1
00:00:09,040 --> 00:00:15,360
All right. Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the committee meetings for September 29,

2
00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:22,140
2026, the elected body president, Mayor Mary Robyshow, council member Sarah Breason, council

3
00:00:22,140 --> 00:00:28,260
member Aaron Bromley, council member Christine Hall, council member Jennifer Philippi, council

4
00:00:28,260 --> 00:00:34,220
member Allen Cells, council member Christopher Zach. I'm Randy Knight in the city administrator,

5
00:00:34,220 --> 00:00:39,600
along with City Attorney, Joe Kusak, and Deputy City Clerk,

6
00:00:40,020 --> 00:00:41,100
Rachel Reigns.

7
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:45,940
And we welcome everyone to the committee meeting for this evening.

8
00:00:46,460 --> 00:00:48,940
And the purpose of these committee meetings are for the City Department's

9
00:00:48,940 --> 00:00:53,500
to convey vital information, essential to city operations,

10
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:56,020
and provide updates to the Marin Council.

11
00:00:56,920 --> 00:01:00,780
And to also discuss items that will appear on upcoming agendas.

12
00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:03,860
And while this is a public meeting, it's not a public hearing.

13
00:01:03,860 --> 00:01:08,480
So we certainly welcome members of the public, but we do not take public comments or questions

14
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:11,260
during these committee meetings unless specifically authorized.

15
00:01:11,740 --> 00:01:16,120
Public comments and questions are received at the 7th and 4th Monday of each month in

16
00:01:16,120 --> 00:01:18,680
city council meetings and on the 5th Monday in open forum.

17
00:01:19,020 --> 00:01:24,040
We do encourage our residents to reach out to city departments if you need it, any information

18
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:27,460
or have questions regarding service delivery.

19
00:01:27,460 --> 00:01:34,120
We also encourage you to visit Roswell365.com and our other social media platforms, Roswell

20
00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:38,660
Connections, for information about meetings, events, and departmental information.

21
00:01:39,220 --> 00:01:44,380
The first item on the agenda for the evening is the approval of the Committee Meeting

22
00:01:44,380 --> 00:01:47,120
Minutes for September 15th, 2026.

23
00:01:47,420 --> 00:01:52,940
We'll annotate a motion by Councilmember Beeson, second by Mayor Robyshow, any further discussion?

24
00:01:55,700 --> 00:01:56,900
I would like to thank you for that.

25
00:01:56,900 --> 00:01:57,020
Thank you.

26
00:01:57,140 --> 00:01:57,520
Thank you very much.

27
00:01:58,160 --> 00:02:01,220
Item number two is listed on the regular agenda.

28
00:02:02,770 --> 00:02:08,460
Consideration for the mayor or city administrator to award a task order with utility asset management.

29
00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:17,740
For the Charleston Drive stormwater pipe lining project in the amount of $133,488.

30
00:02:18,580 --> 00:02:30,880
With a total project authorization of $146,836 presented by Thurand Valentine and a room director of environmental and public words, this Valentine.

31
00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:42,260
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.

32
00:02:42,260 --> 00:02:50,780
I can go over, again, what the Capital Improvement Program involves in its catalogs,

33
00:02:50,900 --> 00:02:57,600
prioritizes and designs that needed the construction of major improvements or placements of our storm water system.

34
00:02:58,200 --> 00:03:02,640
The project we are bringing to you tonight is Charleston Drive.

35
00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:10,660
It's in the neighborhood off of Lake Charleston Drive and it involves 205 linear feet of 24-inch

36
00:03:10,660 --> 00:03:15,680
and 36-inch CMP, and it is going to be spray-in-lined concrete.

37
00:03:16,060 --> 00:03:20,980
A portion of it is actually in such bad shape, it's going to be replaced with CMP prior to

38
00:03:20,980 --> 00:03:24,920
the spraying end of the concrete, but it'll be the whole spray end will be uniform.

39
00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:34,340
Part of the replacement is 40 linear feet of 36-inch CMP, and that's what I was just talking

40
00:03:34,340 --> 00:03:34,600
about.

41
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:36,860
The 24-inch is actually underneath the road.

42
00:03:36,860 --> 00:03:43,800
road. The road will be open during the entire construction period and construction time

43
00:03:43,800 --> 00:03:49,600
is expected to last about 30 days. The city of Roswell sent the scope of work to all

44
00:03:49,600 --> 00:03:55,380
pre-qualified stormwater lining contractors on August 11th and the city received one response

45
00:03:55,380 --> 00:04:03,140
which was from utility asset management for 133,488. The city actually sent the scope

46
00:04:03,140 --> 00:04:11,400
to the 4th pre-qualified stormwater contractors and two of the contractors have actually merged into one company

47
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:18,280
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.

48
00:04:19,380 --> 00:04:30,320
Staff recommends awarding the task order to utility asset management in the amount of 133,488 dollars with a contingency of 13,348

49
00:04:30,320 --> 00:04:38,660
for unforeseen conditions for a total budget authorization of 146,836, and I'm happy

50
00:04:38,660 --> 00:04:43,880
to take any questions or comments. Thank you, Ms. Felenton. Any questions, comments? Council

51
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:48,320
members, Zach? Yeah, this is more of a procurement question, but I'm not sure if you'd have

52
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:51,980
the answer. How often in what's our process for refreshing the on-call list?

53
00:04:57,480 --> 00:04:57,880
It's three

54
00:04:57,880 --> 00:04:59,640
It's a good question that I should know.

55
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:04,720
Any further questions or comments?

56
00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:06,260
All right.

57
00:05:06,560 --> 00:05:08,640
Seeing none, we'll let it take a motion on this item.

58
00:05:08,840 --> 00:05:14,740
Motion by Council Member Cells, second by Council Member Philippe.

59
00:05:15,220 --> 00:05:16,420
Any further discussion?

60
00:05:17,160 --> 00:05:18,080
Seeing none, all in favor?

61
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:19,300
All right.

62
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:20,540
That passes unanimously.

63
00:05:20,840 --> 00:05:21,880
Thank you very much.

64
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:27,700
Item number three, consideration for the mayor and or city administrator to sign a

65
00:05:27,700 --> 00:05:39,720
contract with Dominica recreation products in the amount of 1,468,683 dollars and 14 cents

66
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:50,020
with a total project authorization of 1,542,117 dollars with a replacement of playgrounds

67
00:05:50,020 --> 00:05:56,280
at East Roswell Park, Grove Way Community Park, Roswell Area Park, and Sloan Street Park.

68
00:05:56,280 --> 00:06:03,600
this will be presented by Mr. Malone, the recreation parts historic and

69
00:06:03,600 --> 00:06:08,880
cultural affairs department. Thank you sir. Appreciate it. I am happy to be here

70
00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:14,340
tonight to present this item. I'm thankful that I have our Deputy Director, Mr.

71
00:06:14,500 --> 00:06:20,260
Taylor Smith with us tonight. I am going to go through a very exciting project that

72
00:06:20,260 --> 00:06:25,760
we're happy to bring before you. This is the playground replacement project in

73
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:28,660
in lieu of going through each individual park

74
00:06:28,660 --> 00:06:31,260
and identifying playgrounds independently

75
00:06:31,260 --> 00:06:34,480
and going through independent procurement mechanisms.

76
00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:36,760
We decided to package them all together

77
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,100
and we put this out for a request for proposal.

78
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:44,500
We received eight respondents as we go through this process

79
00:06:44,500 --> 00:06:47,060
so we wanna take you through that with us tonight.

80
00:06:47,660 --> 00:06:49,080
To give you a little background,

81
00:06:50,340 --> 00:06:54,840
our standard playground warranties average about 15 years,

82
00:06:54,840 --> 00:06:58,600
There's a lot of environmental factors that play into that.

83
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:06,140
Our department has two staff members that are actually certified playground inspectors

84
00:07:06,140 --> 00:07:08,960
through the National Recreation and Parks Association.

85
00:07:09,760 --> 00:07:15,920
That is a very difficult certification for them to obtain, and we have two of our parks

86
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:18,640
coordinators on staff that actually carried that certification.

87
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:24,620
The reason we do that is they perform weekly and monthly inspections throughout all the

88
00:07:24,620 --> 00:07:28,800
playgrounds in our system, which we have about 15 that we service.

89
00:07:29,340 --> 00:07:33,540
And because of those inspections, we're able to get ahead of any ongoing maintenance

90
00:07:33,540 --> 00:07:40,600
and replacement that may need to be done, which actually takes that 15 year kind of average

91
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:47,320
lifespan of playgrounds, and generally we're able to extend that to about 20 years as we

92
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:50,880
start to look at how we're able to manage our playgrounds.

93
00:07:50,880 --> 00:07:55,200
It's important to note that there are four playgrounds that were suggesting replacement

94
00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:59,920
Sloan Street, Roswell Area Park, East Roswell Park, and Grove Way.

95
00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:06,020
We've identified the years that those playgrounds were originally installed as you'll see most

96
00:08:06,020 --> 00:08:11,760
of those are within the 25 to 30 year, I'm sorry, 20 to 25 year span.

97
00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:18,120
The playgrounds, I think it's important to note from an industry standard playgrounds in

98
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:23,820
In the early 2000s, we're built on this wow factor of high towers, large slides.

99
00:08:24,300 --> 00:08:29,680
We've seen a progression over the last couple of decades in playgrounds that they are

100
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:35,540
no longer creating these high tower components as they look at it and they're looking more

101
00:08:35,540 --> 00:08:37,400
into the inclusive play.

102
00:08:37,980 --> 00:08:44,140
When I say inclusive play, that is not only as you look at mobility issues, but that could

103
00:08:44,140 --> 00:08:51,260
be individuals that have hearing disabilities as well as site disabilities. So think of that as

104
00:08:51,260 --> 00:08:56,800
you go through these concepts tonight. A lot of that plays into the factor of these designs.

105
00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:04,880
The funding for this project comes from the 2022 bond funding. We'll go through the each

106
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:10,320
individual site just so you can see the location. This is the Grove Way Community Park site.

107
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:22,180
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.

108
00:09:24,800 --> 00:09:31,700
This shows you a few of the concepts you'll notice in these concepts in lieu of creating independent shade structures.

109
00:09:31,700 --> 00:09:37,200
They've incorporated shade structure into the feature, so it's kind of built into the design.

110
00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:43,520
That helps with the overall layout, as well as providing shade throughout the play structures as you look at it.

111
00:09:47,360 --> 00:09:48,620
This shows you a few of the swings.

112
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:54,760
Please note that while it isn't listed in this image, there is adaptive swings that will be at this location.

113
00:09:55,160 --> 00:10:00,160
That was a priority because of the adaptive dream field that is adjacent.

114
00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:03,300
It's very important that we had access for all.

115
00:10:03,300 --> 00:10:11,830
This shows you the Roswell Area Park site that is located between Fields 2 and 3.

116
00:10:12,230 --> 00:10:16,110
That is the main playground feature within Roswell Area Park.

117
00:10:16,110 --> 00:10:18,670
It's one of our largest playgrounds.

118
00:10:23,750 --> 00:10:28,510
You'll see we did try to keep some of the larger towers in play as we look at that site.

119
00:10:29,150 --> 00:10:34,470
But again, a lot of those features are going to be climbing and things that will engage

120
00:10:34,470 --> 00:10:38,650
with the movement and accessibility as you look at it.

121
00:10:38,650 --> 00:10:39,270
East

122
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:49,160
Roswell, this is the playground that is adjacent to the entrance into the disc golf course.

123
00:10:49,540 --> 00:10:54,400
It is the largest playground within the East Roswell Park.

124
00:10:54,860 --> 00:11:01,660
We recently went through the replacement of the smaller playground structure when we were doing the improvements to

125
00:11:01,660 --> 00:11:04,380
the East Roswell Park and surrounding areas.

126
00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:10,380
So this will, after the completion of this one, that will be every playground in this park will have been recently renovated.

127
00:11:10,380 --> 00:11:17,020
So if you some of the play apparatus, this swing structure actually has the shape structures

128
00:11:17,020 --> 00:11:19,340
built over it, which is important.

129
00:11:22,010 --> 00:11:26,730
It is important to note that as we look at these concepts, we are not changing any of

130
00:11:26,730 --> 00:11:31,490
the footprints of any of the playgrounds, which means there will be no tree removal in any

131
00:11:31,490 --> 00:11:32,430
of these replacements.

132
00:11:33,730 --> 00:11:38,850
Also it's important to note that all material that's being removed from the current playground

133
00:11:38,850 --> 00:11:41,790
structures, we will be recycling all

134
00:11:41,790 --> 00:11:45,670
metal opportunities as well as the

135
00:11:45,670 --> 00:11:47,590
contractor will be taking it through

136
00:11:47,590 --> 00:11:51,710
specialized plastic recyclers as

137
00:11:51,710 --> 00:11:53,570
they're looking at what we can do to

138
00:11:53,570 --> 00:11:55,450
recycle all the old products.

139
00:11:58,470 --> 00:12:00,590
Sloan Street is a pocket park that's

140
00:12:00,590 --> 00:12:01,850
located off Sloan Street.

141
00:12:02,790 --> 00:12:04,750
It's a little bit of a smaller playground

142
00:12:04,750 --> 00:12:06,670
but it is the oldest in our system

143
00:12:06,670 --> 00:12:09,270
currently constructed in 2007.

144
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:16,440
This gives you a timeline.

145
00:12:17,180 --> 00:12:18,960
We are bringing it to you tonight.

146
00:12:19,660 --> 00:12:23,620
If we move this forward, it would go to Mayor and Council on October 13th.

147
00:12:23,620 --> 00:12:25,720
Contract would be signed in late October.

148
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:30,480
The goal would be to be under construction in January so that we could have almost all the

149
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:36,940
playgrounds renovated and completed before summer starts, which would be late May early June.

150
00:12:38,760 --> 00:12:40,800
We did have eight respondents.

151
00:12:40,800 --> 00:12:43,820
We had three finalists that we came and interviewed.

152
00:12:44,280 --> 00:12:47,720
We are recommending the Minico recreation products.

153
00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:53,300
The contract authorization would be 1,468,683

154
00:12:53,300 --> 00:12:58,740
with a total budget authorization of 1,542,117.

155
00:12:59,500 --> 00:13:01,920
Happy to answer any questions that you might have.

156
00:13:02,460 --> 00:13:03,560
Thank you, Mr. Marlone.

157
00:13:03,860 --> 00:13:06,240
Council Member Beeson, then we'll go to Council Member Bromley.

158
00:13:08,390 --> 00:13:11,070
I'm quite the connoisseur of all of these playgrounds.

159
00:13:11,070 --> 00:13:14,550
having a six and a nine-year-old who have been playing on them since they were babies.

160
00:13:15,490 --> 00:13:18,850
Speaking of your babies, can you go back to the East Roswell Park rendering?

161
00:13:27,030 --> 00:13:30,830
So is the one in the far background the toddler playground?

162
00:13:31,170 --> 00:13:35,830
Correct. You're going to see a smaller for a younger age group larger for the older.

163
00:13:35,910 --> 00:13:40,050
So the natural one in the next slide is not replacing the toddler one entirely,

164
00:13:40,050 --> 00:13:43,330
because I know you have it outcropping up like a small kid playground there.

165
00:13:43,570 --> 00:13:46,830
Yeah, so you're seeing in the background of this you're going to see the toddler

166
00:13:46,830 --> 00:13:52,710
and the larger one, this is just another new play feature that's actually being added into that space.

167
00:13:53,130 --> 00:13:57,950
Again, it engages more of that climbing aspect when it comes to the play features.

168
00:13:58,710 --> 00:14:03,350
That is, Taylor, you know the name of this. What is the name of the product?

169
00:14:03,750 --> 00:14:12,530
It's a fiberglass and concrete material that they make, like Stephen said, for more of a natural play feature.

170
00:14:12,530 --> 00:14:15,890
Yeah, so it comes out. It's a lot of fun for them to get all over.

171
00:14:16,210 --> 00:14:18,770
Just making sure we weren't getting rid of the small scale slides, because I know that

172
00:14:18,770 --> 00:14:24,670
that's kids five and under that's all they have. And just sliding down the log thing is not going

173
00:14:24,670 --> 00:14:34,150
to be a spun. And then with the Roswell area park playground, are we only doing the tower structure,

174
00:14:34,410 --> 00:14:38,890
not the zipline structure that currently exists? Because there's three playgrounds at Roswell area

175
00:14:38,890 --> 00:14:45,090
park. We're only doing the one that's closest to the main drive, not the other two, correct?

176
00:14:45,430 --> 00:14:49,230
That is correct. You're exactly right. So the only playground being replaced at

177
00:14:49,230 --> 00:14:53,670
Roswell Area Park is the one immediately adjacent to the covered pavilion.

178
00:14:54,130 --> 00:14:57,570
So if you know where the covered pavilion step out there, that playground in that area,

179
00:14:57,750 --> 00:14:59,830
where we have the gravity slide. Yes.

180
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:28,300
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.

181
00:15:28,300 --> 00:15:32,400
So in year 15, we'll have to replace them all.

182
00:15:32,700 --> 00:15:35,580
Well, 15 years is just when the warranty would expire.

183
00:15:35,960 --> 00:15:40,240
So we would do everything in our power to extend the lifespan of those materials

184
00:15:40,240 --> 00:15:43,160
by potentially doing replacement improvements.

185
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,480
We may have to go in and change out some elements of it,

186
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:51,040
but that doesn't necessarily mean that the product would be in failure at 15 years.

187
00:15:51,360 --> 00:15:53,840
Think your experience could you double the life of it?

188
00:15:54,380 --> 00:15:57,160
I don't know that we've ever taken a playground to 30 years.

189
00:15:57,160 --> 00:16:01,700
I would say generally we're pretty comfortable within about the 20 to 25 year

190
00:16:01,700 --> 00:16:08,900
Span dependent on the product is pretty standard for us 30 years. I believe would be pushing it and

191
00:16:08,900 --> 00:16:15,060
Just to be clear, does this pay with the bonds from 2022? That's correct. Yes, ma'am. Thank you

192
00:16:15,060 --> 00:16:19,380
All right any other question your comments pertaining to this item

193
00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:23,200
Seeing none will entertain a motion

194
00:16:23,900 --> 00:16:29,380
Motion by Council Member Beeson, second by Council Member Brumley, any further discussion?

195
00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:31,040
Seeing none, all in favour?

196
00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:32,020
All right.

197
00:16:32,240 --> 00:16:32,460
This will move.

198
00:16:32,520 --> 00:16:33,600
Very excited to.

199
00:16:34,180 --> 00:16:34,800
Thank you, sir.

200
00:16:35,020 --> 00:16:37,840
We're honored to have your public comments as the commentator.

201
00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:39,200
We're asking for your answer.

202
00:16:45,040 --> 00:16:46,460
Thank you very much.

203
00:16:47,200 --> 00:16:48,060
That's my title.

204
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:48,860
Thank you very much.

205
00:16:48,860 --> 00:16:56,240
The next item on the agenda item number four consideration of amendment to the development

206
00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:03,340
impact fee ordinance that will be led by Mr. Leatherman.

207
00:17:23,420 --> 00:17:28,740
Thank you Mr. Knighton and by way of introduction I have Carson Bice with me of Tishler

208
00:17:28,740 --> 00:17:34,440
Bice he is here as our representative and has been our consultant on this project for the

209
00:17:34,440 --> 00:17:39,720
past over a year now as we've worked through the impact fee evaluation and recommendations

210
00:17:39,720 --> 00:17:41,060
that you have before you.

211
00:17:41,540 --> 00:17:46,180
I ask Carson to join us because he will be able to walk you through the technical components,

212
00:17:46,460 --> 00:17:53,740
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

213
00:17:53,740 --> 00:17:56,560
than I can in any technical related questions that you have here at committee.

214
00:17:57,120 --> 00:18:02,520
So I'll do the first couple of introduction slides and then turn it over to Carson to walk you through the plan

215
00:18:02,520 --> 00:18:05,500
and then wrap it up with questions and recommendations.

216
00:18:05,500 --> 00:18:11,560
Just by way of schedules and some of this started before you, many of you were elected.

217
00:18:11,880 --> 00:18:18,240
We started back in January of 2025 and as required, we had an advisory committee that

218
00:18:18,240 --> 00:18:24,100
was designated as our Roswell Development Authority working with staff and Carson throughout

219
00:18:24,100 --> 00:18:25,600
the entirety of this process.

220
00:18:26,260 --> 00:18:30,540
Coming into 2026, we have the fifth and final advisory committee meeting with a recommendation

221
00:18:30,540 --> 00:18:34,000
that we're moving forward to you tonight at our committee presentation.

222
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:38,860
What is also required is to move this through the Planning Commission, the first and second

223
00:18:38,860 --> 00:18:40,220
reading at Mayor and Council.

224
00:18:40,860 --> 00:18:45,420
And so at the end of this, what I'll be asking for is any other questions and or recommendations

225
00:18:45,420 --> 00:18:49,420
that you may have that you want us to look at, as we transition this into the Planning Commission

226
00:18:49,420 --> 00:18:52,040
for some additional recommendations from them.

227
00:18:52,260 --> 00:18:58,060
And then again, we'll bring this back in October for first and second reading, but also hopefully

228
00:18:58,060 --> 00:19:01,200
to get most of your technical questions answered tonight here at committee.

229
00:19:02,060 --> 00:19:06,740
I'm going to turn it over to Carson from here, but I just want to note that the last time

230
00:19:06,740 --> 00:19:14,160
that we updated our impact fees was in 2015, as I said, we hired Tissler Bice as part

231
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:17,520
of our procurement process to represent and support the city as we've gone through the

232
00:19:17,520 --> 00:19:17,920
evaluation.

233
00:19:18,320 --> 00:19:20,820
And so, appreciate that and turn it over to Carson.

234
00:19:22,120 --> 00:19:22,980
Thank you, Jeff.

235
00:19:24,280 --> 00:19:24,460
Thank you.

236
00:19:24,720 --> 00:19:25,740
I appreciate that.

237
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:26,860
Thank you.

238
00:19:27,440 --> 00:19:28,360
Good evening, Mayor.

239
00:19:28,520 --> 00:19:29,080
Members of Council.

240
00:19:29,560 --> 00:19:30,440
I'm Carson Bice.

241
00:19:30,440 --> 00:19:37,020
So let's start with the definition of water impact fees because I know this body was not

242
00:19:37,020 --> 00:19:43,620
in place when we did the study in 2015, 2016, but impact fees are one-time payments designed

243
00:19:43,620 --> 00:19:46,980
to offset new gross impact on different infrastructure systems.

244
00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:53,360
Impact fees are meant to offset the need to raise taxes to pay for services.

245
00:19:54,580 --> 00:20:00,420
Impact fees help take some of the burden off new development as is associated with the

246
00:20:00,420 --> 00:20:05,180
So, and it's associated costs from existing residents within the city.

247
00:20:06,580 --> 00:20:12,260
So, there are 29 impact fee acts in the country right now and Georgia happens to be one

248
00:20:12,260 --> 00:20:17,080
of those states and the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act was enacted in 1990.

249
00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:22,020
It sent schools for local governments that wish to charge new development for impact fees,

250
00:20:23,160 --> 00:20:28,800
and impact fees may be used for infrastructure improvements, for debt service, for growth-related

251
00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:35,500
infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, impact fees cannot be used for infrastructure

252
00:20:35,500 --> 00:20:42,940
replacement, correcting existing deficiencies, or used in operations or maintenance. We can't

253
00:20:42,940 --> 00:20:47,620
comingle these funds into our general fund. We have to count for them separately and publish

254
00:20:47,620 --> 00:20:56,260
an annual report each year. So there is a requirement in Georgia as well as a few other states where

255
00:20:56,260 --> 00:21:04,020
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.

256
00:21:04,840 --> 00:21:13,000
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.

257
00:21:13,000 --> 00:21:22,630
Now, impact fees can be used for, but not limited to in Georgia, but relative to Roswell,

258
00:21:22,870 --> 00:21:27,770
we can use them for recreation parks, police, fire, and transportation.

259
00:21:31,940 --> 00:21:38,160
So in terms of the math involved in a conceptual impact fee calculation, step one, we determine

260
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:41,440
the appropriate demand indicator service unit.

261
00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:46,060
We use these sort of terms interchangeably for that particular type of infrastructure.

262
00:21:46,060 --> 00:21:54,640
So for example, we're talking about parks, typically the demand unit or service unit is the number of people per housing unit.

263
00:21:54,840 --> 00:22:02,920
If we're talking about transportation, that demand unit can be average daily vehicle trips or vehicle miles of travel or person trips.

264
00:22:03,740 --> 00:22:08,360
So that's the first step. We define what is the indicator of demand for that type of infrastructure.

265
00:22:08,980 --> 00:22:14,920
Except two, we determine the infrastructure units per service unit typically called what

266
00:22:14,920 --> 00:22:16,360
we call a level of service standard.

267
00:22:16,540 --> 00:22:18,200
So let's use parks again as an example.

268
00:22:18,820 --> 00:22:23,360
We would compare the number of developed park acres or the total number of park acres

269
00:22:23,360 --> 00:22:29,820
to the total population in the city at that given point in time to determine a level of service

270
00:22:29,820 --> 00:22:37,180
of let's say 1.4 acres per thousand residents or so many vehicle miles of capacity versus

271
00:22:37,180 --> 00:22:38,700
vehicle miles of travel, for instance.

272
00:22:39,640 --> 00:22:45,460
Step three, we then establish, well, what does it cost us as a community to replicate

273
00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:47,540
this infrastructure going forward?

274
00:22:48,260 --> 00:22:54,100
So using parks, again, as an example, what does it typically take or cost us to purchase

275
00:22:54,100 --> 00:22:55,220
an acre park?

276
00:22:55,740 --> 00:23:01,360
What does it cost us to replicate the type of improvements or amenities we have in our

277
00:23:01,360 --> 00:23:05,340
park system now in terms of, you know, trails, gazibos,

278
00:23:05,600 --> 00:23:08,900
remadas, bathrooms, lit ball fields, et cetera.

279
00:23:11,930 --> 00:23:15,590
So, as the first step in developing the impact fees,

280
00:23:15,830 --> 00:23:18,130
we have to demonstrate a nexus of needs.

281
00:23:18,450 --> 00:23:21,550
So, we have to document that Roswell has grown,

282
00:23:21,790 --> 00:23:23,850
that growth is going to continue in the future.

283
00:23:24,030 --> 00:23:25,430
And so, we have to make a projection

284
00:23:25,950 --> 00:23:28,950
of what we think the residential and non-residential

285
00:23:28,950 --> 00:23:31,090
development future may hold for Roswell.

286
00:23:31,090 --> 00:23:37,070
In order to do that, we sourced a number of different sources, so population projection

287
00:23:37,070 --> 00:23:40,930
is based on alternatives in the current 2040 conference plan.

288
00:23:41,850 --> 00:23:47,490
We've been projected housing units using persons per housing unit factors that we determined

289
00:23:47,490 --> 00:23:54,630
using the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data, which lets us know what the average

290
00:23:54,630 --> 00:23:57,790
number of persons are in a single family unit versus a multifamily unit.

291
00:23:58,510 --> 00:24:17,510
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.

292
00:24:17,510 --> 00:24:29,370
So, you can see here we are projecting about 7780 new persons and about 3,199 new housing

293
00:24:29,370 --> 00:24:29,830
units.

294
00:24:30,410 --> 00:24:35,770
A total employment of about 3,340 new employees.

295
00:24:36,150 --> 00:24:42,750
And that equates to about 1.43 million square feet of future residential space.

296
00:24:45,380 --> 00:24:54,820
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.

297
00:24:55,500 --> 00:24:59,340
So when we look to the past, we call that a cost recovery or a plan based approach.

298
00:25:00,580 --> 00:25:06,820
It's usually for when we either through foresight or an accident, we have oversized infrastructure.

299
00:25:06,820 --> 00:25:12,400
We really see this used a lot with utilities where, for instance, if a wastewater treatment

300
00:25:12,400 --> 00:25:16,600
plant that has 10 million gallons a day of capacity, we're currently utilizing six.

301
00:25:17,320 --> 00:25:20,040
And so we're buying into that excess capacity.

302
00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:23,440
We can also do that for non-utility expenses.

303
00:25:23,740 --> 00:25:27,960
So for instance, if a jurisdiction has recently built a public safety building or an aquatic

304
00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:34,140
center and it's been oversized to serve new development, we can recoup new developments portion

305
00:25:34,140 --> 00:25:40,340
of that excess capacity. We also look to the present that's by far the most common method

306
00:25:40,340 --> 00:25:46,100
of calculating impact fees and it's what to think of it it's sort of formulaic like insurance

307
00:25:46,100 --> 00:25:52,020
replacement methods where we document what are the level of services today what does it cost us

308
00:25:52,020 --> 00:25:59,360
to replicate that in terms of you know cost per square foot or cost per acre etc. And then the third

309
00:25:59,360 --> 00:26:02,000
Another method is we look to the future, we call that a plan-based approach.

310
00:26:03,220 --> 00:26:09,340
A plan-based approach is typically used with utilities and transportation and any other

311
00:26:09,340 --> 00:26:16,180
infrastructure category that has an adopted master plan, more importantly, an adopted funding

312
00:26:16,180 --> 00:26:23,120
plan because in most cases, adopted master plans are elevating levels of service.

313
00:26:23,780 --> 00:26:27,680
We've already talked about how we can't use impact fees to correct existing efficiencies.

314
00:26:27,680 --> 00:26:32,280
So if you're going to do a plan-based approach, you have to identify the growth share versus

315
00:26:32,280 --> 00:26:34,880
the non-growth share and identify the funding strategy.

316
00:26:35,360 --> 00:26:40,340
And it's a little risky because if we were to have an economic downturn, the city would

317
00:26:40,340 --> 00:26:44,780
still be on the hook for the same CIP, it's just that the impact fee revenue would be less

318
00:26:44,780 --> 00:26:48,200
and we'd have to come up with additional funding from other sources.

319
00:26:48,540 --> 00:26:54,180
And so that's why that incremental expansion or the looking at our present base is by far

320
00:26:54,180 --> 00:26:57,100
are the most popular way to calculate in that case.

321
00:26:58,160 --> 00:27:00,180
And it is important to note that sometimes we mix

322
00:27:00,180 --> 00:27:03,540
a match methodologies, sometimes an incremental expansion

323
00:27:03,540 --> 00:27:05,820
method will be used for the say part plan,

324
00:27:05,980 --> 00:27:08,060
but using that aquatic center example,

325
00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:10,640
you may have a buy-in or a plan-based approach

326
00:27:10,640 --> 00:27:12,380
for sort of a one-time facility.

327
00:27:13,840 --> 00:27:18,460
So in terms of how we calculated fees for this update,

328
00:27:18,860 --> 00:27:21,720
for parks, we use an incremental expansion approach.

329
00:27:21,720 --> 00:27:26,700
police. We also used incremental expansion fire was incremental expansion and we did use

330
00:27:26,700 --> 00:27:33,600
a plan-based approach for the transportation fee. This table also shows that the fact that

331
00:27:33,600 --> 00:27:38,360
we're recommending a city-wide service area because you are providing these levels of service

332
00:27:38,360 --> 00:27:43,640
on a city-wide basis. It also shows the cost allocation for each of these infrastructure

333
00:27:43,640 --> 00:27:47,660
categories. So let's talk about the results of the impact

334
00:27:47,660 --> 00:27:48,500
actually study itself.

335
00:27:49,500 --> 00:27:52,500
So parts and recreation includes a component

336
00:27:52,500 --> 00:27:55,320
for park improvements in community centers.

337
00:27:56,120 --> 00:27:59,640
A component for a land is not included in this update.

338
00:28:00,380 --> 00:28:05,360
As the city does not anticipate purchasing additional

339
00:28:05,360 --> 00:28:06,700
park land over the next five years,

340
00:28:07,180 --> 00:28:07,920
that could change.

341
00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:11,460
Our recommendation was that we revisit this after five years

342
00:28:11,700 --> 00:28:16,660
and see if adding additional park purchases is appropriate.

343
00:28:17,660 --> 00:28:20,320
both components of this parks and recreation fee use

344
00:28:20,320 --> 00:28:22,160
the that incremental expansion method

345
00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:23,640
when we're looking to the present in terms

346
00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:24,760
of your current levels of service.

347
00:28:25,680 --> 00:28:29,020
And the focus of this impact fee will be on improving

348
00:28:29,020 --> 00:28:31,160
the existing parks that you have in the city

349
00:28:31,160 --> 00:28:35,740
with additional amenities and infrastructure improvements.

350
00:28:37,340 --> 00:28:38,560
So I love this graphic.

351
00:28:38,600 --> 00:28:39,540
We didn't come up with it.

352
00:28:39,640 --> 00:28:40,260
Your staff did.

353
00:28:41,140 --> 00:28:43,880
It's very, very bold that we may have to copy you

354
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:46,260
and give you a royalty every time we use it.

355
00:28:46,880 --> 00:28:51,920
But the way to, so as we work our way down the table, so we have the, again, as I said

356
00:28:51,920 --> 00:28:55,640
earlier, residential, you know, the demand for parks is from residential units.

357
00:28:55,860 --> 00:28:59,900
So we look at the number of persons per unit from multifamily versus single family.

358
00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:03,520
We then look at what's the level of service in terms of improvements per person.

359
00:29:04,100 --> 00:29:10,160
We then look at what does it cost to, on average, based on our current asset inventory to provide

360
00:29:10,160 --> 00:29:10,860
these improvements.

361
00:29:10,880 --> 00:29:12,200
So we get our cost per person.

362
00:29:12,200 --> 00:29:17,060
We also look at our existing level of service for community centers and figure out what

363
00:29:17,060 --> 00:29:18,280
it costs per person for that.

364
00:29:18,980 --> 00:29:23,920
Then we look at what is our projected growth over that next 10 years and based on that

365
00:29:23,920 --> 00:29:28,820
projected growth applied to these level of service standards, what does that mean in terms

366
00:29:28,820 --> 00:29:30,860
of what we have to provide an infrastructure.

367
00:29:31,680 --> 00:29:35,740
So you can see here that we would have to provide about 3.2 million in new park improvements

368
00:29:36,100 --> 00:29:39,960
in about 10.1 million in new community center space.

369
00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:46,100
So that's the growth share. So we're talking about $13.3 million, $13.4 million.

370
00:29:47,240 --> 00:29:54,160
The city can choose to build $15 million worth of improvements or $20 million worth of improvements.

371
00:29:54,740 --> 00:29:57,440
New growth is only going to pay for $13 million of that, right?

372
00:29:57,440 --> 00:29:59,980
So anything above that we're elevating.

373
00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:29,980
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.

374
00:30:30,740 --> 00:30:34,480
but I'm also going to generate revenue in terms of sales tax or potentially

375
00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:39,360
property tax is going to go to pay debt service or sales tax is going to be used to

376
00:30:39,360 --> 00:30:43,480
pay debt service. So I'm paying for the same infrastructure twice. So that's what

377
00:30:43,480 --> 00:30:46,860
we have this credit. In this case we have a debt service credit per person about

378
00:30:46,860 --> 00:30:51,760
twenty-seven dollars and then we add all this math together we get a single

379
00:30:51,760 --> 00:30:56,400
family fee of forty two hundred and forty nine dollars a person or excuse me

380
00:30:56,400 --> 00:31:01,300
per unit and 3,099 for a multi-family unit.

381
00:31:03,730 --> 00:31:04,790
Let's move on to police.

382
00:31:05,670 --> 00:31:09,570
The impact fee component here is for bricks and mortar or facilities.

383
00:31:10,090 --> 00:31:14,370
It is important to note that the Georgia Development and Be Act limits us to infrastructure

384
00:31:14,370 --> 00:31:17,930
that has a 10-year useful life, which is why we don't see police cars.

385
00:31:18,950 --> 00:31:22,670
And this impact fee, which we're allowed to do in other states outside of Georgia,

386
00:31:24,050 --> 00:31:30,490
The components that we use for this fee, for police space, is that incremental expansion

387
00:31:30,490 --> 00:31:30,870
approach.

388
00:31:31,710 --> 00:31:37,370
And a similar table, but in this case, the fees are allocated against residential and

389
00:31:37,370 --> 00:31:38,470
non-residential development.

390
00:31:38,690 --> 00:31:44,790
We use what a measurement called functional population, which is a measurement of, it looks

391
00:31:44,790 --> 00:31:50,870
at a resident population, their community patterns, it looks at how many folks come into the

392
00:31:50,870 --> 00:31:55,350
city to work during the day that live outside of the city. How many folks that live in the city

393
00:31:55,350 --> 00:32:00,430
leave our city to work outside of the city to get what we call a functional population split,

394
00:32:00,510 --> 00:32:06,570
which is 69% residential, 31% non-residential. We then look at our service units there,

395
00:32:07,250 --> 00:32:11,490
our police level of service in terms of square foot per person and square foot per vehicle trip.

396
00:32:12,410 --> 00:32:20,070
And then we get our fees of $859 per unit, $153 per thousand square feet.

397
00:32:20,870 --> 00:32:23,710
for the industrial category, for example,

398
00:32:23,810 --> 00:32:26,570
we do have a debt credit here as well.

399
00:32:29,130 --> 00:32:31,730
Refire, the impact fee includes components

400
00:32:31,730 --> 00:32:35,150
for apparatus as well as bricks and mortar.

401
00:32:35,630 --> 00:32:38,570
Apparatus typically have a useful life of 15 to 20,

402
00:32:38,610 --> 00:32:41,070
sometimes 25 years, refire a DMS.

403
00:32:41,910 --> 00:32:44,230
We did use that incremental expansion approach

404
00:32:44,230 --> 00:32:45,550
for this fee as well.

405
00:32:47,530 --> 00:32:50,750
Again, we use that functional population split of 6931.

406
00:32:50,750 --> 00:32:56,890
We look at residential fees on a per person basis, the non-residential fees on a per vehicle

407
00:32:56,890 --> 00:32:57,610
trip basis.

408
00:32:58,410 --> 00:33:04,570
So we get these different cost factors, and the maximum supportable fee for a single

409
00:33:04,570 --> 00:33:12,530
family unit is $1498 per unit, and for an industrial property it's $266 per thousands

410
00:33:12,530 --> 00:33:13,010
per foot.

411
00:33:18,050 --> 00:33:22,490
Transportation, use the plan-based approach that mentioned earlier, it includes components

412
00:33:22,490 --> 00:33:27,790
for both streets and pedestrian improvements so the way to think of this is more of a multimodal

413
00:33:28,810 --> 00:33:36,320
street fee. The methodologies, plan bays, we use average weekday vehicle trips for the

414
00:33:36,320 --> 00:33:43,440
capacity or the traditional roadway capacity methodology and we use person trips for the multimodal

415
00:33:44,020 --> 00:33:53,500
improvements and for roadway costs we get cost of $432 for vehicle trip, pedestrian crop

416
00:33:53,500 --> 00:34:00,660
cost 97.31 per person trip. We do give a credit for the future projection of

417
00:34:00,660 --> 00:34:04,380
T-splots revenue because again we don't want new development pains twice.

418
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:08,280
Once through the impact fee and through the T-splots revenue that they would

419
00:34:08,280 --> 00:34:13,880
generate. And so we get a maximum allowable transportation impact fee of $130

420
00:34:13,880 --> 00:34:17,880
per vehicle trip and $3188 per person trip.

421
00:34:21,540 --> 00:34:23,560
Now this chart here shows you the

422
00:34:23,560 --> 00:34:32,100
in maximum allowable fees calculated by T-Survice following the Georgia Development Fee Act.

423
00:34:32,560 --> 00:34:37,620
What this means is, based on the assumptions and the development projections in the study,

424
00:34:38,440 --> 00:34:43,120
we can't just say, well, I feel the fee should be $10,000 instead of $9,275.

425
00:34:43,660 --> 00:34:46,880
Based on these assumptions, this is the maximum supportable.

426
00:34:47,480 --> 00:34:51,880
In this case, the full freight, when we look at recreation parks, police, fire and transportation,

427
00:34:51,880 --> 00:34:55,840
as well as the city's administration fee of 30% or 3%.

428
00:34:56,290 --> 00:35:02,720
It's $9,275 for a single-family unit, $6,728 for a multi-family unit.

429
00:35:03,460 --> 00:35:06,060
And then we'll work our way down the non-residential chart.

430
00:35:07,200 --> 00:35:12,420
Commercial development has the highest impact fees, $8,142 per thousand square feet,

431
00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:17,500
followed by office and other services at $3,613 per thousand,

432
00:35:18,120 --> 00:35:23,380
institution of $35,000, $90,000, and an industrial at $11,000, $23,000.

433
00:35:31,630 --> 00:35:40,370
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?

434
00:35:41,550 --> 00:35:49,430
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,

435
00:35:52,030 --> 00:36:01,630
The larger impact fee or larger house size had a fee of $4,135, where the single family unit now has $9,275.

436
00:36:02,390 --> 00:36:05,570
From a non-residential perspective, all the fees are increasing.

437
00:36:06,590 --> 00:36:12,330
Again, it's been 10 years since the impact fee study was done, so it's not surprising that they're increasing.

438
00:36:12,330 --> 00:36:18,210
increasing. The largest increases, obviously, are for commercial, but all the fees are increasing

439
00:36:18,210 --> 00:36:24,330
across the board. And when we compare ourselves to other communities, and we're looking at

440
00:36:24,330 --> 00:36:29,110
single-family units, because that's typically how we compare this. And I'll be honest with

441
00:36:29,110 --> 00:36:32,890
you, I'm not a big fan of this, but I know why we do this, because it really isn't comparison

442
00:36:32,890 --> 00:36:38,290
of apples to apples or oranges, because there are a lot of caveats that have to be explained

443
00:36:38,290 --> 00:36:43,670
way. So for instance, how long has it been since our neighboring jurisdictions have adopted

444
00:36:43,670 --> 00:36:50,910
their fees? Number two, when fees were proposed that they adopt a 100% or that they adopt

445
00:36:50,910 --> 00:36:56,390
some percentage thereof, what components are in the fees. So for instance, sometimes we'll

446
00:36:56,390 --> 00:37:01,590
see, you know, our park fee only has park improvements and recreation centers in it, but another

447
00:37:01,590 --> 00:37:08,090
jurisdictions park fee may have land, recreation centers, trails, an aquatic center, senior

448
00:37:08,090 --> 00:37:14,370
centers, etc. So there's a lot of different nuances that go into this. You can see that when

449
00:37:14,370 --> 00:37:22,110
we look at the proposed fees, we are now in the top 10% regionally compared to our peers.

450
00:37:22,250 --> 00:37:30,670
We're 92 75 for a single family unit. Milton now is at 10,652. I can tell you that we are looking

451
00:37:30,670 --> 00:37:35,650
to Cherokee County right now. We're about to have draft fees there. They're going to go up considerably.

452
00:37:36,030 --> 00:37:39,810
We also are finishing Hall County right now, those are going to go up considerably.

453
00:37:41,010 --> 00:37:43,670
And so this, keep in mind, this is a moving target.

454
00:37:45,930 --> 00:37:48,810
And with that, I think we're ready for questions and answers, right?

455
00:37:48,970 --> 00:37:49,870
Or do you want to go ahead?

456
00:37:51,410 --> 00:37:56,670
So I think, sorry, just real quick, we had, coming out of our briefings with three on three,

457
00:37:56,810 --> 00:38:02,890
as we had a question associated with one of the transition from the square foot method

458
00:38:02,890 --> 00:38:07,210
in the previous study to the way that we're calculating a

459
00:38:07,210 --> 00:38:11,190
recommending a per person calculation and just wanted to open

460
00:38:11,190 --> 00:38:13,910
that up with the conversation. Carson and I have talked a

461
00:38:13,910 --> 00:38:17,010
little bit about it and I think if you just want to respond to

462
00:38:17,010 --> 00:38:20,410
what the options are, we have as the council just to put that

463
00:38:20,410 --> 00:38:21,390
out on the table as well.

464
00:38:23,010 --> 00:38:25,790
So back to the map when you're talking about that.

465
00:38:26,750 --> 00:38:27,630
Which one?

466
00:38:27,830 --> 00:38:28,210
This one?

467
00:38:28,510 --> 00:38:28,750
OK.

468
00:38:29,470 --> 00:38:33,530
This one or the recommendation for us to have that.

469
00:38:34,290 --> 00:38:34,830
This one?

470
00:38:34,930 --> 00:38:35,870
Yeah, OK.

471
00:38:40,270 --> 00:38:41,050
Can we switch?

472
00:38:41,350 --> 00:38:42,010
Yeah, here we go.

473
00:38:42,350 --> 00:38:43,950
Yeah, can we switch back to the E-square?

474
00:38:43,990 --> 00:38:44,550
Yeah, you can.

475
00:38:45,790 --> 00:38:51,790
And so it's really, it's a policy decision for you all.

476
00:38:52,470 --> 00:38:58,650
The feedback we got was the, and we get this a lot, is from an administrative perspective,

477
00:38:59,530 --> 00:39:03,570
it's much more burdensome when it's done by size of house.

478
00:39:04,170 --> 00:39:09,450
The upside to it is, from my perspective, is at least a better proportionality,

479
00:39:10,050 --> 00:39:15,470
and to, it helps with housing affordability, because we're not working anywhere in the United States

480
00:39:15,470 --> 00:39:19,730
where housing affordability is an issue, and so in most communities we work with,

481
00:39:19,730 --> 00:39:23,310
unless you've got wonky demographics like a retirement community and you know

482
00:39:23,310 --> 00:39:27,690
on the coast and Florida most communities who work in there is a relationship

483
00:39:27,690 --> 00:39:31,990
between the number of people, number of vehicles which influence generation

484
00:39:31,990 --> 00:39:37,270
rates as units get larger and then it levels off at some point and that leveling

485
00:39:37,270 --> 00:39:41,530
off point is what differs from community community so it's more of a policy

486
00:39:41,530 --> 00:39:45,130
decision about you know what you want to do as a city do you want to go to the

487
00:39:45,130 --> 00:39:49,490
one-size-fits-all fee structure like this or do you want to keep it by size and house

488
00:39:51,090 --> 00:39:54,510
And if we just hold comments on that, I'll get the other two questions.

489
00:39:55,130 --> 00:39:58,470
In this study, we have separated out police and fire within this study.

490
00:39:58,910 --> 00:40:04,970
I asked Mr. Qsac just to look up some of the history, what we see in the state of Georgia,

491
00:40:05,270 --> 00:40:09,590
and then of course we can comment further on kind of the methodology of why we had the

492
00:40:09,590 --> 00:40:13,870
combination of the fee in 2015 and the recommendation for splitting the two.

493
00:40:16,150 --> 00:40:22,070
So, and there was actually the COE specifically on impact fees at the last city, county,

494
00:40:22,210 --> 00:40:27,910
attorney, I guess, conference, but it mainly, it was talking about the litigation that

495
00:40:27,910 --> 00:40:29,450
has picked up surrounding fees.

496
00:40:29,830 --> 00:40:32,950
There's been an increase of litigation surrounding the impact fees because there's a

497
00:40:32,950 --> 00:40:37,490
certain process you have to go through, but separating out the different buckets of fire

498
00:40:37,490 --> 00:40:42,630
and police at least gave you some, I'll call risk reduction as opposed to having them in

499
00:40:42,630 --> 00:40:47,470
the same bucket just from generating the proportionality of those fees that go in there and how you

500
00:40:47,470 --> 00:40:53,290
reallocate them. So it's more of a, it creates an easier accounting method to have each separate

501
00:40:53,290 --> 00:40:58,710
fund because then you can determine the proportionality that gets spent on each fund. So that's,

502
00:40:58,710 --> 00:41:04,030
that's why the trend has gone to police and fire being separate as opposed to public safety being

503
00:41:04,030 --> 00:41:10,270
all in one bucket. It's easier to defend it lowers the risk tolerance for the city if we're

504
00:41:10,270 --> 00:41:12,890
In fact, these ordinance was ever to be challenged.

505
00:41:15,070 --> 00:41:16,270
That's a revolve.

506
00:41:17,170 --> 00:41:19,250
So, yeah, that was my question.

507
00:41:19,670 --> 00:41:24,690
And it was specifically my question because as policy makers,

508
00:41:25,190 --> 00:41:30,450
the fewer buckets that we have, we of course have more public safety

509
00:41:30,450 --> 00:41:31,350
is in one bucket.

510
00:41:32,050 --> 00:41:37,810
We have more decision making power as to where those funds are.

511
00:41:37,810 --> 00:41:41,010
and we're less likely to have stranded funds

512
00:41:41,010 --> 00:41:45,670
if police needs more funding in a period

513
00:41:45,670 --> 00:41:47,470
versus fire or vice versa.

514
00:41:48,720 --> 00:41:51,310
I just can't find in the statute

515
00:41:51,310 --> 00:41:54,570
where it requires it to be split

516
00:41:54,570 --> 00:41:56,690
and I'm not sure about what cases are.

517
00:41:57,330 --> 00:42:00,670
I can't, I mean, I agree horribly

518
00:42:00,670 --> 00:42:02,870
with what this gentleman said.

519
00:42:03,410 --> 00:42:10,290
And there is not only in Georgia, and you've had some recent court cases here, but all

520
00:42:10,290 --> 00:42:15,430
over the country, things are being scrutinized much, much greater after the issue.

521
00:42:15,470 --> 00:42:18,990
I understand that, but are they being scrutinized for police and fire?

522
00:42:19,190 --> 00:42:21,030
Are they being scrutinized for all across the board?

523
00:42:21,390 --> 00:42:27,570
And the problem we have with public safety is that in terms of the percentage of assets,

524
00:42:28,010 --> 00:42:29,630
it's overwhelmingly fire AMS.

525
00:42:29,630 --> 00:42:35,990
police typically has one built, right? Fire stations, you will have multiple fire

526
00:42:35,990 --> 00:42:40,930
stations in a training center, so they may have 80% of the assets. And the last

527
00:42:40,930 --> 00:42:48,570
thing you want, and to use your word discretion, is to then spend the money 80%

528
00:42:48,570 --> 00:42:55,790
toward police when fire has 80% of the assets. So that's why it's much more

529
00:42:55,790 --> 00:42:59,110
approved to separate out into police versus fire AMS.

530
00:42:59,750 --> 00:43:01,070
Professor, I had a second.

531
00:43:02,760 --> 00:43:04,320
Councilmember Cells.

532
00:43:06,160 --> 00:43:08,420
Yeah, I've been getting some thoughts about this.

533
00:43:08,580 --> 00:43:10,740
And thank you for addressing the square foot issue.

534
00:43:11,100 --> 00:43:12,800
I believe I was someone who brought this up.

535
00:43:12,800 --> 00:43:15,360
And the issue, just to frame it in the way

536
00:43:15,360 --> 00:43:17,360
that we were talking about it on 303.

537
00:43:18,600 --> 00:43:21,100
So that's about four years of property tax on the average

538
00:43:21,100 --> 00:43:22,320
house in Roswell.

539
00:43:23,580 --> 00:43:27,040
And for, you know, we say we want to be family-friendly,

540
00:43:27,420 --> 00:43:32,560
a most family-friendly destination city in the United States.

541
00:43:32,780 --> 00:43:37,840
Well, you know, and particularly for start homes,

542
00:43:37,920 --> 00:43:39,420
things like that, it's a real challenge.

543
00:43:39,700 --> 00:43:44,420
So I hear you on the square footage may be what I'm taking away.

544
00:43:44,720 --> 00:43:46,760
It's almost an insurance kind of conversation

545
00:43:46,760 --> 00:43:50,520
about risk versus the lawsuit versus that,

546
00:43:50,520 --> 00:43:51,340
That's what we're talking about.

547
00:43:52,460 --> 00:43:59,540
So is it your counsel that say if the goal was to make it

548
00:43:59,540 --> 00:44:02,460
something closer to zero for the smaller homes and something

549
00:44:02,460 --> 00:44:06,000
more than 92.75 for the larger homes, what I heard you say

550
00:44:06,000 --> 00:44:09,740
is I don't think we can go above 92.75 on any single home.

551
00:44:09,860 --> 00:44:11,280
Is that the essence of it?

552
00:44:12,340 --> 00:44:12,860
No.

553
00:44:13,280 --> 00:44:16,020
It would be greater than 92.75.

554
00:44:16,960 --> 00:44:18,820
92.75 is the average.

555
00:44:19,380 --> 00:44:19,660
Perfect.

556
00:44:19,660 --> 00:44:26,180
Okay, so we could we could some units would be much greater some units would be much less

557
00:44:26,840 --> 00:44:32,860
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

558
00:44:33,480 --> 00:44:36,780
Larger, but it's the average right and we talked about

559
00:44:37,540 --> 00:44:42,660
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

560
00:44:43,580 --> 00:44:48,380
We talked about houses that are raised and replaced and they would be facing this right?

561
00:44:49,660 --> 00:44:51,940
Okay, that is a policy decision.

562
00:44:52,280 --> 00:44:53,700
Well, I think we're in our conversation.

563
00:44:53,880 --> 00:44:55,980
It is today the case, is that, is that what?

564
00:44:56,040 --> 00:44:59,980
If they have not paid impact fees in the past, as part of...

565
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:29,780
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

566
00:45:29,780 --> 00:45:33,500
is 24.6, I think, is the number that I recall or is it 26?

567
00:45:34,000 --> 00:45:35,100
I think it was 26, actually.

568
00:45:35,140 --> 00:45:37,220
Maybe it's higher than that. It was a big number.

569
00:45:38,260 --> 00:45:41,960
And he pointed out that it was basically what the land

570
00:45:41,960 --> 00:45:45,000
percentage used to be is now the regulatory burden.

571
00:45:46,080 --> 00:45:50,100
And this is, you know, this is exhibit A,

572
00:45:50,320 --> 00:45:51,940
of our contribution to that problem.

573
00:45:53,020 --> 00:45:56,340
I get why we're not arguing the premise that we need to do it.

574
00:45:56,580 --> 00:45:57,820
You know, because there are things

575
00:45:58,380 --> 00:46:04,400
someone moves in is four years of property taxes for an entry fee hour ages? No, it's not,

576
00:46:04,520 --> 00:46:09,140
but if we went and sent other things, we had to wait against that. And so that, I think, for us,

577
00:46:09,400 --> 00:46:13,940
that was, I don't know what Joel's conversation was in the three-on-three, but that was what we were

578
00:46:13,940 --> 00:46:21,080
focused on. Yeah, and I think, you know, the opportunity within this conversation is to take direction

579
00:46:21,080 --> 00:46:28,840
from the body, and if you want to, as a body, give us direction to re-look at the fees

580
00:46:28,840 --> 00:46:33,880
per unit calculation and adjust that on a square footage and bring that back and through

581
00:46:33,880 --> 00:46:39,540
as the recommendation, we certainly can go, make those adjustments, and then bring that

582
00:46:39,540 --> 00:46:41,540
recommendation through in October.

583
00:46:42,920 --> 00:46:47,640
It's essentially just adjusting, and I think as Carson mentioned, and I want to make sure

584
00:46:47,640 --> 00:46:54,760
that we're clear on this is when, or if we were to choose the per square foot calculation,

585
00:46:55,340 --> 00:46:58,480
it would apply to a single family and multi family equally.

586
00:46:58,640 --> 00:46:58,740
Right.

587
00:46:58,920 --> 00:47:00,460
So you can't separate the two.

588
00:47:00,820 --> 00:47:00,840
Right.

589
00:47:00,840 --> 00:47:03,780
You have to, the methodology has to be the same on residential units.

590
00:47:05,180 --> 00:47:05,520
That's correct.

591
00:47:05,580 --> 00:47:08,700
Does the, does the number, the value have to be the same?

592
00:47:09,140 --> 00:47:14,040
In other words, you've got, you've got two thirds one third, or excuse me, yeah, two

593
00:47:14,040 --> 00:47:20,320
three-thirds as it were right is that is that also a problem so the first

594
00:47:20,320 --> 00:47:23,280
square foot may be different it's the multifamily unit you're gonna fall

595
00:47:23,280 --> 00:47:28,780
between the 600 and like the 1200 to 1400 square foot so don't pay

596
00:47:28,780 --> 00:47:33,620
attention to those two numbers it'll just be by a square foot it's just that the

597
00:47:33,620 --> 00:47:38,140
larger units are gonna pay more than the 92 75 and the smaller units to a certain

598
00:47:38,140 --> 00:47:41,700
point are gonna pay but they would be the same dollar per square same dollar per

599
00:47:41,700 --> 00:47:47,620
square foot, same cost per person, right? It's just what's our number of persons. And so, and what

600
00:47:47,620 --> 00:47:53,500
you'll find, and this always trips up people, is that since we're using persons for housing units,

601
00:47:53,920 --> 00:48:01,600
right, which is the universe of housing units, it includes your vacant units, is that lots of times

602
00:48:01,600 --> 00:48:08,260
the fee category shows less than one person in a unit at a certain size. That's because we're looking

603
00:48:08,260 --> 00:48:14,700
at the fact that you may have 1,000 units at that size, but only 870 of those

604
00:48:14,700 --> 00:48:16,500
occupied at any given moment, right?

605
00:48:17,860 --> 00:48:22,880
Okay, so just play it back if it's going to be basically if we do it that way, we're

606
00:48:22,880 --> 00:48:25,160
going to insist something which I don't want, which is more of a free standing

607
00:48:25,160 --> 00:48:25,440
coordinate.

608
00:48:27,440 --> 00:48:30,240
But on the single family side, yeah, I get that.

609
00:48:30,620 --> 00:48:38,500
I'm hesitant to say this because I don't like to, you know, force my opinion on things,

610
00:48:38,500 --> 00:48:44,400
But it's the market because you do something doesn't that that's going to have the

611
00:48:44,400 --> 00:48:48,980
price if the market is everybody wants a 5,000 square foot house in Roswell that's where they're

612
00:48:48,980 --> 00:48:52,640
going to continue to build yeah yeah because you go to this doesn't mean all of a sudden you're

613
00:48:52,640 --> 00:48:57,080
going to be building 1200 square foot units that's a good point the the apartments in in

614
00:48:57,860 --> 00:49:03,340
Roswell are on the high end if any new apartments are going to be significantly more per square foot

615
00:49:03,340 --> 00:49:05,320
but then a single family home.

616
00:49:05,420 --> 00:49:06,400
Would you like to speak in a word, say,

617
00:49:06,540 --> 00:49:08,520
on monthly basis, so, thanks.

618
00:49:08,960 --> 00:49:09,740
That's one of the best thing.

619
00:49:11,160 --> 00:49:14,120
So that question, my question also came out of my,

620
00:49:15,360 --> 00:49:16,200
three on one, it was just me.

621
00:49:17,380 --> 00:49:18,940
That was a question that I'd asked as well.

622
00:49:20,480 --> 00:49:23,000
In theory, can you go back to the methodology

623
00:49:23,000 --> 00:49:26,080
of how you got to this recommendation?

624
00:49:26,500 --> 00:49:26,760
Which?

625
00:49:27,680 --> 00:49:31,560
The police, the fires, the, yeah, you walk through

626
00:49:31,560 --> 00:49:36,360
the infographics, I guess. So at the very bottom here, you've lumped it all into single

627
00:49:36,360 --> 00:49:40,140
family and industrial. How come multi-family is not represented in the fire impact fees

628
00:49:40,140 --> 00:49:46,480
at the bottom? That was just to show the process, not 100% of the fees. Got it. Okay.

629
00:49:46,780 --> 00:49:51,260
There is also commercial fee, there is also institutional fee, there is also multi-family,

630
00:49:51,660 --> 00:49:55,520
but that was just getting really crowded in all of the different opponents. So this is just

631
00:49:55,520 --> 00:50:00,020
the purpose of methodology. For ease of interpretation. Can you go back to the recommendations,

632
00:50:02,160 --> 00:50:05,920
My understanding is that we currently use the square footage approach on residential,

633
00:50:06,480 --> 00:50:09,500
but I don't understand the motivation for moving away from it.

634
00:50:09,640 --> 00:50:15,020
And I'll explain, I get what you're saying in terms of the number of people per unit

635
00:50:15,020 --> 00:50:21,860
and how it averages out to his question about the two-thirds versus the three-thirds of the 6,000 versus 9,000.

636
00:50:22,380 --> 00:50:27,140
But I don't understand how you're not accounting for the economies of scale that are inherent in multi-family.

637
00:50:27,140 --> 00:50:31,440
Because single-family all have their own ties to water lines.

638
00:50:31,440 --> 00:50:35,740
They all have their own, like a fire service comes out.

639
00:50:35,860 --> 00:50:41,120
They're only serving that household, same with police, as opposed to multi-family.

640
00:50:41,420 --> 00:50:43,840
You're servicing multiple people at the exact same time.

641
00:50:44,640 --> 00:50:46,900
So and same with transportation and how units move.

642
00:50:47,340 --> 00:50:52,620
So I don't understand how that economy is a scale isn't taken into consideration in using

643
00:50:52,620 --> 00:50:54,520
lots of sun versus the square footage amount.

644
00:50:56,080 --> 00:51:02,440
So I'm not sure I understand all of that but so let's talk about fire so you're

645
00:51:02,440 --> 00:51:06,560
not likely to have multiple fires at the same time in an apartment. No but you'll

646
00:51:06,560 --> 00:51:09,560
have multiple units take it at the same time as opposed to your one single

647
00:51:09,560 --> 00:51:17,280
family home. Right but here's the thing most fire calls are EMS in nature. 80 90

648
00:51:17,280 --> 00:51:22,680
percent which is a function of the presence of people and that's why we use people

649
00:51:22,680 --> 00:51:25,880
with the denominator in the fire EMS.

650
00:51:26,360 --> 00:51:28,700
Just like we're using vehicle trips

651
00:51:28,700 --> 00:51:33,440
for police and fire for the non-residential side

652
00:51:33,440 --> 00:51:36,460
because if we if we used employees,

653
00:51:37,240 --> 00:51:40,360
office would have the highest fire police impact fee,

654
00:51:40,400 --> 00:51:42,220
but we know more incidents that happen

655
00:51:42,220 --> 00:51:44,420
at retail establishments because it presents to people

656
00:51:44,420 --> 00:51:46,740
and trip rates account for the fact

657
00:51:46,740 --> 00:51:49,720
that the equal trips account for employees coming,

658
00:51:51,120 --> 00:52:00,500
visitors coming. So the other point is that there are no perfect financing mechanisms, right?

659
00:52:00,680 --> 00:52:05,700
Property taxes and account for the fact that the amount you pay has no bearing on how much

660
00:52:05,700 --> 00:52:12,320
services you concern or you consume, same with impact fees. We can't be perfect, but you're right in

661
00:52:12,320 --> 00:52:16,380
that, if you're applying that, if one unit catches on fire, another one's likely to catch.

662
00:52:18,920 --> 00:52:19,700
I'm just using

663
00:52:19,700 --> 00:52:33,180
to say that an account for numerically or empirically that having 80 people on one acre is more

664
00:52:33,180 --> 00:52:36,160
cost effective than three people on one acre.

665
00:52:38,220 --> 00:52:40,020
We can't assure that. We don't have an

666
00:52:40,020 --> 00:52:43,580
empirical evidence of Roswell which shows that. Got it. So you're doing it based off the data.

667
00:52:43,780 --> 00:52:47,420
And then my secondary question to that, and you referenced it a minute ago in terms of housing

668
00:52:47,420 --> 00:52:52,280
affordability. You said that you believed that this approach would support housing affordability.

669
00:52:52,880 --> 00:52:58,180
My counter was during my briefing, I had asked, so for example, and this is similar to

670
00:52:58,180 --> 00:53:05,520
Council Member Sells's point, if you have a 3000 square foot home, how is that going to be charged

671
00:53:05,520 --> 00:53:14,540
the exact same as a 7,000 foot home or a 1500 foot home? You're not incentivizing the best allocation

672
00:53:14,540 --> 00:53:21,880
for land use by blanket charging each single family home as opposed to basing it off

673
00:53:21,880 --> 00:53:22,360
of size.

674
00:53:22,480 --> 00:53:25,120
Because if I'm a developer and I'm going to get hit with the same amount of charges

675
00:53:25,120 --> 00:53:30,020
either way, why not build the giant McMansion as opposed to the affordable starting home.

676
00:53:30,420 --> 00:53:32,880
So can you walk me through your thought process on the affordability?

677
00:53:33,180 --> 00:53:34,340
Yeah, I'm not arguing either way.

678
00:53:34,740 --> 00:53:35,820
I mean, this wasn't my decision.

679
00:53:35,900 --> 00:53:37,480
Well, you just thought that it was more affordable.

680
00:53:37,840 --> 00:53:44,080
It's both or legitimate methods, both are reasonable in terms of collecting impact fees

681
00:53:44,080 --> 00:53:50,120
in terms of being challenged, it's more a policy choice by the jurisdiction, and I will

682
00:53:50,120 --> 00:53:57,540
show you, I agree, to your point, what we propose in here, you're exactly right.

683
00:53:59,200 --> 00:54:04,260
But then go to the other side, where you do it by size of house, there's also a set of pros

684
00:54:04,260 --> 00:54:04,600
and cons.

685
00:54:04,900 --> 00:54:06,400
So it's really what you guys want to do.

686
00:54:07,280 --> 00:54:11,140
I think, though, and Carson, I want to put words in your mouth, when you were answering

687
00:54:11,140 --> 00:54:18,040
During the question related to changing the fee per unit to a square foot cost, you

688
00:54:18,040 --> 00:54:21,640
were saying that it has the potential to support affordable.

689
00:54:22,640 --> 00:54:24,960
I think you guys are actually talking about the unit.

690
00:54:25,580 --> 00:54:34,020
So yeah, so yeah, if you do have a market for smaller units, I mean the thing that more

691
00:54:34,020 --> 00:54:40,740
progressive communities like about the size per unit or the fee per unit approach is that

692
00:54:40,740 --> 00:54:49,260
And it makes a fee now behave like a tax because smaller units are typically less costly.

693
00:54:49,960 --> 00:54:53,640
And the more expensive units are paying a higher impact fee, and so some communities

694
00:54:53,640 --> 00:54:54,400
like that, right?

695
00:54:54,560 --> 00:54:58,080
Because it's sort of a progressive destructure.

696
00:54:58,980 --> 00:55:05,240
But I happen to agree, it does help with housing affordability, equity, I think it improves proportionality.

697
00:55:05,920 --> 00:55:12,460
So we're big fans of the first work of a cost, but we, but it's a policy choice.

698
00:55:12,940 --> 00:55:14,900
I understand that it's committee to the elected body.

699
00:55:15,080 --> 00:55:18,520
I think I'm still in the frame of mind that I prefer the square footage approach as opposed

700
00:55:18,520 --> 00:55:19,740
to the fees per unit approach.

701
00:55:20,160 --> 00:55:20,980
But I appreciate that.

702
00:55:21,160 --> 00:55:29,200
But the downside is to this gentleman's point is that if you're serious about housing

703
00:55:29,200 --> 00:55:35,640
affordability, as you've also got these larger homes that are $12 or $13 or $14,000.

704
00:55:36,120 --> 00:55:43,220
But at the same time, when you look at this, in terms of what does this mean on an average

705
00:55:43,220 --> 00:55:53,060
mortgage, assuming 20% down, 30-year mortgage, it's less than $100 a month at the high end

706
00:55:53,060 --> 00:55:57,460
it was $15,000, you know, $5,000 to $6,000.

707
00:55:57,640 --> 00:56:01,800
It's, you know, probably $40,000 to $50,000 a month

708
00:56:01,800 --> 00:56:05,120
in terms of what its impact is on a mortgage.

709
00:56:05,780 --> 00:56:10,480
A lot of people attach itself to this huge amount, right?

710
00:56:10,960 --> 00:56:12,500
But there's all of these different amounts

711
00:56:12,500 --> 00:56:14,340
that get rolled into the cost of a house.

712
00:56:14,440 --> 00:56:16,220
And so what does it really mean on a monthly basis?

713
00:56:16,620 --> 00:56:18,780
I guess I'm thinking more from the incentivization

714
00:56:18,780 --> 00:56:24,640
of developers unless the end is obviously going to be a pass-through if you understand what we're saying.

715
00:56:24,980 --> 00:56:27,720
But more so, the return on investment for a developer.

716
00:56:27,820 --> 00:56:32,860
If I'm going to buy a single parcel that is hypothetically half an acre,

717
00:56:33,240 --> 00:56:38,480
I can either put a very, very large house on the half acre that takes that most of the lot

718
00:56:38,480 --> 00:56:46,760
or I could subdivide that acreage and make it a third of whatever the square footage is going to be with two smaller homes.

719
00:56:46,760 --> 00:56:51,980
If it's going to be cost prohibitive or higher cost for them to front on the impact fee side

720
00:56:51,980 --> 00:56:59,740
I don't want to disincentivize the smaller sized homes as opposed to the very very large homes that we're here in

721
00:56:59,740 --> 00:57:05,720
Roswell we're losing a lot of our smaller homes like our historic ranch homes like anything that we're post-World War 2

722
00:57:05,720 --> 00:57:13,820
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

723
00:57:13,820 --> 00:57:17,300
talk about like affordable housing I'm talking about like I don't think most

724
00:57:17,300 --> 00:57:20,800
of us at this table could probably afford the houses that are being built

725
00:57:20,800 --> 00:57:25,140
right now in the historic district. I'm just playing devil's advocate here

726
00:57:25,140 --> 00:57:32,620
and I think I said this earlier I've never seen a going to a progressive going to

727
00:57:32,620 --> 00:57:37,940
a progressive fee structure all of a sudden change the market because your

728
00:57:37,940 --> 00:57:42,440
your current fees are by size of house and you're still getting the lower taxes.

729
00:57:43,000 --> 00:57:43,220
Correct.

730
00:57:44,140 --> 00:57:44,240
Right.

731
00:57:45,020 --> 00:57:46,680
The market is what the market is.

732
00:57:47,080 --> 00:57:55,240
Now, what we have seen is that in jurisdictions, particularly with transportation, where if you're

733
00:57:55,240 --> 00:58:02,020
trying to encourage higher density mixed use nodes, we have proposed what we call a trippy change

734
00:58:02,020 --> 00:58:10,240
district where, if you meet certain minimums in terms of density, mix of uses, locational

735
00:58:10,240 --> 00:58:16,180
criteria in terms of other modes of transportation, that you get a reduced impact fee because you

736
00:58:16,180 --> 00:58:18,760
have a higher incidence of internal triplication.

737
00:58:19,120 --> 00:58:22,060
I mean, that's mixed years of lower treatments, that makes sense to me.

738
00:58:22,140 --> 00:58:23,140
It's like a floating zone.

739
00:58:23,580 --> 00:58:23,720
Right.

740
00:58:24,260 --> 00:58:30,800
And it can help to incentivize, mix use versus, because we're talking about standalone.

741
00:58:30,980 --> 00:58:31,360
Stand alone.

742
00:58:31,360 --> 00:58:41,220
But we have used this trip exchange district format in a lot of communities and it seems to help incentivize that type of behavior.

743
00:58:41,640 --> 00:58:45,420
So is that something that we would request that language from you guys?

744
00:58:45,840 --> 00:58:54,880
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.

745
00:58:54,880 --> 00:59:00,400
activity, and it's a policy you're trying to incentivize a policy that you have in different

746
00:59:00,400 --> 00:59:04,320
documents in the city, and that's what I mean, people forget that impact fees are a

747
00:59:04,320 --> 00:59:05,020
land use regulation.

748
00:59:05,320 --> 00:59:05,880
It was a great.

749
00:59:05,940 --> 00:59:06,040
Great.

750
00:59:06,480 --> 00:59:10,260
And there's a way we can craft impact fee methodologies to help you achieve what you're trying

751
00:59:10,260 --> 00:59:10,580
to achieve.

752
00:59:11,080 --> 00:59:11,260
Perfect.

753
00:59:11,420 --> 00:59:12,760
Yeah, I'm looking at it from the land use approach.

754
00:59:13,000 --> 00:59:15,400
I agree wholeheartedly be to raise impact fees.

755
00:59:16,680 --> 00:59:21,320
Most cities in the United States, and this is in three different studies, I've shown that they're

756
00:59:21,320 --> 00:59:24,980
vastly underestimated their impact fees either because they're extremely

757
00:59:24,980 --> 00:59:27,580
out of date like hours or they think that it's going to negatively impact

758
00:59:27,580 --> 00:59:32,640
development or whatever it may be, but they're not paying for their cost on the

759
00:59:32,640 --> 00:59:36,440
services for the development they're adding to the community. So love increasing

760
00:59:36,440 --> 00:59:40,260
them, but I want to make sure that we're not disincentivizing the types of

761
00:59:40,260 --> 00:59:43,780
development that we want and we are incentivizing the types of development we

762
00:59:43,780 --> 00:59:46,980
want like the mixed use corridors, especially in the targeted nodes that we

763
00:59:46,980 --> 00:59:50,840
have like in our comprehensive plan. But if that's something that we could

764
00:59:50,840 --> 00:59:59,840
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.

765
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:29,520
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.

766
01:00:29,520 --> 01:00:35,600
and it's a mixed use note or a trip exchange district kind of thing, but yeah.

767
01:00:36,360 --> 01:00:41,300
I mean, I need Mayor Robe show, then we get, I think, Councilman Robe show.

768
01:00:41,360 --> 01:00:43,560
Hall, sales, hall, whole Mayor Robe show.

769
01:00:44,040 --> 01:00:50,760
So two questions specific to the waving perspective you made a statement about the three criteria

770
01:00:50,760 --> 01:00:53,480
one being transportation slash connectivity.

771
01:00:54,040 --> 01:00:58,660
Is that defined somewhere by law or that it's just, yeah, we would determine.

772
01:00:58,660 --> 01:01:15,380
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.

773
01:01:15,860 --> 01:01:25,200
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

774
01:01:25,980 --> 01:01:30,660
in regards to taking down some of our older homes and building these larger homes.

775
01:01:30,860 --> 01:01:36,380
Does that mean because that original home may have paid an impact fee sometime 20 years ago?

776
01:01:36,920 --> 01:01:38,660
There is no impact fee for a rebuild.

777
01:01:39,020 --> 01:01:47,320
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?

778
01:01:47,780 --> 01:01:49,160
That will be helpful and should be much more effective.

779
01:01:49,760 --> 01:01:54,000
Yeah, when I was trying to say it's associated with the plant land or the building itself.

780
01:01:59,120 --> 01:02:04,620
So we have a date, I do not have it on the top of my head right now, where the impact

781
01:02:04,620 --> 01:02:07,080
fees started to be assessed and raw as well.

782
01:02:07,540 --> 01:02:13,060
So we use that date when we're looking at whether or not a property that's having a

783
01:02:13,060 --> 01:02:19,860
total demo or whether or not they're doing a large renovation, adding an addition that's

784
01:02:19,860 --> 01:02:25,000
more than half of the house, adding a lot of bedrooms, we use that as the likelihood of them

785
01:02:25,000 --> 01:02:29,460
having paid them and if they have not paid them we assess them.

786
01:02:30,480 --> 01:02:35,300
So we don't know if that's 20 years ago, 30, we're not 100%.

787
01:02:35,300 --> 01:02:38,900
I know obviously since this was just updated 10 years ago.

788
01:02:39,800 --> 01:02:41,520
Yes, I think 19 what?

789
01:02:42,500 --> 01:02:42,780
19, 92.

790
01:02:43,000 --> 01:02:44,540
Yeah, 92.

791
01:02:44,720 --> 01:02:45,040
92.

792
01:02:45,320 --> 01:02:48,860
I was going to say that it's in the 90s.

793
01:02:48,860 --> 01:02:53,720
It was not, you know, that was the 2015 was possibly

794
01:02:53,720 --> 01:02:57,960
even updating that initial impact.

795
01:02:58,060 --> 01:02:59,180
Can you go back and get the exact date?

796
01:02:59,540 --> 01:03:01,460
That date, because, yeah.

797
01:03:01,960 --> 01:03:04,560
But we use that date, we have it on file.

798
01:03:05,160 --> 01:03:06,760
It doesn't come up a lot.

799
01:03:07,120 --> 01:03:09,520
So, you know, it becomes a conversation between

800
01:03:09,520 --> 01:03:13,280
building permitting and planning and zoning

801
01:03:13,280 --> 01:03:16,980
where we establish when the initial house was built.

802
01:03:16,980 --> 01:03:24,120
But we look at the plat, we look at the county records, and we assess an impact fee if it falls before that date.

803
01:03:24,460 --> 01:03:27,400
And we can verify that no impact fees were paid.

804
01:03:28,500 --> 01:03:36,320
So that technically, I mean, council, that's anything, if it is 92, that's anything, 34 years are.

805
01:03:36,660 --> 01:03:36,920
Yes.

806
01:03:37,620 --> 01:03:42,060
35 years are old, or we would say we know they could not have paid an impact fee.

807
01:03:42,400 --> 01:03:42,640
Yes.

808
01:03:43,180 --> 01:03:43,300
Okay.

809
01:03:44,560 --> 01:03:51,160
I'll still remember all sales, sales was very good.

810
01:03:51,660 --> 01:03:56,920
My mind was just to follow up with worship was going that we already, we've already been

811
01:03:56,920 --> 01:04:01,880
using that as a lever the impact fees for after that.

812
01:04:01,920 --> 01:04:08,960
Yeah, leaving of impact fees and using them as incentives, we will and we have been in parallel

813
01:04:08,960 --> 01:04:14,440
working on updating your policy related to incentives and impact fees and

814
01:04:14,440 --> 01:04:18,540
waving of impact fees kind of behind the scenes as the comp plan is finishing

815
01:04:18,540 --> 01:04:23,980
up and as well as the studies finishing up. So I mean my question is is it again

816
01:04:23,980 --> 01:04:30,120
is it better to leave it there or to put it into this other thing which

817
01:04:30,120 --> 01:04:36,000
concerns me of strapping our hands too much that's all. I think you know and it

818
01:04:36,000 --> 01:04:41,380
It sounds like I'm hearing some consensus with the desire to understand and bring forward

819
01:04:41,380 --> 01:04:45,660
some opportunities within the commercial mix use district as Carson has described.

820
01:04:46,480 --> 01:04:50,760
Coming out of committee, we can get together with his team and bring some recommendations

821
01:04:50,760 --> 01:04:57,420
forward and continue to work on that component and then we'll cover the square foot method

822
01:04:57,420 --> 01:05:00,100
on the residential here in a moment as the conversation continues.

823
01:05:04,480 --> 01:05:09,900
of course and for the benefit of Miss Sarah Beeson and my daughter can I get your last

824
01:05:09,900 --> 01:05:25,580
name because you're the first person to ever call me a progressive was for one non-progressive

825
01:05:25,580 --> 01:05:28,440
to another last name, last name is Vice-BISC.

826
01:05:30,540 --> 01:05:32,340
I'm going to have to equip this.

827
01:05:32,500 --> 01:05:34,640
Incended to my daughter, I just said you said it.

828
01:05:36,260 --> 01:05:38,980
All right, we've got some gift this.

829
01:05:39,240 --> 01:05:39,640
Good be back.

830
01:05:39,880 --> 01:05:40,980
Councilmember Bromley.

831
01:05:41,520 --> 01:05:44,740
So I thought that the end of the presentation

832
01:05:44,740 --> 01:05:46,840
that you had an advisory committee that

833
01:05:46,840 --> 01:05:50,120
made four times who was part of that advisory.

834
01:05:50,300 --> 01:05:51,720
Because the Roswell Development Authority

835
01:05:51,720 --> 01:05:53,500
was established as the advisory committee.

836
01:05:53,500 --> 01:05:57,840
And that was by Council back in 2025 when we first started the process.

837
01:05:58,320 --> 01:06:01,120
So the RDA appointed people?

838
01:06:01,260 --> 01:06:03,120
The entirety of the RDA was the advisory committee.

839
01:06:03,140 --> 01:06:04,440
The RDA is the advisory committee.

840
01:06:04,800 --> 01:06:12,940
And they, so they gave input about which one to use or not, they're aware of the changes

841
01:06:12,940 --> 01:06:15,980
that were about the drastic changes that were about to.

842
01:06:16,380 --> 01:06:21,120
Yeah, and we can report back to the advisory committee based on this conversation.

843
01:06:21,120 --> 01:06:27,460
So they were fully aware that they are a recommending body bringing forth their recommendation to this committee.

844
01:06:28,400 --> 01:06:37,320
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.

845
01:06:37,600 --> 01:06:43,300
But they also recognize that ultimately the policy decision authority is here in this room with the mayor and council.

846
01:06:43,300 --> 01:06:48,020
And they recognize that as we go through this process, things may change based on the desires

847
01:06:48,020 --> 01:06:53,300
that you all have for both economic and redevelopment and community, but we'll actually report back

848
01:06:53,300 --> 01:06:55,520
to them as we go through the process so that they're aware.

849
01:06:58,110 --> 01:06:58,330
All right.

850
01:06:58,670 --> 01:06:59,750
Many further questions.

851
01:06:59,930 --> 01:07:02,270
I thank you for looking for a direction more than anything.

852
01:07:02,370 --> 01:07:03,190
Is that correct, Chef?

853
01:07:03,590 --> 01:07:04,110
It is.

854
01:07:04,350 --> 01:07:09,010
And so I think, you know, the one direction that we have is before we come back for the final

855
01:07:09,010 --> 01:07:13,510
review is reviewing the incentive opportunities that we potentially have.

856
01:07:13,510 --> 01:07:32,910
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.

857
01:07:35,950 --> 01:07:49,390
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?

858
01:07:49,750 --> 01:07:51,310
Like what's the difference in?

859
01:07:51,730 --> 01:07:58,930
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.

860
01:07:58,930 --> 01:08:03,370
you're using multiple fee tables and so it's a little bit extra work just to go

861
01:08:03,370 --> 01:08:07,110
through and make sure that you have the quality control in place but nothing

862
01:08:07,110 --> 01:08:10,270
that we can't do with our existing system and the existing people okay just

863
01:08:10,270 --> 01:08:15,170
making sure thanks council member Hall just the comment you should you should

864
01:08:15,170 --> 01:08:23,490
bride an AI program and they'll do it in seconds validated for us any other

865
01:08:23,490 --> 01:08:27,750
questions or comments I think we have the feedback and direction we need so far

866
01:08:27,750 --> 01:08:31,230
So we'll go back and assess and bring that back to you.

867
01:08:31,370 --> 01:08:31,710
Is that correct?

868
01:08:32,130 --> 01:08:32,290
All right.

869
01:08:32,430 --> 01:08:32,530
Yeah.

870
01:08:32,630 --> 01:08:38,990
The next steps will be planning commission, and we may, it may take us, right now we're scheduled

871
01:08:38,990 --> 01:08:40,490
for the 20th of October.

872
01:08:40,730 --> 01:08:45,110
With the direction of the council, we may not hit the planning commission date of the 20th

873
01:08:45,530 --> 01:08:49,990
in order to get the updates and the adjustments that you all have requested so that you have

874
01:08:49,990 --> 01:08:53,610
a recommendation from the planning commission based on your direction today.

875
01:08:53,670 --> 01:08:57,550
So we may kick that meeting back just a little bit, but then it'll come to first and

876
01:08:57,550 --> 01:09:02,150
second reading as soon as planning commission provides their recommendation here shortly.

877
01:09:02,950 --> 01:09:03,090
Awesome.

878
01:09:03,230 --> 01:09:03,450
Mahal?

879
01:09:04,070 --> 01:09:04,830
I'm sorry.

880
01:09:05,010 --> 01:09:11,050
I want to follow up message or a question from our meeting on the industrial.

881
01:09:11,690 --> 01:09:13,250
We had talked about that.

882
01:09:13,910 --> 01:09:19,070
Is that that's changing or can you please remind me what my question was related to that and

883
01:09:19,070 --> 01:09:20,990
we thought it was a parcel on.

884
01:09:21,350 --> 01:09:27,870
Yeah, so we have an industrial use that used to be, I don't remember the name, it was

885
01:09:27,870 --> 01:09:28,650
There's a different category.

886
01:09:28,850 --> 01:09:29,450
Are we aware about that?

887
01:09:29,670 --> 01:09:29,810
Yeah.

888
01:09:29,890 --> 01:09:30,770
We were talking through it.

889
01:09:30,930 --> 01:09:37,430
But there is a different category in the previous fee structure that no longer exists in

890
01:09:37,430 --> 01:09:38,390
our code section.

891
01:09:38,550 --> 01:09:41,190
And so we were looking through and making that adjustment.

892
01:09:41,330 --> 01:09:43,510
But I'll make sure to get that exact answer as it's coming through.

893
01:09:43,610 --> 01:09:45,770
And that brought me to another one.

894
01:09:46,010 --> 01:09:48,750
There's parcels along Highway 9.

895
01:09:50,290 --> 01:09:52,150
There's specifically, what is that one?

896
01:09:53,270 --> 01:09:54,370
The old Mrs. Winners.

897
01:09:54,370 --> 01:09:59,060
there's that was

898
01:10:01,550 --> 01:10:11,570
now across the street I hear those it I'm just wondering if it

899
01:10:11,570 --> 01:10:15,850
would be eligible because they tore the whole building down we probably I don't

900
01:10:15,850 --> 01:10:21,150
know if it works if it's coming before us this council but is that the building

901
01:10:21,150 --> 01:10:25,070
that's half-demoed with the wall that's sitting there is in a complete building demo

902
01:10:25,070 --> 01:10:30,890
I believe it's a complete building demo and we'll probably see it or it will probably come through the process.

903
01:10:31,130 --> 01:10:31,850
We can talk through that.

904
01:10:32,130 --> 01:10:32,470
That was.

905
01:10:33,650 --> 01:10:38,610
Right now the existing fee structure would apply if it comes through the process for an application in the building permit.

906
01:10:39,130 --> 01:10:41,170
Because we haven't adopted the new structure yet.

907
01:10:43,260 --> 01:10:44,160
Councilmember Beeson.

908
01:10:45,260 --> 01:10:46,100
One final question.

909
01:10:46,540 --> 01:10:52,020
Is there a reason why we as a city don't incorporate stormwater as one of our silo's.

910
01:10:52,680 --> 01:10:57,060
Recreation parks please fire transportation is a reason why we can't do stormwater as well and

911
01:10:57,780 --> 01:11:00,540
We have a water utility. We can do a water utility

912
01:11:00,540 --> 01:11:05,860
We did this early on. We'll go back and double check the answer to get that for you

913
01:11:05,860 --> 01:11:10,620
I think it's because the way that we charge the fees for service already as a separate fee

914
01:11:10,620 --> 01:11:17,960
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

915
01:11:25,160 --> 01:11:33,260
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.

916
01:11:33,680 --> 01:11:37,900
The pipes are going to have to be larger as opposed to what it currently has.

917
01:11:38,400 --> 01:11:43,520
The estimates of what we're currently charging stormwater fees are based off current use, not projected use.

918
01:11:43,520 --> 01:11:45,560
Am I making any sense?

919
01:11:45,780 --> 01:11:47,240
I will look to Sharon Brown.

920
01:11:47,540 --> 01:11:48,540
I see her shaking her head.

921
01:11:50,380 --> 01:11:50,980
The

922
01:11:54,630 --> 01:11:58,090
way that regulations work, they have to retain that,

923
01:11:58,310 --> 01:12:01,330
detain that water on site and release it over time,

924
01:12:01,610 --> 01:12:05,350
is purposely done that way so that we don't overwhelm the

925
01:12:05,350 --> 01:12:08,490
piping system downstream because we don't want to get into

926
01:12:08,490 --> 01:12:12,070
a situation where we're continually upside-down piping systems.

927
01:12:12,330 --> 01:12:16,450
So it's a little counterintuitive versus waste water and water

928
01:12:16,450 --> 01:12:21,550
and potable water, then you upgrade the system to support.

929
01:12:21,870 --> 01:12:24,050
But in storm water, we're forcing all of that

930
01:12:24,050 --> 01:12:25,270
to happen on the site.

931
01:12:26,190 --> 01:12:27,970
Just wanted to double check, because I mean,

932
01:12:28,130 --> 01:12:29,930
we've literally had a storm water item tonight.

933
01:12:30,210 --> 01:12:31,070
We have a storm water item.

934
01:12:31,130 --> 01:12:33,770
I feel like once a month these days, so just making sure

935
01:12:33,770 --> 01:12:37,130
that we are covering the cost adequately on our site

936
01:12:37,130 --> 01:12:39,990
for future use and not just what current use

937
01:12:39,990 --> 01:12:41,530
and remediation of past issues.

938
01:12:42,050 --> 01:12:42,530
Absolutely.

939
01:12:42,830 --> 01:12:43,230
We can't.

940
01:12:43,230 --> 01:12:44,470
Yeah, so before you make sure.

941
01:12:44,470 --> 01:12:47,230
So that's a mitigation approach, right?

942
01:12:47,350 --> 01:12:50,130
So we say, you must do this to fill the property.

943
01:12:50,270 --> 01:12:50,610
So it's a mitigation.

944
01:12:51,670 --> 01:12:55,070
We won't allow them to overwhelm our downstream.

945
01:12:55,290 --> 01:12:58,730
And as we build regional detentions,

946
01:12:59,190 --> 01:13:01,210
like, for instance, what we did in Roswellary Park,

947
01:13:01,830 --> 01:13:03,690
we can sell credits against that, which

948
01:13:03,690 --> 01:13:05,470
is different than an impact fee, right?

949
01:13:05,630 --> 01:13:08,750
That could be, they can beg it by the offsets for that.

950
01:13:08,790 --> 01:13:09,030
Exactly.

951
01:13:10,470 --> 01:13:14,130
It's a tool we can use to give the developers

952
01:13:14,130 --> 01:13:41,030
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.

953
01:13:42,870 --> 01:14:06,930
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.

954
01:14:06,930 --> 01:14:13,830
Item number five, consideration of updates to the unified development code that will be presented by Ms. Genie Payton.

955
01:14:20,920 --> 01:14:23,240
Good evening.

956
01:14:39,800 --> 01:14:46,840
This item is an update on our unified development code update project.

957
01:14:47,080 --> 01:14:49,500
I said update twice and I told myself not to do that.

958
01:14:50,820 --> 01:14:56,320
So, why now? You've heard about this before. We kind of put the project on hold so that we

959
01:14:56,320 --> 01:14:59,920
could take the comprehensive plan through. Now that that's getting ready to be adopted.

960
01:15:00,940 --> 01:15:27,860
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.

961
01:15:27,860 --> 01:15:45,960
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

962
01:15:45,960 --> 01:15:47,880
complex plan that's about to be adopted.

963
01:15:49,740 --> 01:15:55,360
So policy guide for regulation, council sets the policy, staff aligns the regulation and

964
01:15:55,360 --> 01:16:01,340
council approve amendments to those regulations and it is the detail of the code that helps

965
01:16:01,340 --> 01:16:03,380
us carry out the policy on the staff level.

966
01:16:05,480 --> 01:16:10,620
So we have two sets of codes again, the UDC and the code of ordinances, the UDC and the code

967
01:16:10,620 --> 01:16:15,400
of ordinances sometimes contradict each other, they talk over topic each other.

968
01:16:15,400 --> 01:16:23,780
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.

969
01:16:25,180 --> 01:16:33,120
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.

970
01:16:33,280 --> 01:16:41,720
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.

971
01:16:41,720 --> 01:16:47,080
And this will allow it to be more manageable, able to process it, and make some really

972
01:16:47,080 --> 01:16:49,280
meaningful decisions as we go through this process.

973
01:16:50,160 --> 01:16:55,640
Our project team, sponsor, being Jeff Leatherman, Deputy City Administrator, our customer,

974
01:16:55,800 --> 01:17:02,340
Michelle Alexander, Director of Community Development, Project Manager, Joe Pignano, Deputy City

975
01:17:02,340 --> 01:17:07,240
Administrator, the functional manager myself, Planning and Zoning Director, Deputy Project

976
01:17:07,240 --> 01:17:12,420
Manager Richard Sykes, our planner to and planning and zoning at our project team to

977
01:17:12,420 --> 01:17:19,700
include Sandeep from PPI and Daniel Mulan from Business and Performance and also some

978
01:17:19,700 --> 01:17:25,660
other planning staff as needed to do some of the heavy lift items and work with the consultant.

979
01:17:26,600 --> 01:17:32,740
So in addition to that project team we have two committees, an executive committee that will include

980
01:17:32,740 --> 01:17:38,660
two council members, the deputy city administrator, city attorney's office, the director of community

981
01:17:38,660 --> 01:17:42,600
development, and the chairs of each one of our boards and commission. So the planning commission,

982
01:17:42,840 --> 01:17:47,920
the historic preservation commission, the design review board and the board of zoning appeals, and

983
01:17:47,920 --> 01:17:53,360
then a technical committee which isn't comprised of staff from the different departments, environmental

984
01:17:53,360 --> 01:17:59,620
public works, transportation, engineering, building, zoning community design, code enforcement,

985
01:17:59,620 --> 01:18:02,360
like the Department of Fire Marshall, everyone who touches.

986
01:18:05,800 --> 01:18:09,140
So our schedule includes RFP to award,

987
01:18:09,940 --> 01:18:13,640
culminating hopefully in December of 2026.

988
01:18:14,260 --> 01:18:15,980
The assessment will take place after that

989
01:18:16,380 --> 01:18:19,660
and be done in mid-May of 2027.

990
01:18:20,120 --> 01:18:23,840
We'll start drafting from May through October of 27,

991
01:18:24,580 --> 01:18:27,520
and then move into adoption and have it adopted

992
01:18:27,520 --> 01:18:30,420
in at the end of December of 2027.

993
01:18:31,660 --> 01:18:34,920
So the next time you'll see us for this project,

994
01:18:35,220 --> 01:18:37,400
or for this project, is in November,

995
01:18:37,600 --> 01:18:38,620
we'll bring it back to committee

996
01:18:38,620 --> 01:18:40,660
to discuss the award of the RFP

997
01:18:41,040 --> 01:18:42,760
and then December 14th

998
01:18:42,760 --> 01:18:45,460
for a Council vote to award the contract.

999
01:18:47,280 --> 01:18:48,220
Are there any questions?

1000
01:18:51,340 --> 01:18:52,800
Yes, Council Member Hall.

1001
01:18:55,430 --> 01:18:59,530
Yes, so I have a few questions.

1002
01:19:01,010 --> 01:19:06,740
The project is going to be roughly a year long.

1003
01:19:07,940 --> 01:19:10,640
Where are the milestones where we see?

1004
01:19:11,600 --> 01:19:15,080
I saw that you're breaking them up into the three sections.

1005
01:19:15,640 --> 01:19:15,740
Yes.

1006
01:19:16,620 --> 01:19:30,880
So what are the milestones within each section where we will see the progress or we'll see

1007
01:19:30,880 --> 01:19:34,380
I thought we were going or yeah, yeah, yeah, you're on the right track.

1008
01:19:34,840 --> 01:19:47,500
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.

1009
01:19:48,080 --> 01:19:56,140
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.

1010
01:19:56,140 --> 01:20:03,680
and then there's I don't see any meetings how often is everybody meeting we're

1011
01:20:03,680 --> 01:20:08,580
not to that phase yet because we are we have not brought the consultant so we

1012
01:20:08,580 --> 01:20:12,380
will bring the consultant and then we will solidify the schedule and we will

1013
01:20:12,380 --> 01:20:18,760
establish meeting dates and bring that information to you yeah yeah so this is

1014
01:20:18,760 --> 01:20:25,900
just this is we are he is drafted we are he is drafted we're working on it and I'm

1015
01:20:25,900 --> 01:20:27,400
working with finance to.

1016
01:20:27,660 --> 01:20:29,320
Can you send that to all of us, please?

1017
01:20:29,860 --> 01:20:31,040
I can see if I can do that.

1018
01:20:31,160 --> 01:20:31,220
Yeah.

1019
01:20:32,260 --> 01:20:34,660
Before it goes out, in case we have some comments.

1020
01:20:43,140 --> 01:20:43,700
I'm sorry.

1021
01:20:43,820 --> 01:20:44,020
I'm sorry.

1022
01:20:44,020 --> 01:20:44,180
I'm sorry.

1023
01:20:44,600 --> 01:20:44,980
I'm sorry.

1024
01:20:45,920 --> 01:20:46,900
Yes, customer sales.

1025
01:20:47,000 --> 01:20:47,840
Anybody else got a question?

1026
01:20:51,720 --> 01:20:52,120
So

1027
01:20:54,680 --> 01:20:58,360
we will, we look at each of the buckets.

1028
01:20:58,600 --> 01:20:59,820
So think about the plan.

1029
01:21:00,100 --> 01:21:03,300
And it sounds like we're leaning heavily on the consultant.

1030
01:21:03,880 --> 01:21:05,500
I thought this was going to be considering

1031
01:21:05,500 --> 01:21:08,600
during the team that we've got here,

1032
01:21:08,800 --> 01:21:10,840
this is like everybody on this project team list,

1033
01:21:11,580 --> 01:21:13,720
the yellow slide on page 121.

1034
01:21:15,660 --> 01:21:17,220
Everybody's in this building on that, right?

1035
01:21:18,040 --> 01:21:18,200
Yes.

1036
01:21:18,680 --> 01:21:18,840
Okay.

1037
01:21:21,520 --> 01:21:27,600
So, we're going to defer to the consultant to drive this.

1038
01:21:27,780 --> 01:21:29,120
I thought it was more of a staff log

1039
01:21:29,120 --> 01:21:30,200
because Jeff and I had that,

1040
01:21:30,300 --> 01:21:31,720
that was the conversation we had.

1041
01:21:32,740 --> 01:21:34,360
I think with I had it, you and that,

1042
01:21:34,360 --> 01:21:41,120
So they're more like a staff hog because I was very sensitive to this being like consultant-blood so

1043
01:21:42,160 --> 01:21:46,680
What am I I'm not I'm not clear on that that response there

1044
01:21:46,680 --> 01:21:54,080
So I guess I'll first touch on I would say the roles when you look at the top three of the project team

1045
01:21:54,080 --> 01:21:56,640
They're they're there to drive this forward

1046
01:21:57,760 --> 01:22:00,300
From my position down

1047
01:22:00,300 --> 01:22:06,980
You know, me looking at being that technical authority over the content and as we move forward

1048
01:22:06,980 --> 01:22:15,600
with the assessment and the drafting and doing some of the data analysis providing information

1049
01:22:15,600 --> 01:22:20,160
about how many variances we've awarded in the last five years.

1050
01:22:20,360 --> 01:22:21,700
What are the asks that we have?

1051
01:22:21,980 --> 01:22:27,740
That information that can only come from us will come from the staff and the consultant,

1052
01:22:27,740 --> 01:22:32,720
we are, it's part of the RFP, we are hoping to have embedded staff and

1053
01:22:32,720 --> 01:22:36,880
embedded consultant, so they will have a staff member that lives with us day-to-day

1054
01:22:36,880 --> 01:22:41,940
for a certain period of the project to see what happens day-to-day in our

1055
01:22:41,940 --> 01:22:49,900
development divisions, and then also having legal embedded staff to help us, you

1056
01:22:49,900 --> 01:22:53,820
know, cover those hurdles of something that would be, you know, a drain and not

1057
01:22:53,820 --> 01:22:58,140
something that are legal. So you said you said it's good. I think you said two

1058
01:22:58,140 --> 01:23:03,740
two people are better. So if you were to put them on this list what functional

1059
01:23:03,740 --> 01:23:04,720
role are they feeling?

1060
01:23:07,240 --> 01:23:11,600
Or would you add? Where would I add them? Yeah what is

1061
01:23:11,600 --> 01:23:16,220
what is their role versus the roles that we're talking about here? I mean as

1062
01:23:16,220 --> 01:23:20,320
consultant they're going to drive what the outcome is they're going to.

1063
01:23:23,320 --> 01:23:23,800
That's

1064
01:23:23,800 --> 01:23:25,120
And me, that's a problem, right?

1065
01:23:25,200 --> 01:23:27,140
Yeah, I mean, I'll cancel it.

1066
01:23:27,420 --> 01:23:27,960
I'm sorry, go ahead.

1067
01:23:28,180 --> 01:23:28,560
Yeah, yeah.

1068
01:23:29,020 --> 01:23:29,320
Okay.

1069
01:23:31,320 --> 01:23:34,600
That's one of the concerns I have is that we have spent

1070
01:23:34,600 --> 01:23:38,260
a fair amount of time as a body making policy decisions

1071
01:23:38,260 --> 01:23:42,560
and I assume that everybody on the who list here

1072
01:23:43,280 --> 01:23:48,060
is well aware of this body's philosophy about X, Y, and Z.

1073
01:23:48,280 --> 01:23:50,820
But I'm much less confident about that outcome

1074
01:23:50,820 --> 01:23:55,440
with a consultant who is now driving a process,

1075
01:23:56,000 --> 01:23:58,460
I would really, really like to see that RFP

1076
01:23:58,460 --> 01:24:03,960
because if we're going to Chattanooga on the RFP

1077
01:24:03,960 --> 01:24:05,060
and we wanna go to Greenville,

1078
01:24:05,220 --> 01:24:06,320
I would like to catch that early.

1079
01:24:06,800 --> 01:24:11,600
So you say you're gonna let it on two days from today, right?

1080
01:24:13,400 --> 01:24:14,680
The 30 on the first, right?

1081
01:24:15,060 --> 01:24:16,220
Or three days from the day.

1082
01:24:16,220 --> 01:24:24,120
Yeah, we're looking at the proposals are due, the schedule is still in play and I believe

1083
01:24:24,120 --> 01:24:26,400
actually I have the schedule here.

1084
01:24:27,020 --> 01:24:28,660
So who drafted the RFP?

1085
01:24:29,740 --> 01:24:31,480
It began with Michelle Alexander.

1086
01:24:31,960 --> 01:24:32,200
Okay.

1087
01:24:33,000 --> 01:24:34,800
Who did it end with?

1088
01:24:35,660 --> 01:24:36,820
It has not ended yet.

1089
01:24:36,940 --> 01:24:37,240
Okay.

1090
01:24:37,760 --> 01:24:44,320
Well, personally, Randy, and you know that this is, I personally like to read RFPs because they

1091
01:24:44,320 --> 01:24:52,240
they are intended to elicit the help that we want and so I just I would like to see that

1092
01:24:52,240 --> 01:24:53,280
I really would like to see that.

1093
01:24:54,040 --> 01:25:03,760
And then the second thing is if you don't mind go to the so the governance the executive

1094
01:25:03,760 --> 01:25:11,900
committee are they going to I don't see them on the calendar and I think what your response

1095
01:25:11,900 --> 01:25:20,440
was that the consultant will drive the calendar, but what do you think the meeting cadence

1096
01:25:20,440 --> 01:25:23,500
for the executive committee would be?

1097
01:25:23,960 --> 01:25:24,240
So

1098
01:25:30,860 --> 01:25:37,820
as we work into the new year, I have Mayor and Council appointing the executive committee

1099
01:25:41,180 --> 01:25:46,180
discussing the preliminary findings with the executive committee and the technical committee

1100
01:25:46,180 --> 01:25:50,620
in February meeting with them again in May.

1101
01:25:52,840 --> 01:25:54,420
So what was the first one?

1102
01:25:56,060 --> 01:26:00,400
No, it's more of the technical committee

1103
01:26:00,400 --> 01:26:03,040
to review the draft recommendations.

1104
01:26:05,020 --> 01:26:06,480
Revisioning what's their meeting cadence?

1105
01:26:06,760 --> 01:26:08,640
Is it weekly, is it twice a month?

1106
01:26:08,860 --> 01:26:09,500
Is it once a month?

1107
01:26:09,740 --> 01:26:12,980
Well, I think that the executive committee is not monthly.

1108
01:26:12,980 --> 01:26:19,600
It's more like during the checkpoints of the project where the technical committee will

1109
01:26:19,600 --> 01:26:23,720
be the one that meets more often to make sure that each of the sections.

1110
01:26:24,120 --> 01:26:29,480
So I don't think I'm ready to answer a question on what the cadence of those meetings are until

1111
01:26:29,480 --> 01:26:35,320
we fully look at the assessment of what the project is going to.

1112
01:26:35,980 --> 01:26:41,680
My question about that is obviously to see what level of engagement I frankly don't care

1113
01:26:41,680 --> 01:26:42,220
what you have.

1114
01:26:46,200 --> 01:26:51,720
I don't care what the cadence would be personally, but the question is, I'm trying to figure

1115
01:26:51,720 --> 01:26:58,440
out what y'all's intentions are with respect to this, because it seems like it's very, very

1116
01:26:58,440 --> 01:27:01,060
staff-headed, staff-led, okay?

1117
01:27:01,740 --> 01:27:09,380
And this is about something that, frankly, is one of the most signal documents in the city

1118
01:27:09,380 --> 01:27:10,840
of Roswell is this right here.

1119
01:27:10,840 --> 01:27:17,400
and we spent, you know, obviously our UBC has been dog's breakfast for a long, long time.

1120
01:27:17,660 --> 01:27:19,060
I don't see Jackie's name on here.

1121
01:27:19,220 --> 01:27:20,220
I'm so surprised by that.

1122
01:27:20,960 --> 01:27:23,420
I mean, we think about the people who know this code pretty well.

1123
01:27:23,560 --> 01:27:26,020
It ain't me, but I don't see her name on there.

1124
01:27:26,940 --> 01:27:36,320
So I guess I'm a little puzzled by the steering of this and sort of a,

1125
01:27:40,020 --> 01:27:40,760
you know, it should

1126
01:27:40,760 --> 01:27:46,240
So the pig is being chopped through the Python as one hole or in three, so we should be,

1127
01:27:46,620 --> 01:27:52,240
we as a body should see each of these sort of and say, yeah, we think this is direction

1128
01:27:52,240 --> 01:27:52,640
correct.

1129
01:27:53,120 --> 01:27:57,360
I don't want it to get too far down the track until there's course correction and conversations

1130
01:27:57,360 --> 01:27:58,500
around this.

1131
01:27:58,780 --> 01:27:59,520
That's not me.

1132
01:27:59,620 --> 01:28:00,220
And I'll go back.

1133
01:28:00,560 --> 01:28:01,200
That's not my visa.

1134
01:28:01,200 --> 01:28:08,260
So when you go to the slide with, go ahead that for one more,

1135
01:28:11,190 --> 01:28:13,650
one more, sorry, looking for,

1136
01:28:14,210 --> 01:28:16,830
it's the one that you had it broken up into buckets.

1137
01:28:17,630 --> 01:28:18,890
Oh, this badly.

1138
01:28:21,090 --> 01:28:25,990
My understanding is that this is the order in which it's going to be coming to Marin Council.

1139
01:28:26,430 --> 01:28:31,610
So we will have bucket number one, then bucket number two, and then bucket number three.

1140
01:28:31,610 --> 01:28:33,750
Can you go back to, I think, as I cite three or something?

1141
01:28:35,770 --> 01:28:36,230
This one.

1142
01:28:37,330 --> 01:28:39,150
So Council still sets the policy.

1143
01:28:39,690 --> 01:28:40,850
We give the marching orders.

1144
01:28:41,210 --> 01:28:42,470
Council approves the amendments.

1145
01:28:43,550 --> 01:28:47,950
I don't understand the hesitation to using a consultant.

1146
01:28:48,530 --> 01:28:50,990
If you told me, hey, Sarah, I need you to build a table.

1147
01:28:51,530 --> 01:28:52,870
Theoretically, I can build a table.

1148
01:28:52,970 --> 01:28:54,850
I know it's four legs and a tabletop.

1149
01:28:55,190 --> 01:28:57,390
You probably aren't going to want to buy my table.

1150
01:28:57,550 --> 01:28:58,510
It's not going to look great.

1151
01:28:58,610 --> 01:29:00,630
It's going to take me way longer than somebody who

1152
01:29:00,630 --> 01:29:04,790
builds tables all the time as opposed to bringing an outside consultant who's going to be

1153
01:29:04,790 --> 01:29:10,410
able to justify their qualifications of being able to do these same marching orders on a regular

1154
01:29:10,410 --> 01:29:15,930
basis. So I guess I don't quite understand and also with the hesitancy of wanting to refute

1155
01:29:15,930 --> 01:29:21,930
the RFP before it goes out. We as counsel very rarely, I can't think of a time that we reviewed an

1156
01:29:21,930 --> 01:29:27,810
RFP. In fact, the only time that I think if we've reviewed an RFP or RFP before it went out is

1157
01:29:27,810 --> 01:29:30,510
is when we did the SEER one, which you helped lead,

1158
01:29:30,790 --> 01:29:32,110
and I thought you were very infatically

1159
01:29:32,110 --> 01:29:34,230
for using consultants in that instance.

1160
01:29:34,630 --> 01:29:35,930
So I don't understand the difference

1161
01:29:35,930 --> 01:29:38,830
when we have somebody who has subject matter expertise

1162
01:29:39,350 --> 01:29:41,410
who can be able to contribute

1163
01:29:41,770 --> 01:29:44,330
as opposed to typically paying higher dollar

1164
01:29:44,330 --> 01:29:46,450
by the hour for senior staff.

1165
01:29:46,450 --> 01:29:48,530
Like I know you're talked about using Jackie.

1166
01:29:48,550 --> 01:29:50,890
Jackie is the deputy director of the department.

1167
01:29:51,410 --> 01:29:53,970
On an hourly basis, I cannot fathom

1168
01:29:53,970 --> 01:29:56,110
that as opposed to her tag teaming in

1169
01:29:56,110 --> 01:29:59,750
and having interviews with a consultant, that it would be cheaper to use Jackie than it

1170
01:29:59,750 --> 01:29:59,970
would be.

1171
01:30:00,000 --> 01:30:05,380
I need to use a lot of some fee-consultant. That's my take. I'm in favor of it. Councilmember

1172
01:30:05,380 --> 01:30:11,140
Cells and then Councilmember Bromley. Yeah, so sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It was Councilmember

1173
01:30:11,140 --> 01:30:21,980
Hallfors. I'm sorry. Could you go back to the next slide, please? No, keep going.

1174
01:30:26,950 --> 01:30:27,350
Where

1175
01:30:27,350 --> 01:30:30,970
the technical, yeah, here.

1176
01:30:33,730 --> 01:30:39,870
So I guess in my mind, I was thinking of it a little bit more like the COMP plan committee

1177
01:30:39,870 --> 01:30:50,330
I mean where there were actually members of, and maybe it's not appropriate, but I would

1178
01:30:50,330 --> 01:30:57,390
I don't think the members of the public too or residents that would be able to participate

1179
01:30:57,390 --> 01:30:58,310
in this as well.

1180
01:31:01,510 --> 01:31:06,590
That was our intent was that the executive committee, they're not going to be, I'm looking

1181
01:31:06,590 --> 01:31:11,830
in the technical committee area, you know, and there's, I think there's things in the technical

1182
01:31:11,830 --> 01:31:19,510
committee that either from, either from those committees should be participating in that

1183
01:31:19,510 --> 01:31:26,670
Well, they'll be reviewing the executive committee would be reviewing the technical work and then providing guidance and feedback on that.

1184
01:31:26,890 --> 01:31:35,690
So, rather than writing individualized code, I would say similar to how we use the planning commission and others is,

1185
01:31:35,970 --> 01:31:44,130
essentially we would be bringing the drafting of the code back to the executive committee to get their feedback guidance recommendations.

1186
01:31:44,130 --> 01:31:48,670
But ultimately, that needs to align with what the council is intending to accomplish.

1187
01:31:48,910 --> 01:31:53,070
So there's just a checkpoint in this, and the council really is the one that ultimately needs

1188
01:31:53,070 --> 01:31:53,990
to set the policy.

1189
01:31:54,330 --> 01:31:56,450
And there's no public involved in here at all.

1190
01:31:56,850 --> 01:32:00,310
Other than the chairs of the Planning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission,

1191
01:32:00,330 --> 01:32:04,670
the Design Review Board, now it goes through a formal hearing process to amend the code.

1192
01:32:05,470 --> 01:32:11,370
And so that would follow the regular cadence of review code ordinance amendments.

1193
01:32:11,370 --> 01:32:16,210
In some cases, the code goes to the planning commission, the historic preservation commission,

1194
01:32:16,510 --> 01:32:22,150
and those are the two places that the code would hit, and the design reward, thank you, with the DRB.

1195
01:32:23,310 --> 01:32:26,570
As it goes through the process. So just like we were talking about with the impact fee,

1196
01:32:26,710 --> 01:32:33,390
going to planning commission and then first and second reading, code changes would follow that same cadence where necessary in each code.

1197
01:32:34,010 --> 01:32:39,410
Section can be a little bit different in its process. The HPC has different authority within the code.

1198
01:32:39,410 --> 01:32:46,530
I guess what I'm concerned about is the visibility and the transparency like throughout the process so that we don't start and

1199
01:32:46,530 --> 01:32:50,010
all of a sudden end up down here and then just have a lot of

1200
01:32:50,730 --> 01:32:54,910
because maybe there were misunderstandings and we ended up with something that is going to be

1201
01:32:55,470 --> 01:32:58,850
problematic or create issues you know that that's what I'm

1202
01:32:58,850 --> 01:33:05,230
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

1203
01:33:05,230 --> 01:33:07,810
of where this sits from an ownership perspective.

1204
01:33:08,470 --> 01:33:11,750
I think it's important for me to say that the intent is

1205
01:33:11,750 --> 01:33:14,210
to continue to align the code changes

1206
01:33:14,210 --> 01:33:17,530
with the outcomes that the council as a body is looking for.

1207
01:33:18,270 --> 01:33:20,150
This is a very complicated process.

1208
01:33:20,330 --> 01:33:22,130
What we do not want at the end of the day

1209
01:33:22,130 --> 01:33:25,510
is what we had a decade ago where the code showed up

1210
01:33:25,510 --> 01:33:29,470
and then there was 150 changes to the code.

1211
01:33:29,730 --> 01:33:33,190
I would say that that would be a failure on my part

1212
01:33:33,190 --> 01:33:39,030
as the executive sponsor of this project that it should have never come forward in the first place in that form and format.

1213
01:33:39,770 --> 01:33:45,850
And so, you know, from a project perspective as we continue to iterate and find alignment,

1214
01:33:46,230 --> 01:33:52,610
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.

1215
01:33:53,230 --> 01:33:58,290
The intent is to bring on additional staff to augment the team as a whole.

1216
01:33:58,290 --> 01:34:02,350
you mentioned Jackie and others, we see them in the technical committee, we see those

1217
01:34:02,350 --> 01:34:06,310
individual players in the technical committee because they do bring a significant level

1218
01:34:06,310 --> 01:34:09,690
of technical experience as well as our new planers who are seeing the code for the first

1219
01:34:09,690 --> 01:34:13,950
time in some cases and have only worked with it for two years, they see the code very differently

1220
01:34:13,950 --> 01:34:18,310
from opportunities and challenges that can bring work in the technical side.

1221
01:34:19,730 --> 01:34:25,410
And so that ongoing alignment will be important, we certainly do not want to hand this over

1222
01:34:25,410 --> 01:34:29,950
to a consultant and say, thank you, we'll see you in six months and make sure that it's

1223
01:34:29,950 --> 01:34:30,130
great.

1224
01:34:30,730 --> 01:34:32,010
That is not the intent.

1225
01:34:32,210 --> 01:34:36,990
The intent is to truly augment staff so that we have a couple of supplemental team

1226
01:34:36,990 --> 01:34:41,950
members who can deliver the brain power to this project on a regular basis and aren't

1227
01:34:41,950 --> 01:34:46,950
distracted with, you know, hopefully large scale economic development projects that are coming

1228
01:34:46,950 --> 01:34:49,030
through our planning and zoning team.

1229
01:34:49,330 --> 01:34:54,030
Or we have opportunities that come up or we have development or we have fill in the blank

1230
01:34:54,030 --> 01:34:57,810
of our day-to-day operations. And all of a sudden, we're picking up the code and putting

1231
01:34:57,810 --> 01:35:02,330
it back down and picking up and putting it back down. That's a recipe for disaster as well,

1232
01:35:02,530 --> 01:35:07,910
because then you're only getting half of the, I think, purpose and intent, but then we're going

1233
01:35:07,910 --> 01:35:11,490
to miss things in that process. You don't have a good train of thought. You don't have good record

1234
01:35:11,490 --> 01:35:18,770
keeping. And that is the purpose of the staff augmentation, not, certainly, to supplement or

1235
01:35:20,190 --> 01:35:22,590
replace the talent that we have on the team.

1236
01:35:22,750 --> 01:35:25,650
It's just really understanding that the significance of this

1237
01:35:25,650 --> 01:35:28,270
project and having an owner that we can hire now,

1238
01:35:28,630 --> 01:35:30,610
and then when we're done, they pack and go,

1239
01:35:30,830 --> 01:35:32,950
find another job that they can go do as a consultant

1240
01:35:32,950 --> 01:35:36,170
so that we're surging the staff appropriately with the right

1241
01:35:36,170 --> 01:35:38,650
talent set and then contracting them when we're done.

1242
01:35:40,070 --> 01:35:42,230
That's for themselves, and then Bromley.

1243
01:35:43,210 --> 01:35:50,210
Yeah, so someone who began my career in consulting, I certainly do like consulting, I think

1244
01:35:50,210 --> 01:35:56,470
it's useful, but harkening back to our conversations around that RFB, because we talked in

1245
01:35:56,470 --> 01:35:58,690
the phone, I was driving to Virginia for about an hour.

1246
01:35:59,590 --> 01:36:08,390
The reason for that whole process was because there was one contract with SEAR under the

1247
01:36:08,390 --> 01:36:17,010
attorney. And my goal in that in particular was to break that out and bring them as discrete

1248
01:36:17,010 --> 01:36:24,110
projects that came back to us as a body. And I insisted it didn't exactly play out like

1249
01:36:24,110 --> 01:36:31,970
I necessarily hoped. But I insisted that we have a quarterly review of all the SOWs and we

1250
01:36:31,970 --> 01:36:39,130
He is a body talk about it because I wanted in particular in that one because that was

1251
01:36:39,130 --> 01:36:40,830
a policy position.

1252
01:36:41,290 --> 01:36:47,210
He was, and CIR was in general, but Peter in particular was speaking for us to a community

1253
01:36:47,210 --> 01:36:48,310
that we don't speak to.

1254
01:36:48,850 --> 01:36:56,010
And so I wanted to hear that really regularly and you know we had the Thursday meetings for

1255
01:36:56,470 --> 01:36:58,210
the three on three for economic development.

1256
01:36:58,370 --> 01:37:01,010
I never came to that because I was involved in it in first place.

1257
01:37:01,010 --> 01:37:08,930
So I didn't go to those, but that was so we as a body were first person to the work of that particular

1258
01:37:08,930 --> 01:37:15,850
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

1259
01:37:15,850 --> 01:37:27,810
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

1260
01:37:27,810 --> 01:37:31,830
I mean, basically, I'm saying, I agree with you, and I think you're making the same

1261
01:37:31,830 --> 01:37:40,160
point, is that this needs to be close to us as a body, because you

1262
01:37:42,980 --> 01:37:44,020
know what I mean?

1263
01:37:44,600 --> 01:37:45,340
Is that true?

1264
01:37:45,660 --> 01:37:52,160
I mean, we did it in a different way, and that's what we got, and so I think we should be

1265
01:37:52,160 --> 01:38:00,200
really, really close as a body, and we should be really, really transparent to the community

1266
01:38:00,200 --> 01:38:05,640
and bring them along on this, because this is going to be one of the largest things this

1267
01:38:05,640 --> 01:38:07,580
group does in our time together.

1268
01:38:10,820 --> 01:38:11,520
That's all.

1269
01:38:16,560 --> 01:38:21,480
So the way it's described in R3 on 3 was staff hog, right?

1270
01:38:21,960 --> 01:38:29,000
And I get what that is, that's where I have a bookkeeper come in and do some AP work.

1271
01:38:29,000 --> 01:38:34,300
work. That's not where I have a bookkeeper come in and redesign my accounting process.

1272
01:38:34,920 --> 01:38:40,520
And so that's my sensitivity to it. So I'm not seeing the check-ins on a regular basis.

1273
01:38:40,760 --> 01:38:44,700
I haven't read the RIP so I don't know what it says that we're asking them to do. I wish

1274
01:38:44,700 --> 01:38:53,340
to. And I think, you know, we have a duty because this is a monumental thing in the life

1275
01:38:53,340 --> 01:38:56,480
of our city. You will have a huge impact. That's all I'm saying.

1276
01:39:00,770 --> 01:39:06,670
We just finished a comprehensive plan project and we engaged consultant for that.

1277
01:39:07,430 --> 01:39:12,530
Did the RSP included every single meeting that we planned to have for that project?

1278
01:39:16,000 --> 01:39:20,420
I couldn't, I honestly just don't remember if we scheduled out, I know we scheduled out

1279
01:39:20,420 --> 01:39:23,780
a process for what we expected as far as public hearings.

1280
01:39:24,840 --> 01:39:30,080
Quite frankly I think, well I know that that process evolved over time where we added some

1281
01:39:30,080 --> 01:39:37,300
additional meetings, we added some presentations and it was an evolution based on where the advisory

1282
01:39:37,300 --> 01:39:42,600
committee felt we needed to go and also what was important to the community and we certainly

1283
01:39:42,600 --> 01:39:48,160
will have that flexibility within this scope and within this project. I think, you know,

1284
01:39:48,340 --> 01:39:53,860
it is, and somebody said it earlier, you know, the comp plan and then I would say right behind

1285
01:39:53,860 --> 01:40:01,460
that the UDC or two of the highest and most important policy making, I mean they're

1286
01:40:01,460 --> 01:40:06,680
bigger than just documents, the UDC is your entirety of your legislation essentially,

1287
01:40:07,360 --> 01:40:08,360
with some additional.

1288
01:40:08,600 --> 01:40:14,900
And so it matters, and an alignment with the Council matters and is also part of the reason

1289
01:40:14,900 --> 01:40:19,040
we're bringing this forward as a discussion before we've sent out the RFP so that everybody

1290
01:40:19,040 --> 01:40:21,980
is on the same page is what are we trying to accomplish and are we going to deliver those

1291
01:40:21,980 --> 01:40:27,260
results and so I think with that you know we've got the latitude to be able to

1292
01:40:27,260 --> 01:40:32,480
delay the release of the RFP we can double check that the RFP with the

1293
01:40:32,480 --> 01:40:35,860
council is going to it says the words that you're here and coming out of our

1294
01:40:35,860 --> 01:40:39,220
mouths and gives you a level of confidence that there's alignment there with the

1295
01:40:39,220 --> 01:40:43,120
language that is within the RFP and if there's not we can make adjustments to

1296
01:40:43,120 --> 01:40:46,260
that because ultimately it's got to deliver the policy document that you all are

1297
01:40:46,260 --> 01:40:49,160
looking for at the end of the day there's you know we're going to spend a

1298
01:40:49,160 --> 01:40:53,940
significant amount of money of the taxpayers dollars to get through this process and a lot

1299
01:40:53,940 --> 01:41:00,200
of staff time that isn't even qualified in an RFP and so that alignment is highly important

1300
01:41:00,200 --> 01:41:03,940
because at the end of the day it's going to allow us to move faster. This isn't going

1301
01:41:03,940 --> 01:41:07,980
to move quickly but it can move really really slow if we're not careful.

1302
01:41:09,480 --> 01:41:11,720
Very true. Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead, please.

1303
01:41:11,720 --> 01:41:20,060
Yes, I don't want to delay RFP to put the specific dates, because that also removes

1304
01:41:20,060 --> 01:41:22,980
our flexibility of doing things.

1305
01:41:23,260 --> 01:41:27,540
If we say to a company, this is what we want, and we said we're going to have 10 meetings

1306
01:41:27,540 --> 01:41:29,960
and all of a sudden we decide, you know, why we only need a file.

1307
01:41:30,460 --> 01:41:34,720
Okay, so we need 20, you know what I'm going to say, me as a consultant like, sure, I will

1308
01:41:34,720 --> 01:41:36,900
change whatever you want, but this is going to cost you.

1309
01:41:36,900 --> 01:41:43,960
So, you know, unless this is like something so different from, you know, from whatever

1310
01:41:43,960 --> 01:41:50,520
we've done for the comprehensive plan, we, you know, I trust that, I know that you guys

1311
01:41:50,520 --> 01:41:53,860
have been preparing for this because you guys told me about this in January.

1312
01:41:54,300 --> 01:41:58,460
So I trust you that, you know, what you're doing, release of this RFP.

1313
01:41:59,960 --> 01:42:06,260
I appreciate that. I will say we've designed this process intentionally to be different.

1314
01:42:07,140 --> 01:42:13,740
In a lot of cases, you can and could turn over the code to a consultant and literally

1315
01:42:13,740 --> 01:42:19,540
say, walk away and bring me something better. We know that that is not the culture and the

1316
01:42:19,540 --> 01:42:24,280
attitude of the city of Roswell. Whether it be the council or our residents or our community

1317
01:42:24,280 --> 01:42:28,140
and frankly it's not what we're looking for as an outcome of this because that's how you

1318
01:42:28,140 --> 01:42:31,900
get 150 amendments to a code when you adopt it on the same very

1319
01:42:31,900 --> 01:42:32,080
night.

1320
01:42:32,100 --> 01:42:33,520
What is the reason you put the other street?

1321
01:42:33,920 --> 01:42:35,220
You have to get 150 amendments.

1322
01:42:36,900 --> 01:42:39,920
I'm not going to need to do that.

1323
01:42:40,080 --> 01:42:44,960
I think what I hear you, I think what I'm hearing from the group is just to make sure that

1324
01:42:45,680 --> 01:42:49,580
philosophically the RFP is representative of the goals and intent of the project.

1325
01:42:50,140 --> 01:42:52,820
I don't hear from the council that we're going to pick dates.

1326
01:42:53,040 --> 01:42:56,060
What we're doing on staff augmentation is we're buying a group of hours.

1327
01:42:56,620 --> 01:43:00,580
We're essentially going to be able to program and reprioritize those as we go through.

1328
01:43:01,180 --> 01:43:05,380
and accelerate them in a week and decelerate them if we don't need a lot of work that week.

1329
01:43:05,540 --> 01:43:10,460
That is the intent of how we would want to put this piece together and we just need to make

1330
01:43:10,460 --> 01:43:14,360
sure that we're in alignment with the language, the black, white letters of the RFP so that we

1331
01:43:14,360 --> 01:43:18,960
get those outcomes in and you all have a level of confidence that we're going to deliver.

1332
01:43:20,440 --> 01:43:29,080
I think one of the things that I've heard from some of my playmates is that we should talk more

1333
01:43:29,080 --> 01:43:35,480
together than we do. And so I will be happy to read and pass around my red line, like you've

1334
01:43:35,480 --> 01:43:42,320
seen me do, Joe has seen me do. I'll read the thing and pass it around. And I think I have been

1335
01:43:42,320 --> 01:43:44,900
relatively expeditious in such asks, have I not?

1336
01:43:47,460 --> 01:43:50,020
And you know, it's right, it's in my wheelhouse,

1337
01:43:50,100 --> 01:43:54,200
I'll be happy to read it and pass it around and maybe we can meet the October 1st. But I do think

1338
01:43:54,200 --> 01:44:04,160
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.

1339
01:44:04,860 --> 01:44:09,980
I'm a recommended to me but if somebody else wants to take it on I'm happy to listen to that too.

1340
01:44:25,250 --> 01:44:26,210
Thank you.

1341
01:44:26,210 --> 01:44:34,090
I always want to be careful about any way shifting or directing or biasing an RFP before

1342
01:44:34,090 --> 01:44:34,770
it goes out.

1343
01:44:35,030 --> 01:44:37,830
Obviously we have the safeguards of legal and procurement to do that.

1344
01:44:38,730 --> 01:44:43,470
Because this is a significant project of tremendous magnitude, as several people have mentioned,

1345
01:44:44,490 --> 01:44:50,430
which is why we have so many staff members involved in this project because I know it is going

1346
01:44:50,430 --> 01:44:56,370
to be intense at times and there is going to be a lot of interest and input which we want

1347
01:44:57,210 --> 01:44:59,970
from the public and obviously ultimately the public.

1348
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:28,760
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.

1349
01:45:29,580 --> 01:45:41,020
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.

1350
01:45:41,820 --> 01:45:47,620
And for the person who comes in to build a deck on their house for everybody.

1351
01:45:47,920 --> 01:45:50,260
And so all of those things have to be taken into account.

1352
01:45:50,260 --> 01:45:57,840
and we want to be very sensitive to the importance of this process, but also ensure that

1353
01:45:57,840 --> 01:46:03,200
does policy makers, you and Marin Council have tremendous visibility throughout the

1354
01:46:04,040 --> 01:46:12,320
course of the year. Anyway, good. All right. All right. Thank you. We think we have what

1355
01:46:12,320 --> 01:46:16,920
we need at the moment for that one. We have some environmental public works information

1356
01:46:16,920 --> 01:46:22,480
and the document for your review, and so with that, if there is still further business,

1357
01:46:23,040 --> 01:46:29,300
we have a motion of adjournment, like Council Member Beeson, we have a second by Mayor

1358
01:46:29,300 --> 01:46:33,700
Robeshoe Council Member for Sales, and all in favor.

1359
01:46:34,220 --> 01:46:34,380
All right.

1360
01:46:34,820 --> 01:46:35,340
Thank you very much.

1361
01:46:35,420 --> 01:46:36,020
Have a wonderful evening.