All right, good morning everyone and welcome to this session of our government operations and fiscal policy committee. Today we have one item on our agenda that is to discuss the resolution to establish the infrastructure funding workgroup. We have a draft of the resolution that we held a public hearing. We've gotten feedback from members of the community, from our colleagues on the council. And today our goal is to go through this draft, to make additional recommendations and changes before it goes before the full council. And just as a reminder, this is something we discussed on this committee and with the full council. while we were doing the impact taxes and the growth infrastructure policy in the fall. And I know this is something that the planning department and the planning board has also expressed support of and putting their report when we were doing the growth and infrastructure policy. To help walk us through this and navigate all these issues, I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Duh. And morning committee. So Public Hearing was held on February 25th. We had several speakers, people submitted correspondence, and everybody was in support. We submitted test money, but there were requests for several changes. So the resolution as noted was introduced back in January and I will first start on C-2 with what was in the resolution overall. So first, accept a goal of the work group which is to recommend strategies to fund infrastructure and go through related needs in the county and the resolution had two objectives for achieving that goal. First was that the workgroup should determine and assess the county's infrastructure needs, and then second research, a variety of funding mechanisms to fund that infrastructure. The resolution did list members of the workgroup, which included several county departments and agencies, and then Montgomery County Public Schools and the State Highway Administration. Lastly, the resolution asked the work group to report to the GO committee sometime between December and March as like a halfway where are we at? So the committee can correct course if necessary. And then a final report due by June, 2026. The intent there was to make sure that there's time to incorporate any policies, do any legislation before the 2028-2032, both an infrastructure policy, which sounds far, but it won't feel that far as the time passes. So I'm going to pause here to note the structure of the packet. So the way I did this is I divided it into the various questions that have been asked. So first it's a summary of what's going to be introduced version and then requested changes. And then I'll go through the staff recommended discussion points and pauses needed. So the first is actually a bit of a formatting change recommendation from council staff on what the goal of the workgroup should be. Something that's been heard through questions and testimony that I received. See his questions about the scope and focus of the workgroup whether it's too broad to narrow. So looking back at the resolution I realize it doesn't actually say like goal objective. And so the recommendation here is to just label those two pieces, but that is clear the difference between the two. All right, I was talking about pieces. What, yeah, that's a big question. The conversation started with impact access and whether impact taxes were the best way to generate. I mean, you know, it is broadened substantially from there to generate. I mean, you know, it is broadened substantially from there to include infrastructure broadly of how do we pay for infrastructure, which impact access pay a relatively small amount of. And then the question is, what is infrastructure? Because we're talking about impact access. We're talking about the formatting question, not the. Yes. So if we're're talking about the formatting question. Not good. Yeah. So if we're just talking about having a goal and an objective as part of the resolution, that's fine. But then we have to talk about what the next point. So the first, the first point was a recommendation from the staff just to be clearer in the delineation how how it's formed. Okay. And then we're going to get into. I was just going to say, because that's a, I don't want to go. the staff just to be clear in the delineation how it's formative. Okay. And then we're going to get into. I was just going to say, because I don't want to gloss over that, because that is one of the existential questions. Yes, right. It is. So on page two of the resolution, basically before the first sentence, it'll say, and then before it starts numbering, it will say objectives is the recommendation. So this is just a form for the formatting change. Yeah. And then we're going to get into it. It's a perfect segue question. Question number two, good segue is what's the objectives be? And I combine this question with how should infrastructure be defined because it will be defined in those objectives. So I'm actually just going to read them here. So the work group has two objectives. The first, as written in the introduced version, is to determine and assess the county's various infrastructure needs with an emphasis on schools and transportation infrastructure to include net new infrastructure repairs and upgrading existing infrastructure to levels that meet anticipated future demand. So the idea here is first the workgroup should figure out what are the infrastructure needs that they could look at other needs, but should really focus on schools and transportation. And then the second objective is to research a variety of funding mechanisms to fund future infrastructure needs. The workgroup must consider new funding mechanisms in addition to reform of the current impact tax system. The objective is a funding mechanism that is equitable, predictable, and sustainable. So those are the two objectives in the introduced version. A couple of things to note here is that while the resolution keeps the emphasis on schools and transportation, the idea is they can look at other things. We received a lot of recommendations on this one as Councilmember Freedson noted. I'll read through each one very quickly and pause there for committee discussion. So first, the county executive recommended striking repairs. So the focus is only on new infrastructure. The commission on aging recommended including care and health infrastructure. The planning board recommended including climate resilience, utilities, undergrounding, water sewer and telecommunications. And then individuals who testified recommended including Montgomery College, Parks, libraries, rec centers, police and fire stations, stormwater management, telecommunications and finite resilience. So I guess all this is going to be a thing that will probably come up often during this discussion. It's a very long list and the work group does need to achieve a final report at some point. So the broader of the list is it might deter from how productive the group can be in terms of focusing in on the final report. So that's just something over our change for the committee to consider. So if you go to the top of page four, I set out two questions for committee discussion. The first is whether the committee should, whether the work committee should determine whether the work group should consider repairs. And then second is recommendation from council staff. If you don't want to add the whole long list, what you could do is add to the resolution. Here's the list of the plus three received and have the committee decide or have the workers decide whether in the future the council should consider those as infrastructure. So that way they focus on schools and transportation but can sort of comment on the various requests that were added. One note here, the way impact taxes work, they're tied to development. So that's why it was schools and transportation. Because you know, you build a building, you're going to have an impact on schools and transportation. which doesn't say that you're not gonna need parks or libraries or those other needs, but it's not as immediate and definite as every time you build a building. If the intent is to still keep this type of development. And second, that some of these things, the council does not fund, such as utilities and telecommunication. So those are various thoughts from the staff and I will pause here for the evening. Great. And I think I will pick up on the last point you made. And I think where Council Member Freetzin might be going is why I appreciate the input from folks. I think this committee, this work group, needs to stay focused on what we fund here. Because if we go talking about utilities and other things that as a county, we don't fund right now and don't build. That means we ought to weigh beyond the scope of this work rate. And there are things that were brought up like stormwater where we have dedicated funding already for stormwater projects. So I, and maybe there needs to be some tweaking in the draft resolution we have now, the fact that it talks about infrastructure needs with an emphasis on schools and transportation. And if we want to fine tune that a bit, but I think we need to make sure that this is focused on things that we can tie to development that is also projects that the county would fund and not make it so broad that we're looking at infrastructure too broadly. There's no way this group is going to be able to figure out how in the time we're giving them a funding mechanism in the direction we should go and have actual actionable recommendations. So I don't know Councilmember Freetz and you had started. Sure. Yeah. Well, I agree generally with the point. I actually think we should narrow the language further. Some of the confusion as we talked about general infrastructure, but with a focus on, I think we just need to focus on because ultimately if we allow the committee to weigh in there's going to be interest among the committee understandable. There's going to be interest among the stakeholders who are engaged as part of this process to broaden the scope to utilities and to store water and to services for our older adults and for our youngest children. And I think that is beyond where we started. We started to talk about impact taxes, whether that is an appropriate mechanism to fund schools and transportation. It's not something that funds all of schools and transportation. I think we've kind of gotten into that dynamic where we have created certain expectations that aren't based on current state of reality. But I think ultimately focusing on that, and then the question is, is it to fund all of schools in transportation? Is it the entire capital budget? I think that's a subsequent question we should ask. And I just want to put that down. But I actually think we should tighten the language here to make it very clear. There could be a working group for each one of these subsections. You could even argue that transportation in schools could each have their own working, because there's such big topics. All the other suggestions that have been made, I think are important, but at a certain point, you know, I do think we need to provide a reasonable opportunity for this group to have productive conversations and to give us useful recommendations, and I think we need a narrow answer. Thank you. I'm pretty much in agreement, though I do think it doesn't have to necessarily be what it's funded as an example utility easement. For the infrastructure there has to be some mechanism that the group that is developing has those easements in there and they need to be looking at that once as we're doing it. I think if we put all of these issues in at the same time, there's expression that if it bite up more than you can chew, you can't chew. And that's exactly what all happened. We'll end up with nothing rather than what what what our goals are. And for the whole thing about repairs, you know, there's not all repairs just mean potholes. And I don't know as an example how state highway, so I can't remember how they, and Mr. Dyson planning is here, maybe they can give me the example, but I think in some cases if you go to state highway and say we'd like you to fix this part of it, they say, well, we have funds for repairs, we can take that. And it's not really a repair. I mean, it's actually, so I don't know how we can word it. But I do believe that if somebody during the infrastructure conversation that if they can come up with things that are needed, whether, however, whatever the definition is, we need to know it. So in the executive's letter, the way it was phrased was to remove repairs and include things that bring existing infrastructure up to current standards. And of course, thing from this from the zoning perspective. People might differ on what are what's a repair versus a renovation. So for instance, if you're like upgrading the HVAC or like that, maybe that's repair-fits-leaking. But if you want to make it environmentally friendly and make all these changes for modern day, that's closer to a renovation. So the question here would be for repairs. If you want to remove it, how broad, how is the committee defining repairs? And it might relate to how it's defined in the CIP. That's my reference. Yeah, I think this is, I mean, the first question is, what is included in broad scale? So I think we have to answer that. Is it just transportation and schools? And is that the list full stop? I think that's question one. I think question two then becomes within schools and transportation, what is included? If we're focusing on development and we're focusing on the growth in infrastructure policy and preparing a report to provide the council with information leading into the growth in infrastructure policy, that's focused on capacity, that's school capacity and that's transportation capacity. That is the purpose of what impact taxes are intended to do. I don't think impact taxes are a good way to do it, but that is the intention. There's a difference between capacity and state of good repair, maintenance repairs, all infrastructure needs, all mass. Then you're getting into the challenge where you're asking one project to or a small number of new projects to fund the entire infrastructure needs of a 1.1 million person county, which is just completely unreasonable. So I just I think we need to really focus in here on what is the problem we're trying to solve? What is the paradigm that we are in and what is the arena that we're focused on? Because if the arena has too big, no one will understand what they're being asked to do. So I think we should respectfully decide formally of whether or not we are just focusing on schools and transportation number one. And the number two is this about capacity, is this about replacement of impact taxes, or is this about all of transportation needs and all of school needs because that's a bigger lift and you know there are larger questions related to that. So let's take the first one because I think we're generally in agreement but not 100%. So what I'm hearing from the committee is not wanting to go as broad as people wanted, but to focus on schools and transportation. The question I have for my colleagues, because I would just like to have a conversation on, is it just limited to schools and transportation, or do we think about parks and rec as well in that? Because as we've had conversations and even just looking at that, that that's their minor master plan and thinking about the conversations we've had there with the PIP and parks, I would say there could be an argument for this work group to consider not have to look at, but consider whether or not as we're looking at funding for schools and transportation. argument for this work group to consider not have to look at, but consider whether or not as we're looking at funding for schools and transportation in these infrastructure conversations, should we also be looking at recreation? Again, thinking about that. And I'm excited there and also thinking about parks. So that is a question I have. And again, I do not want to broaden this too big, but I think there could be an argument for this work group to consider and then report back to us whether or not we should be including recreation and parks. That's not a fact. I actually agree with that. I think that the question is when do you look at it? And I think if they're going to have this workgroup look at it. I believe that as narrow a focus as we can have, I believe it should be transportation schools and parks and rack or whatever. However, term, and of course the county would be the one to fund parks. So I think that that's fair, and I do believe that the word nexus has to come in here somewhere, that there has to be a nexus to what the development or whatever is doing. I mean, to your point earlier, they can, if you're building an apartment building, you can't have enough infrastructure for the entire county, you can certainly take care of what's in front of your property and do the next intersection or however you do it. But I think that the three items would be the best. And because if you start getting into when you're going to build a library, who's going to pay for the library, this group can't figure, we can't hardly figure that out at times. They certainly can. So I'm good with the three. Health and everything. Yeah, I really appreciate the suggestion. I'm thinking about it. I think adding parks makes sense, especially given that we do have in the the thus as an example, a park impact payment related specifically to develop. So that is not an impact tax, but it is a similar version that has been used. It may be utilized in other places and future master plans. Why have been a major champion champion of the... Or at the parks and... Or at the parks and... That's the right. And I continue to advocate for that. That next is a little bit less clear because we don't have a development by development funding mechanism. And I don't think there's one that would be proposed in order to require. There is a recommendation within the Miner Master Plan amendment in Bethesda to provide public benefit points and to make that a major public amenity. And so dedicating part of a building or part of a property in order to do that. There are other examples of that for schools and others, but I think that is a little bit different than an actual charge related to development. We had something similar when we took back up the Silver Spring Plan at the end of the last council, not impact taxes, but where charges for density, et cetera. So I think schools, transition, parks, I think exclusively, I think would make sense. I think it's a good suggestion. And I think that would tie it specifically to the things that we are charging for development and whether or not that is the appropriate way to fund it. Would you like to specifically say schools transportation parks or say schools and transportation and consider whether parks should be included as well? We'll just tell them parks is it? I like to tell them. I think yeah. I didn't clear we can be the better. I think yes. I agree. OK, so if you go to the resolution, a proposed amendment for number one on page two, the resolution would be the work group will determine and assess the county schools, transportation and parks, infrastructure needs to include, and we'll dot dot dot here as you discuss it, Paris. And I agree with exactly what you just said, but just because this group would be the first group to be looking at things, doesn't mean it has to be the only group at times. Once they do the work and we get there there then the next group can be looking at the other parts of the infrastructure as well the recreation the libraries and all of that. Yeah, and I think I agree with that and I just want to say for the record because I know we had a lot of conversation and I really do appreciate the planning department and the planning boards questions because you know when we were talking about the growth infrastructure policy we were talking about impact taxes, we had that long list of things and we debated back and forth about do we give you know an exemption for undergrounding utilities and all those things. To me what we we're talking, what we, the conversation we just had is the broader framework for how this infrastructure, this work group is going to approach their work and some of those other issues. I still think can, can, can be part of that conversation, but they're a subset for me of what are we focusing on in terms of what are we looking and we'll get to whether or not it's fully fine capacity in a moment. But what are what are these monies going towards? And I think having that overarching framework of looking at schools, transportation parks, I think is important to focus the conversation. And I would imagine that as this work group is going on, there will be conversations about climate resiliency and other things, but that it's within that framework. You good? Yeah. We only wrote down capacity when you had your other thing. So it was discussing capacity fully funding the infrastructure. And I feel like you had a third thing. Well, whether whether or not there's this focus on replacing. Development charges. I mean, the repairs is a broad question to that as well. But there is a question here of, it is enough of a bear just to decide how are we going to replace impact tax if that is the direction we want to go. There's an even bigger question of how do we fund infrastructure needs related to schools, transportation and parks. I think that's a big question. If it is the, if the scope is related to the growth in infrastructure policy, I think we can focus in on that of, you know, funding related to the growth in infrastructure policy, I think we could do it based on capacity. I think it's going to be very difficult if the goal here is to ask this group to come up with how do we find all transportation, how do we find all schools, how do we find all parks. I think you're going to need a blue ribbon panel and about a decade and I think you'd be hard pressed to get something that would be particularly actionable in the time for him to be able to. Ed Boer, who was mayor before me in Gaitesburg, used to have the expression, I want you to dream a little. Don't worry about how we're going to do it. Just give me the dream. And I think that's almost what we should be asking this group to do. If we're asking them to do all of that, I don't know that they can come up with their best suggestions because they're going to say, look, we'd like you to do this, but we know you can't afford to. I think we should let them dream, see how this works, let it come back, and then have the discussion about how we're going to pay for things. Because first stuff. right now we're all in flux. We have no idea how we're going to be paying for some of the things. And so I don't want to handcuff them so that this group can come back with their best suggestions. Yeah, I think I lean towards council member Katzai because I want to give enough direction, but then also get allow the work group to then come back to us with suggestions, because I'm not personally not looking at this work group just to say like, okay, how can we tinker with impact taxes? And improve them. I do want it to be broader than that. And so it's not just looking at tinkering with impact taxes, but thinking about our infrastructure as we grow in these three areas, and how are we going to fund it. Some of that is from development, but if there are other ideas that they want to propose to us, then I think we should keep that on the table. For the record, I don't want to take it with impact action. I want to get rid of my taxes. I think I, well documented, I think it's a country club mentality that puts a wall rather than a wealthy sign. It's inconsistent with our broader public policy goals and interests. And I think it's unpredictable and fairly lousy way to fund things that are so important like schools transportation that notwithstanding. I understand the point. I do think that the broader the guidance, the more challenging it's going to be to focus and to come up with a consensus. Even if the goal, the end goal here isn't to have a singular recommendation, it's to have a series of options. Yeah, right. For example, the council, which we'll get to in a minute too. But the broader it is, the harder it's going to be. And I am a little concerned about that. I will just note that. But if ultimately there was an interest, I at least think we should think long and hard of talking about capacity, broadly capacity, rather impact access because if we're talking about the entire schools transportation, CIP and the parks, CIP, I mean, it's just, it's a huge undertaking to ask. So I, you know, my, the compromise would be focusing on capacity rather than just, you impact experts are fairly insignificant percentage of the overall budget. School capacity needs are a huge need. In and of itself, a group could just do that. Transportation capacity is a major issue. In and of itself, a group could just do that. So, you know, how exactly you frame that for parks, I think, is a little bit trickier, because I'm not sure, you know, that historically hasn't been how we have, how we have assessed parks, a little bit clearer to me on school capacity and on transportation capacity. But I think we have to find some way to narrow this and focus this, or else it is gonna be very difficult to have an understanding, a clear understanding between the council, the executive, the stakeholders, and the people who are actually being asked to do this work on this work group of what their job is. So what if we change the second objective to say, to research a variety of funding mechanisms to fund future capacity needs for schools, transportation, and parks infrastructure. So instead of just saying, make it as the fund future infrastructure needs, and then keep the rest the same. So you say to one more time please. To research a variety of funding mechanisms to fund future capacity needs for schools, transportation, and parks. So it goes with. Yeah. I'm good. Is that? I think that would work. That works for the attorney. You got to ask your lawyer. I was going to change the second sentence, but I actually like that. Oh, OK. You see, you see attorneys that they have a opinion. I don't know. And then the last two sentences will keep the same. I mean, you could take out in addition to reform as a current impact tax system because we just picked up, like, don't even. Well, but I think that's the reason they're here. Yeah, I think that helps to at least, yeah, that is a key focus. It doesn't have to be the only focus, that is a key objective that the end of this is, we started with this saying we want to get rid of impact taxes and have a better funding mechanism that's more predictable, more sustainable, and more equitable in that sense. I'm also sorry. But I was just gonna say the third sentence, I'm wondering if we should make it funding mechanisms and not what it to plural. Because does it sound like if we just say a funding mechanism that we're trying to just replace impact taxes or again our goal here all three of us the entire council is as we do not want to just tinker with impact taxes. So I hadn't read it that way until we were just having this conversation. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. So the objective is funding mechanisms that are equitable, predictable and distinct. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just wondering as part of the objective, whether there should be a reference to balancing the capacity needs with housing needs or with. Because that is part of the, I mean, you could, you could just set a really high rate for anything. It would have, but it would have an impact. You know, the impact would be you might shut down development or, you know, for housing or, you know, whatever the case may whatever the case may be. I'm just wondering whether or not that should be included. So how would you include it? And I'm jumping in and you're good. No, no, you're good. You're good. It's about this room. My concern is that the more we limit to what the discussion is going to be for them, it's the less what that we're going to get that. Yeah, I don't think it's limiting. I think that it's just making clear. I mean, I think it's understood, but it's not written anywhere. So, you know, I think you could say the objective is funding mechanism, is funding mechanisms that are equitable, predictable, and sustainable. And this is not the words, but it's like undermined other county goals, such as housing and climate resiliency. Yeah, without undermining that's good. Without undermining other county priorities, including housing and climate resilience. And would you also include economic development? Sure. Housing, climate resilience. I mean, if we're going to give them this hard thing to do, let's make it harder, but it'd be housing production or housing. I think just housing. Give it out. So the objective is funding mechanisms that are equitable, predictable, and sustainable without undermining county priorities such as housing, climate, resiliency, and economic development. Sure. You know, the used to we say that if you have a committee, try to come up with, you get a horse, you end up with a camel. We didn't say this was going to be an easy assignment. It's very, very neat. Yeah, it is. There's a, and this is our committee recommendation that it goes to the council. And then we'll fill in. We might have an opinion. Yes. All right. All right. So on the very specific question of adding the word repairs or not, I don't know. I'm just, I'm kind of, I'm not, I guess I'm not under completely seeing the objective to including the word repairists, but I'm not. And right after repairs, it says upgrading existing infrastructure to levels that need anticipated future demand. I think because of that second part, you might not need the repairs, since it's already factored in upgrading the infrastructure. Yeah. I think the reason it was put in there is that we do hear from folks that like, even before thinking about this, what the current, what we have currently actually isn't meeting the needs. So I think that's what the word repairs, whereas it's not even just looking to the future, but it's actually thinking about the area. But I do, and again, if we're exploring this as not just what developers pay for this area, but other funding mechanisms as well, I think you could argue keeping repairs in there. My concern, Candle, is what the definition of repairs. That's that's the problem to me. I mean, if you're upgrading an intersection. Is that a repair? I don't know. So I think this is easier with transportation. So transportation there is an industry standard of state of good repair. So I will say having worked on the previous work group that did come to a consensus, did come up with a recommendation. Unfortunately for reasons that we don't have to get into right now that still disappoint me. We could have done something that I think would have been transformational. We didn't do it. So now we're back at the drawing board doing this effort. State of good repair was a standard that was discussed in that work group and it was understood of what that meant. Now that's harder because I don't know what the industry standard would be if there is one for schools. There's a school maintenance report through the state interagency for school construction. And for parks, I don't know what that would be. And so I think that the challenge is, again, I'm Mr. Focus on capacity. I think it's hard to talk about all needs if we allow for some consideration among the group to address the, you know, where and tear of capacity related to repairs without setting the expectation that this group is also looking at funding mechanisms to maintain all schools, to maintain all roads, and to maintain all parks. because if it's too broad and again, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's a big, it's? I think I'm leading that direction to that. It would say the work group will determine and assess the county's schools, transportation, and parks needs to include net new infrastructure and upgrading existing infrastructure to levels that need anticipated for demand. So you think that's the place I'm having, like why I leaned into repairs because it's just talking about future. And if we have a location in which we are not meeting current needs, then we will, repairs did that for me, but I hear that it's not clear. I mean, is it too much to say to levels that meet current and anticipate a future demand? I'm okay with that. I think because the word repair is not there. So yeah. So repairs, they go repair repairs and say meet current demand, which in some ways implies bringing things that aren't meeting current demand, to current demand without saying the word repair. Yes. My only sensitivity here is, one of the issues with impact access to me one of the main issues in the impact access is the assumption that it's the new development that's the problem. It's the belief that in already overcrowded school should be addressed by penalizing a new development and residents that had nothing to do with the existing overcrowding that exists at that school. Overwhelmingly, we have had policies for decades, one of which we got rid of in the last council, but that took an existing challenge that was created by the existing community and we penalized the new members of the community, or aspiring members of the community, where they had to pay for it. That's why I called it a country club mentality of, we were saying, listen, we have problems at our club. So we're going to charge you a higher initiation fee to be part of our exclusive club. And that solve our problem as opposed to everybody pitching in and being part of the solution because everybody was part of the challenge. It's not to say that new development doesn't add to capacity. It does, but it's to say that existing capacity challenges are not caused by people who aren't here yet by By definition, it's impossible. And so I'm just a little bit concerned if we're setting the expectation where we have schools, we have transportation that has not been maintained properly, maybe hasn't been funded to be maintained properly, maybe it just't been taken care of properly, but for whatever reason we have maintenance challenges, and we're going to set up a funding regime that may be asking folks who had nothing to do with that, you know, that lack of maintenance to pay to fix those maintenance problems. Well,'t seem fair and it seems to kind of fall into the same trap that impact access. But I think we can charge the working group because we are saying, I would say that that wouldn't be equitable or sustainable for our community. If we ultimately got a proposal back that just said, okay, we're now we're going to continue to put all the burden on the new development that we're doing now because to me that's that's just running in place because that's what we're doing now and what we're asking this worker to do is to think about other funding mechanisms to move us forward that are equitable, predictable, and sustainable, and that will allow us to meet our needs for our schools, transportation, and parks now and into the future. So, Kelly, did you wanna come up into this? I'm thinking of it. They can hear me from that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I think that, I don't know if this is fully addressing your issue, but for transportation, we have a set of complete street standards that I think would be highly preferable to use than demand, because demand can be very confusing. I could demand to drive my car around on a bunch of five-minute trips a day or I could demand to walk everywhere and those require really different types of infrastructure. Whereas if I'm saying I'm taking the existing infrastructure already have and bringing it up to a standard that we've already say meets some of our safety and sustainability and other goals that gives us a clear marching order and path and we come up with a cost estimate for that, whereas the demand itself might be different based on modes and preferences. I can't speak for schools and parks on whether there's a similar standard that they've already adopted. Really quickly. No, from the clerk. Can you just take your name for me? Sorry, Haley Packett. No, sorry. That was my self. Sorry. Thank you, Ms. Packett. So can I make a suggestion? Could... Could we eliminate repairs and and And it is important to include net new infrastructure and upgrading infrastructures to levels that meet capacity needs and county policy standards. So that would allow for transportation. Yeah, transportation to have the standard of complete street guidelines, park standard that we could set and where we could, that could be established. I think that's good. Yep. All right, one more time capacity needs and... County policy standards. Oh, policies. So then it's, it's our policy that we're setting and saying, you know, we want to meet our own policy. What would it cost to do that and how do we pay for it? Which I think is a fair way to do it. So then we would get rid of repairs. Yeah, you know, that's a good, yeah. Would you like me to read both final of your questions? I think so. What would we want to say? The work group will determine and assess the county's schools, transportation, and parks infrastructure needs to include net new infrastructure and upgrading existing infrastructure to levels that meet capacity needs and county policy standards. Adaptive 2 would be the work group will research a variety of funding mechanisms to fund future capacity needs for schools transportation and parks. The work group must consider new funding mechanisms in addition to reform of the current impact act system. The objective is funding mechanisms that are equitable, predictable, and sustainable without undermining county priorities such as housing, climate resiliency, and economic development. I like it. Right, I think this camel was being built nice. Okay. All on to number two. No, we didn't know. That was number two. Yeah, that should find out. A little bit more productive. Let's go back to the bottom. Number three at the bottom of page four of the staff report was additional recommendations for including racial equity and social justice. In the beginning of the resolution, there's a paragraph that talks about that evidence suggests in fact, that says have a negative impact on eliminating racial disparities and inequities in the county. The resolution does in the final report require the work group to explain how the proposed funding mechanisms align with the values of racial equity and social justice, but that's kind of the only reference and the actual things that the work group is tasked with. So after speaking to OLO, there's a few recommendations on page five. First is a set of questions that the workgroup could be required to answer. Those are questions about equitable community engagement, context and data on racial and social and equity alignment with best practices, anticipated, various J-Impacts and then Equival Implementation. So you could require the work group to answer these questions. Can it's final report and even in that halfway report? Additionally, OOLO did a reach-locuity and social justice policy handbook, land use housing and economic development. You can, in addition to you or instead of require the work group to just review that report in making their recommendations and find ways to incorporate it in their proposed funding mechanisms. I have read the report, it's a pretty great. Any thoughts on? I'm fine with that. I'm fine with putting that as something in the final report or in their pathway that they address how they're incorporating these questions and having them review the racial equity and social justice policy in book on land use housing and economic development. So include both in the final and the just as an update of Leah. But I do think in the intramid they'd be wise to do it as well so that we can figure out whether they're doing what we need at the end. And I will add that to towards the end of the resolution when it talks about their work. So what exactly are we having? That the work group will be required to answer this list of questions which I could keep the way it's written in the staff report if the phrasing there all sounds right. And that also that they'll be required to review the handbook and incorporate its recommendations into their review. I'm wondering if it would be.'s not for you. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I'm just looking at the final, the work group, I'm looking at the history of the resolution. The work was our final report to the council about a data driven assessment. I could see. See. I'm wondering if it's just putting this this, these, something like, okay. See, see. I'm wondering if it's just putting this the something like including addressing the following and just putting what is in italics, the headlines. And then we could give the work group the more detailed document to help guide them. It seems like adding all of this to the actual resolution is a bit more than we usually would do. Okay, so including addressing the following and then just the highlighted parts. community engagement, context data on visual and social. Yeah, and what I might do is separate C, so to be C can be one, the environmental safety economic and then D will become including D pieces and then data analysis to support will become D, all these add-on-by-one, so C sees not too long. That works. Okay. And then the reference to reading the report going to put it in that list as well. I think it's understood. Yeah. Give it to that guidance. Yeah. In order to do this, reading the report would be the tool against them. there. Yeah, I'm not sure. I think the actual resolution is good. Yeah. All right, understood. Number four. Number four is the composition of the very few other questions out. That's the issue. So in total, as I'm produced, if I counted correctly, there are 14 people currently in the work group. If it's county departments, three council staff, staff of park and planning has three, two from planning one from parks, state highway, and then MCPS as well. The department's listed are DOT, finance, OMB, DPS, and DHCA, and then each is just chosen by whoever their respective director is. This is where I think the bulk of our feedback has come from. When it was drafted, the idea was all the members would be, you know, government, people who work for the county and these capacities, and so could assess the various infrastructure needs, hopefully fairly easily. The resolution did require that the worker do stakeholder outreach, including meeting with both developers and community members, and then also opportunities for public feedback. The overarching idea here from council staff, the recommendation B, to consider the size of the work group and the amount of time they have. So I think I'm going to first read through everyone that's been requested to be added and then on page seven, there's sort of a list of considerations with each one. So first to add an industry representative, this was I think council member last Las and Council Member Freighton's memo should be in the staff report. The idea here is that industry representatives have learned important expertise and insights. County Executive asked to add an additional person from Department of Transportation since MCPS has two representatives. Testimonie suggested adding someone from DGS for the projects that are not under DOT. Also, since MCPS has two representatives. Testimoni suggested adding someone from DGS for the projects that are not under DOT. Also adding Montgomery College, since they're similar to MCPS. The playboardhead suggested adding some of the utilities of infrastructure is broadened, but I think you can strike that one based on your prior recommendations. The Commission on Aging asked to add someone from DHHS to make it a more inclusive work group. The commission on Aging also asked for civic groups and community members. And then also there's been testimony to remove somebody, which is removing SHA since the group which is out in the community. So there's two options here. You can go through the list, see who to add, who to subtract, and so forth. But before that, you could also consider just increasing the outreach requirements. They're mentally not super specific in the resolution. The idea was the work group will figure out its schedule and how to do that outreach. One option is to just say to the work group, you must meet with the following groups at even at the following times, but in the beginning, you're at the final report or at some point in the process. So that's one idea is instead of growing the work group, just being specific about the outreach requirements alternatively or actually probably in addition, adding to the final report that all the feedback received should be attached to the final report so that the council can review it. So those are the two options before you add and subtract people. And I ask, why do we have multiple people from each agency? What, I mean, if someone's expertise is from that agency, why do we need three people sitting there saying I agree with you? I don't know. And I do believe we need to keep the workroom to a workable size because I've been on the boards where, and nobody ever wants to leave, you know what I mean? But I think that we don't, I don't know why we need multiple agencies. I mean, I don't know why you need to, from MCPS to, you know, if MCPS has two, we want to. I think that causes an issue. And I agree with all idea that for state highway, I mean, they're not, we certainly need to talk to them, but there shouldn't be part of what we're doing. And I do believe we should have people to go outside of the government. I mean, the fact that the only government is coming up with these ideas is not the idea for this. This is, you know, if you're working in Virginia, how is Virginia helping? And does it work over there? So that's right. I don't know why we need three members or two members from each group. One idea to having served on a couple of these about groups, you could also make some people non-voting members, which means they be in the work group, they'd be participating, of course. But at the end of the day, if there's just agreement on things and the work groups decides to vote on what recommendations go forward, you could say maybe DOT has one voting number, but that doesn't mean that more people from DOT couldn't attend, of course, because also these may be able to be over to the public. Right. So why don't we put, why don't we get a B and hold A in this section, because I think regarding outreach. And let's nail down the composition, composition what we would recommend and then go to the outreach. And why don't we start where I think there's agreement with the industry representation given council member Freeson's recommendation and what I think I'm hearing from council member council member Freeson. Yeah, appreciate it. I think we need to be a good example of the number of free sins recommendation. What I think I'm hearing who Councilman McKinnell said. I appreciate it. I think we need to outside stakeholders. A for profit housing developer and a not for profit housing developer. Those financing structures are different. The impact of what this would mean would be different. I think those perspectives are both critical to this conversation of what the real world impact would have and that allows us to at least have the perspective at the table to balance the other priorities as discussed related to housing and to the bill. Absolutely. And we're adding two people. Yeah, so you can take over. Yeah, So that's how it's going to go. Like this space. Yeah. So, so I think we're going to agree with there a recommendation on that. Thank you, councilmember Freetzen. Let's turn to, and I think it's the first bullet under B from the staff report. The perspective of, you know, again, keeping this manageable that we keep it at one ODOT representative and just put it as one MCPS representative. That's good. And that way, if other people from MCPS want to come there way in, but we have one representative on the working group. I agree with that. I do think there's a question of some of the other executive departments of, for instance, DHCA. It's unclear to me what DHCA's role is in this and even permitting. Is it to understand when in the process you could charge a fee? I mean to me that you can, you know, have to be a voting member. They could be invited to a meeting to discuss that. But it is unclear to me. D.H.C.A. and DPS don't necessarily have a policy role. in some just wondering whether or not they need to be included. In the interest of trying to keep this to a manageable group. Right. So I think it's back. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was going to say on DPS and this is from the exact it is point of view than DOT, is they have a pretty strong role in terms of making sure that development moves forward in what restrictions on development occur. So that was the, I think, rationale for their inclusion. I'll defer to the committee. Yeah, I think the better way to do that is the actual people that DPS is interacting with, which is the for-profit and the not-for-profit developer. So to me, I'm not sure it's not, I mean, if the goal was, I get it if the goal was to keep it as a government group, having the perspective of this is how projects actually move forward or don't move for and the timing of that because the other executive departments are less year to the ground, so to speak, planning would have a role in that and DPS would have a role in that of really understanding what that looks like. We've now included the actual people whose perspective they were going to be able to provide so I'm not sure. We need them. We have the housing perspective from the actual housing provider. So I just it's not clear to me when we're talking about funding, D HCA has housing programs that they fund. That's not that this is funding. We're not. It's not like recreation tax. We're talking about funding rental assistance or something which some of recreation tax goes to or the if or something along those lines. And so in the interest of trying to keep this to a manageable group, I'm not sure that those two executive departments would be necessary. I think DOT absolutely. And I think we should talk about whether SHA, I think that's a reasonable question of what role the state would have. So just so we keep track of, so I think the committee, this was an agreement on one DOT, one MCPS. We did that. I just wanna get that on the record. Make sure we lose that. So we're net plus one, right? Just to, in terms of the size of a manageable or unmanager group. And then the question is now that we added to representatives from the development community considering taking out DPS and DHCA. And it doesn't mean they wouldn't be consulted, obviously. It's just that who is on this working group working together? I'm okay removing them as, yeah. I am as well. But the question that I have is like, for instance, the three members of Council's Central Staff, are they bringing three different viewpoints? Why do we have three members? I believe the idea was that since the analysts have different portfolios, so you might want the transportation analyst, the planning analyst, and the school's analyst. But they're not developing. saying members? I mean, yeah, many times the analyst don't vote. I don't know the analyst vote. But for a working group that we're setting up to have our perspective, I think we are on the perspective of our analysts that oversee the subject matter areas in the same way that the executive as a transportation person, a finance person, office of management and budget person. I think it would be a significant error to not have the perspectives of the subject matter experts that we have at the council at the table with a full voice. And I understand what you're saying. I think that's I hadn't thought of it exactly that way. I think that for them to vote is different than what we've gone through for analysts before. But I do think you need their thoughts. Just to be clear, departments don't vote either. I mean, nobody here votes. This is a working group that we're setting up to make recommendations. The goal is as a consensus building group where it's not a split vote or you know a contentious dynamic but you need somebody to have membership formally on the committee if there is a voter if there are decisions to be able to provide that perspective. And I agree that you were talking about voting and non-voting members. Yes, sorry. So that's if the work group on it's, oh, like the council does not have to tell the work group that they have to vote on things. If they're unanimous, they have their list of recommendations. Excellent. But sometimes in these work groups, there's disagreement and so it would be shocking. And so it would basically be saying that here are the members of the work group who get to vote if the work group decides they need to vote on things. So the council staff analysts would basically represent the council. Yeah. No, I can yeah. I mean, I don't think we need to set non-voting members. I think the committee can fully decide who the subject matter experts they wanna bring. The table, I think we said who is on the committee to make sure that we have the right perspective at the table and then they can expand from there. Yeah. But I don't think we need to set, you know, voting members and ex officio or non-voting members. I think we set the number, we set the group. We try to make it a manageable number because that was a major feedbacks that we had as don't make this too big. It also would be impossible to come to a consensus. So right now we're at 13, I think. Yes. I'm keeping track track correctly. All right. Planning currently has two. I'm on bullet number two. This might go back to Councilmember Katz's point about duplicate representatives planning was given to because they draft the IPM impact tax bill. But if you were looking for a reduction, you could reduce it to one, keeping in mind that they will also have a separate parks represented. Well, but those are very different functions. I would say, and I also think, even within planning, there are multiple functions. There is the regulatory review function. If you think about the executive, splits it up into different departments. We are talking about park and planning as if it's executive government. But that's not the way that we've broken down. Now we could delineate exactly like it should be one regulatory review person at park and planning and one policy person at park and planning. I think that would be fine to show the difference. It. Um, it's to get the different view point at the table so that everybody at the table understands how you got where you got. Yeah. But we ask, uh, we have representatives from Park and Planning. Is there a way? Besides how I framed it regulatory review and research, is there a way to frame that better from the agency perspective? Please give it on for the record. I think the first way you framed it, regulatory and policy would be the most great way of policy. The countywide policy and planning drafts the growth in the future, policy, and the impact taxes. But I do think the regulatory framework is very important to have there. And there are two very different functions along with parts which is also very interesting. So two with one regulatory expertise and one with policy expertise. Yeah. Because I do think those are two very different things. One is doing that, you know, a project by project dynamic that is more of, you know, what is more of what we want on the actual implementation of what this is actually going to mean. And then there's the policy side of it. How does this impact the growth and infrastructure policy? What are the puts and takes and the broader dynamics? Okay. So that's bullet two. Yeah. bullet three was the MCPS SHA and charts where we got various arguments on both sides. The first argument heard was that are there members of the group who might have a bias because they benefit from the CIP. I think that I've been maybe moved now since of course adding the developer community. I think with the SAJ was a little more specific even and that they are not the county and this is a group about county funding those are arguments there for that bucket. Yeah, the question on SAJ would be, are the funding mechanisms gonna relate to state projects or is this county funding mechanisms for county projects? And then if not, what perspective is state highway providers? Right, yes. I'm fine not to have state highway one year. First of all, I don't think you'll get anyone on the workroom from state highway that's going to be the funding person. the funding person. So, I think they can invite the workgroup can request and invite state highway to come and talk about county funding for shared state county projects. There are many examples of shared state county projects, but bus rapid transit would be a good significant example of that, but I don't think that we needed as a member. Or a 12. Here's my other question, is it okay to have an even number if the group could vote? I think it's fine. Yeah, I do too. I let that be the problem. Because I think the recommendation could be this was a six six. Yeah. Because I also think that we should. We should discuss whether or not we're expecting one final recommendation of this is exactly what we're suggesting that the council do, or that this group comes up with options, you know, a series of recommendations or options for considerations for, do you know, to be presented to the council to choose them on? But I think in terms of members composition, unless somebody wants, I appreciate the other feedback we received, but I don't believe there is anyone else from the feedback we received that should actually be any member of the working group versus someone who the working group. Well, I think we solved some of that problem by narrowing the scope. One of the challenges of the broader scope was understandably, after talking about all infrastructures, what about libraries, what about THHS, what about Department of Revolution, what about all of these various stakeholder groups, folks since we have narrowed it and tailored it, I think we've addressed most of those dynamics in that sense. And not growing, but for the municipalities that have zoning authority, are they under this funding? How does that work for them? I don't remember him. That is a question they should still be subject to impact taxes. So they are affected in that way. Yeah. So the question becomes whether or not you'd have one person on this group that would be from a municipality that has zoning authority, planning and zoning authority. I think maybe that would be an insufficient amount of money. Well, if we're going to do that, then we shouldn't have. Because I really don't believe we should have voting. Because that means that they're not an equal member. So I think maybe we make a reference to consult the municipalities. That's going to a good point. But I think we keep the membership relatively tight. OK. Yeah. I do think we need to consult them because we had to do an amendment to the last thing that we talked about because municipalities weren't included. But I would say yeah. So when we talk about the outreach of engagement, can we just specifically know municipalities? Yeah. Okay. So on the members real quick just to summarize, we're gonna add a for-profit developer, add a nonprofit developer, remove one MCPS representative, remove DHCA, remove DPS, remove state height. Yep. Okay. And then for outreach, the list I have so far, if you want to specify who outreach should be to, would the SHA DPS, DHCA, and EMSHIP. So I think it should be worded, it says just including, but not limiting to it. Right. Yeah. And then, of course, a public feedback. Yeah. Yeah. I would, I mean, I don't think we need to specifically know the consulting our own departments. And I think that seems a little odd to me. I think the more informed engagement. Is with stakeholders, the public and municipalities. Yeah, and I like the idea of having the feedback received in the final report. Any specifications on when to meet how needs, et cetera or would you like to leave that to the worker? I think you say the worker. The only other question, since everything is only the last question I haven't said, but it's, at what point, what does consult mean? I I mean, are they consulting? So how they need to make people aware of the various groups aware of what they're doing and how they're doing it and get the feedback. But it shouldn't be just one time and done. I mean, it should be throughout the process. It could be, I think for some of these groups, like for the public, it probably be helpful to have like one, I believe we don't call them public hearings. Yeah, town hall. Yeah, like town hall. And then maybe you say to have a meeting with the municipalities in the SHA, so they're actually like meeting in person. Right. And then to say before the final report to just check in for additional feedback. That would be, I would make the more. Yeah. Okay. And right, check in before the final report with what the recommendations are. It shouldn't be like a big reveal. It's not a... Yeah. Surprising everyone. Okay. Very neat. So now, chair facilitator. Yes. Is one of the last ones. So three options. Well, sort of two and a half options here. One, it's a chair and vice chair or a facilitator. And then also in testimony, there was a question about having the work group hire someone to do research. So going through each of those first recommendation for a chair is someone from Council Central staff or some other council function, examples LLO, somebody who works for the council, since it is a council work group, would be appropriately as-on to report back to council as needed. A vice chair might be helpful, but you can let the chair or the group decide if they like a vice chair. So this would be in addition to that person's regular work duties. The alternative is a facilitator, which would of course require going through the contract and procurement process, which costs money and time, but the idea there was to get an outside perspective. So those are the two options for who would be managing the group. The idea here is whoever this person is, chair facilitator would be creating the agendas, coordinating the groups, scheduling the meetings, making sure the final report is completed and submitted and then being the contact person. So those are sort of the roles and personality and skills that this person needs to have. So I can start. My preference would be I think option one, the chair of the central staff chairing this meeting. I think number of reasons one timing. I think we've heard that we've given a timeline here but folks would like us to do this faster. I think it's understanding the breath of the issue and what the council perspective is and really understanding what the council wants out of this work group is really important. And even if we were to go to our facilitator, a facilitator is someone who facilitates the meeting and needs to understand and have a depth of knowledge, but in my mind, they're not, they're not having an influence over this conversation. And so I think we have staff who could do this and do it well. And I think it also helps us as a council and specifically this committee. You know touch base understand how the work group is going and to do it in a timely fashion. So I agree and I would suggest we just do remembers of council central staff including the chair to be chose by the executive director. Can. Can we can move again? Yep. Oh, actually, so if it's three members, how's stuff? I think the chair, we should. So strike that the council will pick the chairs, the directors and I think. I would find the director. I think the director. I think the director is picking the three members and choosing among those members, the chair. I think that director. That's why we have the director is picking the three numbers and choosing among those members the chair. I think that's appropriate. Let's go. And then for the data analyst, is how I phrase the testimony. Council staff recommendation here is if the work group, the work group is made up of experts. You should be able to gather this info. But if the work group feels that that is something that they need, they can reach out to council either and bring that in report. And you can consider it then, because that person would also have to go through contract and return it. Yep. Great. So lastly, is what should the final report include? There's already been some changes to the section that we've made previously. One thing to note here though is the county executive recommended accelerating the timeline so that the final report is due in December and can be factored into next year's budget. I think it's already an aggressive timeline to be honest with you and I don't want to set unrealistic expectations to the public or to colleagues or to ourselves. Yeah. I think keeping it as it is already going to be hard for them to meet. Yep. I agree. I mean, if they, I agree, but if they can come back with it faster, they shouldn't hold it. Yes, of course. Yeah. But, but it says that you have to do it under this time for a man to do it. Yeah. Now actually that makes me think, I think the phrasing is okay. It says buy June 30th, so hopefully that implies. It's faster than green. I think that's everything. All right. So we'll put this together and bring it to full council. I just want to say thank you for all your hard work on this. Thank you to the representatives of Department of Transportation and Planning and for coming today. And thank you to all of our central staff. Mr Ali for being here. I know this has been a great deal of thought and work has gone into this and we really appreciate all that and look forward to continuing the work. So thank you very much and with that this committee is adjourned. Thank you. all comes make sure that you're not in the work group is that what you know you're not in the room they have points you know