exact answer as it's coming through.

[1:09:43] And that brought me to another one.

[1:09:46] There's parcels along Highway 9.

[1:09:50] There's specifically, what is that one?

[1:09:53] The old Mrs. Winners.

[1:09:54] there's that was

[1:10:01] now across the street I hear those it I'm just wondering if it

[1:10:11] would be eligible because they tore the whole building down we probably I don't

[1:10:15] know if it works if it's coming before us this council but is that the building

[1:10:21] that's half-demoed with the wall that's sitting there is in a complete building demo

[1:10:25] I believe it's a complete building demo and we'll probably see it or it will probably come through the process.

[1:10:31] We can talk through that.

[1:10:32] That was.

[1:10:33] Right now the existing fee structure would apply if it comes through the process for an application in the building permit.

[1:10:39] Because we haven't adopted the new structure yet.

[1:10:43] Councilmember Beeson.

[1:10:45] One final question.

[1:10:46] Is there a reason why we as a city don't incorporate stormwater as one of our silo's.

[1:10:52] Recreation parks please fire transportation is a reason why we can't do stormwater as well and

[1:10:57] We have a water utility. We can do a water utility

[1:11:00] We did this early on. We'll go back and double check the answer to get that for you

[1:11:05] I think it's because the way that we charge the fees for service already as a separate fee

[1:11:10] It would be a double-parch. It's it's it cannot be included as part of our impact fee process because of the way that we have established the enterprise fund

[1:11:25] We're sure on the city side that we're adequately assessing the stormwater fees to cover the facts of say, for instance, you're building a whole new mixed-use development.

[1:11:33] The pipes are going to have to be larger as opposed to what it currently has.

[1:11:38] The estimates of what we're currently charging stormwater fees are based off current use, not projected use.

[1:11:43] Am I making any sense?

[1:11:45] I will look to Sharon Brown.

[1:11:47] I see her shaking her head.

[1:11:50] The

[1:11:54] way that regulations work, they have to retain that,

[1:11:58] detain that water on site and release it over time,

[1:12:01] is purposely done that way so that we don't overwhelm the

[1:12:05] piping system downstream because we don't want to get into

[1:12:08] a situation where we're continually upside-down piping systems.

[1:12:12] So it's a little counterintuitive versus waste water and water

[1:12:16] and potable water, then you upgrade the system to support.

[1:12:21] But in storm water, we're forcing all of that

[1:12:24] to happen on the site.

[1:12:26] Just wanted to double check, because I mean,

[1:12:28] we've literally had a storm water item tonight.

[1:12:30] We have a storm water item.

[1:12:31] I feel like once a month these days, so just making sure

[1:12:33] that we are covering the cost adequately on our site

[1:12:37] for future use and not just what current use

[1:12:39] and remediation of past issues.

[1:12:42] Absolutely.

[1:12:42] We can't.

[1:12:43] Yeah, so before you make sure.

[1:12:44] So that's a mitigation approach, right?

[1:12:47] So we say, you must do this to fill the property.

[1:12:50] So it's a mitigation.

[1:12:51] We won't allow them to overwhelm our downstream.

[1:12:55] And as we build regional detentions,

[1:12:59] like, for instance, what we did in Roswellary Park,

[1:13:01] we can sell credits against that, which

[1:13:03] is different than an impact fee, right?

[1:13:05] That could be, they can beg it by the offsets for that.

[1:13:08] Exactly.

[1:13:10] It's a tool we can use to give the developers

[1:13:14] that opportunity, rather than them using their land to do that there, then all this running to this, but when you get it, when you think about what it takes to increase the capacity of a storm water system, you have to take it from that point all the way to the source water, if you will, and it's just an extraordinarily expensive thing to do, so that's why we make them do everything on site and not overwhelm the system.

[1:13:42] All right, thank you. I think we've got what we need. Everybody good? All right. No, I think if this point is in a good direction. Yes. Thank you all for your comments and feedback. This is truly an important item as we work through for all the departments involved, all the tenants involved, but also as we work through our economic development process. So thank you very helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:14:06] Item number five, consideration of updates to the unified development code that will be presented by Ms. Genie Payton.

[1:14:20] Good evening.

[1:14:39] This item is an update on our unified development code update project.

[1:14:47] I said update twice and I told myself not to do that.

[1:14:50] So, why now? You've heard about this before. We kind of put the project on hold so that we

[1:14:56] could take the comprehensive plan through. Now that that's getting ready to be adopted.

[1:15:00] We're looking at the complete overhaul of the Unified Development Code. The Unified Development Code was adopted in 2014, previous to that. It was the zoning code and the code of ordinances. That process brought many of the ordinances together, so we had one development Unified Development Code. Our goals for this project is to simplify the current Unified Development Code for all users, so everyone can reach the same conclusion.

[1:15:27] to collaborate with the code of ordinances, there were some vestiges left in the code of ordinances that should have gone away or been reevaluated based on the changes to the UBC and that were implemented and then updating it with the current city vision, an example of that is the 2045

[1:15:45] complex plan that's about to be adopted.

[1:15:49] So policy guide for regulation, council sets the policy, staff aligns the regulation and

[1:15:55] council approve amendments to those regulations and it is the detail of the code that helps

[1:16:01] us carry out the policy on the staff level.

[1:16:05] So we have two sets of codes again, the UDC and the code of ordinances, the UDC and the code

[1:16:10] of ordinances sometimes contradict each other, they talk over topic each other.

[1:16:15] And so this is a huge component of this project, not really a heavy lift, but something very important that will make an immediate impact.

[1:16:25] And how the code gets reviewed, we realized that the code is too large to bring in one package. So we're going to bring it to you as three.

[1:16:33] We're going to address the zoning districts and then the site and the subdivision regulations and then the process regulations, which are kind of the front and the back of the code.

[1:16:41] And this will allow it to be more manageable, able to process it, and make some really

[1:16:47] meaningful decisions as we go through this process.

[1:16:50] Our project team, sponsor, being Jeff Leatherman, Deputy City Administrator, our customer,

[1:16:55] Michelle Alexander, Director of Community Development, Project Manager, Joe Pignano, Deputy City

[1:17:02] Administrator, the functional manager myself, Planning and Zoning Director, Deputy Project

[1:17:07] Manager Richard Sykes, our planner to and planning and zoning at our project team to

[1:17:12] include Sandeep from PPI and Daniel Mulan from Business and Performance and also some

[1:17:19] other planning staff as needed to do some of the heavy lift items and work with the consultant.

[1:17:26] So in addition to that project team we have two committees, an executive committee that will include

[1:17:32] two council members, the deputy city administrator, city attorney's office, the director of community

[1:17:38] development, and the chairs of each one of our boards and commission. So the planning commission,

[1:17:42] the historic preservation commission, the design review board and the board of zoning appeals, and

[1:17:47] then a technical committee which isn't comprised of staff from the different departments, environmental

[1:17:53] public works, transportation, engineering, building, zoning community design, code enforcement,

[1:17:59] like the Department of Fire Marshall, everyone who touches.

[1:18:05] So our schedule includes RFP to award,

[1:18:09] culminating hopefully in December of 2026.

[1:18:14] The assessment will take place after that

[1:18:16] and be done in mid-May of 2027.

[1:18:20] We'll start drafting from May through October of 27,

[1:18:24] and then move into adoption and have it adopted

[1:18:27] in at the end of December of 2027.

[1:18:31] So the next time you'll see us for this project,

[1:18:35] or for this project, is in November,

[1:18:37] we'll bring it back to committee

[1:18:38] to discuss the award of the RFP

[1:18:41] and then December 14th

[1:18:42] for a Council vote to award the contract.

[1:18:47] Are there any questions?

[1:18:51] Yes, Council Member Hall.

[1:18:55] Yes, so I have a few questions.

[1:19:01] The project is going to be roughly a year long.

[1:19:07] Where are the milestones where we see?

[1:19:11] I saw that you're breaking them up into the three sections.

[1:19:15] Yes.

[1:19:16] So what are the milestones within each section where we will see the progress or we'll see

[1:19:30] I thought we were going or yeah, yeah, yeah, you're on the right track.

[1:19:34] So there are two points along the way that that will come into play and we'll get to solidify the schedule a little more once the consultant is the contract is awarded and we begin to work with the consultant.

[1:19:48] But that will be both during assessment and drafting and we'll work with them and the best way to bring those three buckets to you and to the committees.

[1:19:56] and then there's I don't see any meetings how often is everybody meeting we're

[1:20:03] not to that phase yet because we are we have not brought the consultant so we

[1:20:08] will bring the consultant and then we will solidify the schedule and we will

[1:20:12] establish meeting dates and bring that information to you yeah yeah so this is

[1:20:18] just this is we are he is drafted we are he is drafted we're working on it and I'm

[1:20:25] working with finance to.

[1:20:27] Can you send that to all of us, please?

[1:20:29] I can see if I can do that.

[1:20:31] Yeah.

[1:20:32] Before it goes out, in case we have some comments.

[1:20:43] I'm sorry.

[1:20:44] I'm sorry.

[1:20:45] Yes, customer sales.

[1:20:47] Anybody else got a question?

[1:20:51] So

[1:20:54] we will, we look at each of the buckets.

[1:20:58] So think about the plan.

[1:21:00] And it sounds like we're leaning heavily on the consultant.

[1:21:03] I thought this was going to be considering

[1:21:05] during the team that we've got here,

[1:21:08] this is like everybody on this project team list,

[1:21:11] the yellow slide on page 121.

[1:21:15] Everybody's in this building on that, right?

[1:21:18] Yes.

[1:21:18] Okay.

[1:21:21] So, we're going to defer to the consultant to drive this.

[1:21:27] I thought it was more of a staff log

[1:21:29] because Jeff and I had that,

[1:21:30] that was the conversation we had.

[1:21:32] I think with I had it, you and that,

[1:21:34] So they're more like a staff hog because I was very sensitive to this being like consultant-blood so

[1:21:42] What am I I'm not I'm not clear on that that response there

[1:21:46] So I guess I'll first touch on I would say the roles when you look at the top three of the project team

[1:21:54] They're they're there to drive this forward

[1:21:57] From my position down

[1:22:00] You know, me looking at being that technical authority over the content and as we move forward

[1:22:06] with the assessment and the drafting and doing some of the data analysis providing information

[1:22:15] about how many variances we've awarded in the last five years.

[1:22:20] What are the asks that we have?

[1:22:21] That information that can only come from us will come from the staff and the consultant,

[1:22:27] we are, it's part of the RFP, we are hoping to have embedded staff and

[1:22:32] embedded consultant, so they will have a staff member that lives with us day-to-day

[1:22:36] for a certain period of the project to see what happens day-to-day in our

[1:22:41] development divisions, and then also having legal embedded staff to help us, you

[1:22:49] know, cover those hurdles of something that would be, you know, a drain and not

[1:22:53] something that are legal. So you said you said it's good. I think you said two

[1:22:58] two people are better. So if you were to put them on this list what functional

[1:23:03] role are they feeling?

[1:23:07] Or would you add? Where would I add them? Yeah what is

[1:23:11] what is their role versus the roles that we're talking about here? I mean as

[1:23:16] consultant they're going to drive what the outcome is they're going to.

[1:23:23] That's

[1:23:23] And me, that's a problem, right?

[1:23:25] Yeah, I mean, I'll cancel it.

[1:23:27] I'm sorry, go ahead.

[1:23:28] Yeah, yeah.

[1:23:29] Okay.

[1:23:31] That's one of the concerns I have is that we have spent

[1:23:34] a fair amount of time as a body making policy decisions

[1:23:38] and I assume that everybody on the who list here

[1:23:43] is well aware of this body's philosophy about X, Y, and Z.

[1:23:48] But I'm much less confident about that outcome

[1:23:50] with a consultant who is now driving a process,

[1:23:56] I would really, really like to see that RFP

[1:23:58] because if we're going to Chattanooga on the RFP

[1:24:03] and we wanna go to Greenville,

[1:24:05] I would like to catch that early.

[1:24:06] So you say you're gonna let it on two days from today, right?

[1:24:13] The 30 on the first, right?

[1:24:15] Or three days from the day.

[1:24:16] Yeah, we're looking at the proposals are due, the schedule is still in play and I believe

[1:24:24] actually I have the schedule here.

[1:24:27] So who drafted the RFP?

[1:24:29] It began with Michelle Alexander.

[1:24:31] Okay.

[1:24:33] Who did it end with?

[1:24:35] It has not ended yet.

[1:24:36] Okay.

[1:24:37] Well, personally, Randy, and you know that this is, I personally like to read RFPs because they

[1:24:44] they are intended to elicit the help that we want and so I just I would like to see that

[1:24:52] I really would like to see that.

[1:24:54] And then the second thing is if you don't mind go to the so the governance the executive

[1:25:03] committee are they going to I don't see them on the calendar and I think what your response

[1:25:11] was that the consultant will drive the calendar, but what do you think the meeting cadence

[1:25:20] for the executive committee would be?

[1:25:23] So

[1:25:30] as we work into the new year, I have Mayor and Council appointing the executive committee

[1:25:41] discussing the preliminary findings with the executive committee and the technical committee

[1:25:46] in February meeting with them again in May.

[1:25:52] So what was the first one?

[1:25:56] No, it's more of the technical committee

[1:26:00] to review the draft recommendations.

[1:26:05] Revisioning what's their meeting cadence?

[1:26:06] Is it weekly, is it twice a month?

[1:26:08] Is it once a month?

[1:26:09] Well, I think that the executive committee is not monthly.

[1:26:12] It's more like during the checkpoints of the project where the technical committee will

[1:26:19] be the one that meets more often to make sure that each of the sections.

[1:26:24] So I don't think I'm ready to answer a question on what the cadence of those meetings are until

[1:26:29] we fully look at the assessment of what the project is going to.

[1:26:35] My question about that is obviously to see what level of engagement I frankly don't care

[1:26:41] what you have.

[1:26:46] I don't care what the cadence would be personally, but the question is, I'm trying to figure

[1:26:51] out what y'all's intentions are with respect to this, because it seems like it's very, very

[1:26:58] staff-headed, staff-led, okay?

[1:27:01] And this is about something that, frankly, is one of the most signal documents in the city

[1:27:09] of Roswell is this right here.

[1:27:10] and we spent, you know, obviously our UBC has been dog's breakfast for a long, long time.

[1:27:17] I don't see Jackie's name on here.

[1:27:19] I'm so surprised by that.

[1:27:20] I mean, we think about the people who know this code pretty well.

[1:27:23] It ain't me, but I don't see her name on there.

[1:27:26] So I guess I'm a little puzzled by the steering of this and sort of a,

[1:27:40] you know, it should

[1:27:40] So the pig is being chopped through the Python as one hole or in three, so we should be,

[1:27:46] we as a body should see each of these sort of and say, yeah, we think this is direction

[1:27:52] correct.

[1:27:53] I don't want it to get too far down the track until there's course correction and conversations

[1:27:57] around this.

[1:27:58] That's not me.

[1:27:59] And I'll go back.

[1:28:00] That's not my visa.

[1:28:01] So when you go to the slide with, go ahead that for one more,

[1:28:11] one more, sorry, looking for,

[1:28:14] it's the one that you had it broken up into buckets.

[1:28:17] Oh, this badly.

[1:28:21] My understanding is that this is the order in which it's going to be coming to Marin Council.

[1:28:26] So we will have bucket number one, then bucket number two, and then bucket number three.

[1:28:31] Can you go back to, I think, as I cite three or something?

[1:28:35] This one.

[1:28:37] So Council still sets the policy.

[1:28:39] We give the marching orders.

[1:28:41] Council approves the amendments.

[1:28:43] I don't understand the hesitation to using a consultant.

[1:28:48] If you told me, hey, Sarah, I need you to build a table.

[1:28:51] Theoretically, I can build a table.

[1:28:52] I know it's four legs and a tabletop.

[1:28:55] You probably aren't going to want to buy my table.

[1:28:57] It's not going to look great.

[1:28:58] It's going to take me way longer than somebody who

[1:29:00] builds tables all the time as opposed to bringing an outside consultant who's going to be

[1:29:04] able to justify their qualifications of being able to do these same marching orders on a regular

[1:29:10] basis. So I guess I don't quite understand and also with the hesitancy of wanting to refute

[1:29:15] the RFP before it goes out. We as counsel very rarely, I can't think of a time that we reviewed an

[1:29:21] RFP. In fact, the only time that I think if we've reviewed an RFP or RFP before it went out is

[1:29:27] is when we did the SEER one, which you helped lead,

[1:29:30] and I thought you were very infatically

[1:29:32] for using consultants in that instance.

[1:29:34] So I don't understand the difference

[1:29:35] when we have somebody who has subject matter expertise

[1:29:39] who can be able to contribute

[1:29:41] as opposed to typically paying higher dollar

[1:29:44] by the hour for senior staff.

[1:29:46] Like I know you're talked about using Jackie.

[1:29:48] Jackie is the deputy director of the department.

[1:29:51] On an hourly basis, I cannot fathom

[1:29:53] that as opposed to her tag teaming in

[1:29:56] and having interviews with a consultant, that it would be cheaper to use Jackie than it

[1:29:59] would be.

[1:30:00] I need to use a lot of some fee-consultant. That's my take. I'm in favor of it. Councilmember

[1:30:05] Cells and then Councilmember Bromley. Yeah, so sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It was Councilmember

[1:30:11] Hallfors. I'm sorry. Could you go back to the next slide, please? No, keep going.

[1:30:26] Where

[1:30:27] the technical, yeah, here.

[1:30:33] So I guess in my mind, I was thinking of it a little bit more like the COMP plan committee

[1:30:39] I mean where there were actually members of, and maybe it's not appropriate, but I would

[1:30:50] I don't think the members of the public too or residents that would be able to participate

[1:30:57] in this as well.

[1:31:01] That was our intent was that the executive committee, they're not going to be, I'm looking

[1:31:06] in the technical committee area, you know, and there's, I think there's things in the technical

[1:31:11] committee that either from, either from those committees should be participating in that

[1:31:19] Well, they'll be reviewing the executive committee would be reviewing the technical work and then providing guidance and feedback on that.

[1:31:26] So, rather than writing individualized code, I would say similar to how we use the planning commission and others is,

[1:31:35] essentially we would be bringing the drafting of the code back to the executive committee to get their feedback guidance recommendations.

[1:31:44] But ultimately, that needs to align with what the council is intending to accomplish.

[1:31:48] So there's just a checkpoint in this, and the council really is the one that ultimately needs

[1:31:53] to set the policy.

[1:31:54] And there's no public involved in here at all.

[1:31:56] Other than the chairs of the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission,

[1:32:00] the Design Review Board, now it goes through a formal hearing process to amend the code.

[1:32:05] And so that would follow the regular cadence of review code ordinance amendments.

[1:32:11] In some cases, the code goes to the planning commission, the historic preservation commission,

[1:32:16] and those are the two places that the code would hit, and the design reward, thank you, with the DRB.

[1:32:23] As it goes through the process. So just like we were talking about with the impact fee,

[1:32:26] going to planning commission and then first and second reading, code changes would follow that same cadence where necessary in each code.

[1:32:34] Section can be a little bit different in its process. The HPC has different authority within the code.

[1:32:39] I guess what I'm concerned about is the visibility and the transparency like throughout the process so that we don't start and

[1:32:46] all of a sudden end up down here and then just have a lot of

[1:32:50] because maybe there were misunderstandings and we ended up with something that is going to be

[1:32:55] problematic or create issues you know that that's what I'm

[1:32:58] the staff doesn't want to waste time either and I think from my side of it is kind of the top of the list of

[1:33:05] of where this sits from an ownership perspective.

[1:33:08] I think it's important for me to say that the intent is

[1:33:11] to continue to align the code changes

[1:33:14] with the outcomes that the council as a body is looking for.

[1:33:18] This is a very complicated process.

[1:33:20] What we do not want at the end of the day

[1:33:22] is what we had a decade ago where the code showed up

[1:33:25] and then there was 150 changes to the code.

[1:33:29] I would say that that would be a failure on my part

[1:33:33] as the executive sponsor of this project that it should have never come forward in the first place in that form and format.

[1:33:39] And so, you know, from a project perspective as we continue to iterate and find alignment,

[1:33:46] it's going to take adjustment in the schedule, it's going to take adjustment in the feedback process that we'll have to continue to work through.

[1:33:53] The intent is to bring on additional staff to augment the team as a whole.

[1:33:58] you mentioned Jackie and others, we see them in the technical committee, we see those

[1:34:02] individual players in the technical committee because they do bring a significant level

[1:34:06] of technical experience as well as our new planers who are seeing the code for the first

[1:34:09] time in some cases and have only worked with it for two years, they see the code very differently

[1:34:13] from opportunities and challenges that can bring work in the technical side.

[1:34:19] And so that ongoing alignment will be important, we certainly do not want to hand this over

[1:34:25] to a consultant and say, thank you, we'll see you in six months and make sure that it's

[1:34:29] great.

[1:34:30] That is not the intent.

[1:34:32] The intent is to truly augment staff so that we have a couple of supplemental team

[1:34:36] members who can deliver the brain power to this project on a regular basis and aren't

[1:34:41] distracted with, you know, hopefully large scale economic development projects that are coming

[1:34:46] through our planning and zoning team.

[1:34:49] Or we have opportunities that come up or we have development or we have fill in the blank

[1:34:54] of our day-to-day operations. And all of a sudden, we're picking up the code and putting

[1:34:57] it back down and picking up and putting it back down. That's a recipe for disaster as well,

[1:35:02] because then you're only getting half of the, I think, purpose and intent, but then we're going

[1:35:07] to miss things in that process. You don't have a good train of thought. You don't have good record

[1:35:11] keeping. And that is the purpose of the staff augmentation, not, certainly, to supplement or

[1:35:20] replace the talent that we have on the team.

[1:35:22] It's just really understanding that the significance of this

[1:35:25] project and having an owner that we can hire now,

[1:35:28] and then when we're done, they pack and go,

[1:35:30] find another job that they can go do as a consultant

[1:35:32] so that we're surging the staff appropriately with the right

[1:35:36] talent set and then contracting them when we're done.

[1:35:40] That's for themselves, and then Bromley.

[1:35:43] Yeah, so someone who began my career in consulting, I certainly do like consulting, I think

[1:35:50] it's useful, but harkening back to our conversations around that RFB, because we talked in

[1:35:56] the phone, I was driving to Virginia for about an hour.

[1:35:59] The reason for that whole process was because there was one contract with SEAR under the

[1:36:08] attorney. And my goal in that in particular was to break that out and bring them as discrete

[1:36:17] projects that came back to us as a body. And I insisted it didn't exactly play out like

[1:36:24] I necessarily hoped. But I insisted that we have a quarterly review of all the SOWs and we

[1:36:31] He is a body talk about it because I wanted in particular in that one because that was

[1:36:39] a policy position.

[1:36:41] He was, and CIR was in general, but Peter in particular was speaking for us to a community

[1:36:47] that we don't speak to.

[1:36:48] And so I wanted to hear that really regularly and you know we had the Thursday meetings for

[1:36:56] the three on three for economic development.

[1:36:58] I never came to that because I was involved in it in first place.

[1:37:01] So I didn't go to those, but that was so we as a body were first person to the work of that particular

[1:37:08] consultant. That's what that was all about. That's why I got involved in that RFP. And that's why I say in this particular case, to my

[1:37:15] mind, this project is every bit as integral and impactful to us as a city, as what Peter was trying to do on the economic development side. So that's

[1:37:27] I mean, basically, I'm saying, I agree with you, and I think you're making the same

[1:37:31] point, is that this needs to be close to us as a body, because you

[1:37:42] know what I mean?

[1:37:44] Is that true?

[1:37:45] I mean, we did it in a different way, and that's what we got, and so I think we should be

[1:37:52] really, really close as a body, and we should be really, really transparent to the community

[1:38:00] and bring them along on this, because this is going to be one of the largest things this

[1:38:05] group does in our time together.

[1:38:10] That's all.

[1:38:16] So the way it's described in R3 on 3 was staff hog, right?

[1:38:21] And I get what that is, that's where I have a bookkeeper come in and do some AP work.

[1:38:29] work. That's not where I have a bookkeeper come in and redesign my accounting process.

[1:38:34] And so that's my sensitivity to it. So I'm not seeing the check-ins on a regular basis.

[1:38:40] I haven't read the RIP so I don't know what it says that we're asking them to do. I wish

[1:38:44] to. And I think, you know, we have a duty because this is a monumental thing in the life

[1:38:53] of our city. You will have a huge impact. That's all I'm saying.

[1:39:00] We just finished a comprehensive plan project and we engaged consultant for that.

[1:39:07] Did the RSP included every single meeting that we planned to have for that project?

[1:39:16] I couldn't, I honestly just don't remember if we scheduled out, I know we scheduled out

[1:39:20] a process for what we expected as far as public hearings.

[1:39:24] Quite frankly I think, well I know that that process evolved over time where we added some

[1:39:30] additional meetings, we added some presentations and it was an evolution based on where the advisory

[1:39:37] committee felt we needed to go and also what was important to the community and we certainly

[1:39:42] will have that flexibility within this scope and within this project. I think, you know,

[1:39:48] it is, and somebody said it earlier, you know, the comp plan and then I would say right behind

[1:39:53] that the UDC or two of the highest and most important policy making, I mean they're

[1:40:01] bigger than just documents, the UDC is your entirety of your legislation essentially,

[1:40:07] with some additional.

[1:40:08] And so it matters, and an alignment with the Council matters and is also part of the reason

[1:40:14] we're bringing this forward as a discussion before we've sent out the RFP so that everybody

[1:40:19] is on the same page is what are we trying to accomplish and are we going to deliver those

[1:40:21] results and so I think with that you know we've got the latitude to be able to

[1:40:27] delay the release of the RFP we can double check that the RFP with the

[1:40:32] council is going to it says the words that you're here and coming out of our

[1:40:35] mouths and gives you a level of confidence that there's alignment there with the

[1:40:39] language that is within the RFP and if there's not we can make adjustments to

[1:40:43] that because ultimately it's got to deliver the policy document that you all are

[1:40:46] looking for at the end of the day there's you know we're going to spend a

[1:40:49] significant amount of money of the taxpayers dollars to get through this process and a lot

[1:40:53] of staff time that isn't even qualified in an RFP and so that alignment is highly important

[1:41:00] because at the end of the day it's going to allow us to move faster. This isn't going

[1:41:03] to move quickly but it can move really really slow if we're not careful.

[1:41:09] Very true. Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead, please.

[1:41:11] Yes, I don't want to delay RFP to put the specific dates, because that also removes

[1:41:20] our flexibility of doing things.

[1:41:23] If we say to a company, this is what we want, and we said we're going to have 10 meetings

[1:41:27] and all of a sudden we decide, you know, why we only need a file.

[1:41:30] Okay, so we need 20, you know what I'm going to say, me as a consultant like, sure, I will

[1:41:34] change whatever you want, but this is going to cost you.

[1:41:36] So, you know, unless this is like something so different from, you know, from whatever

[1:41:43] we've done for the comprehensive plan, we, you know, I trust that, I know that you guys

[1:41:50] have been preparing for this because you guys told me about this in January.

[1:41:54] So I trust you that, you know, what you're doing, release of this RFP.

[1:41:59] I appreciate that. I will say we've designed this process intentionally to be different.

[1:42:07] In a lot of cases, you can and could turn over the code to a consultant and literally

[1:42:13] say, walk away and bring me something better. We know that that is not the culture and the

[1:42:19] attitude of the city of Roswell. Whether it be the council or our residents or our community

[1:42:24] and frankly it's not what we're looking for as an outcome of this because that's how you

[1:42:28] get 150 amendments to a code when you adopt it on the same very

[1:42:31] night.

[1:42:32] What is the reason you put the other street?

[1:42:33] You have to get 150 amendments.

[1:42:36] I'm not going to need to do that.

[1:42:40] I think what I hear you, I think what I'm hearing from the group is just to make sure that

[1:42:45] philosophically the RFP is representative of the goals and intent of the project.

[1:42:50] I don't hear from the council that we're going to pick dates.

[1:42:53] What we're doing on staff augmentation is we're buying a group of hours.

[1:42:56] We're essentially going to be able to program and reprioritize those as we go through.

[1:43:01] and accelerate them in a week and decelerate them if we don't need a lot of work that week.

[1:43:05] That is the intent of how we would want to put this piece together and we just need to make

[1:43:10] sure that we're in alignment with the language, the black, white letters of the RFP so that we

[1:43:14] get those outcomes in and you all have a level of confidence that we're going to deliver.

[1:43:20] I think one of the things that I've heard from some of my playmates is that we should talk more

[1:43:29] together than we do. And so I will be happy to read and pass around my red line, like you've

[1:43:35] seen me do, Joe has seen me do. I'll read the thing and pass it around. And I think I have been

[1:43:42] relatively expeditious in such asks, have I not?

[1:43:47] And you know, it's right, it's in my wheelhouse,

[1:43:50] I'll be happy to read it and pass it around and maybe we can meet the October 1st. But I do think

[1:43:54] I think it's important that the black letter of the document asks for what we think we want and that we are thoughtful about that so that would be my recommendation.

[1:44:04] I'm a recommended to me but if somebody else wants to take it on I'm happy to listen to that too.

[1:44:25] Thank you.

[1:44:26] I always want to be careful about any way shifting or directing or biasing an RFP before

[1:44:34] it goes out.

[1:44:35] Obviously we have the safeguards of legal and procurement to do that.

[1:44:38] Because this is a significant project of tremendous magnitude, as several people have mentioned,

[1:44:44] which is why we have so many staff members involved in this project because I know it is going

[1:44:50] to be intense at times and there is going to be a lot of interest and input which we want

[1:44:57] from the public and obviously ultimately the public.

[1:45:00] And so I think that as we matriculate through this process, it is of utmost importance that we ensure that the elected body is updated and formed and understands the progress that has been made on the project and ensuring that it's moving along with the appropriate clip. And also it is progressing in a fashion that is consistent and commensurate with the philosophy of the mayor and council. So that's going to be important, no doubt.

[1:45:29] But also it is going to be a project that is going to garner a great deal of attention as it should because it is one of the most significant documents in terms of economic development, land use, etc.

[1:45:41] And for the person who comes in to build a deck on their house for everybody.

[1:45:47] And so all of those things have to be taken into account.

[1:45:50] and we want to be very sensitive to the importance of this process, but also ensure that

[1:45:57] does policy makers, you and Marin Council have tremendous visibility throughout the

[1:46:04] course of the year. Anyway, good. All right. All right. Thank you. We think we have what

[1:46:12] we need at the moment for that one. We have some environmental public works information

[1:46:16] and the document for your review, and so with that, if there is still further business,

[1:46:23] we have a motion of adjournment, like Council Member Beeson, we have a second by Mayor

[1:46:29] Robeshoe Council Member for Sales, and all in favor.

[1:46:34] All right.

[1:46:34] Thank you very much.

[1:46:35] Have a wonderful evening.

Committees of Council Regular Meeting

Transcript