Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We've been admonished to really speak into the microphone. Yes. Which keeps us from. Good evening everybody. Um, I'll call this April um 2nd uh yeah, April 2nd, 2026 Seamish Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:31. Uh, first roll call. Um, Alawad here. Uh, John Bachman here. Mazi Punala here. A Shakraani here. Um, Sad Seafian here.

I'm Mike Brrisco. I'm here. And uh we're expecting Suda, but she hasn't arrived yet. So um all right. So next after roll call is the approval of agenda. Is there anybody who's wishing to change the agenda? Any changes? Okay, seeing none, we'll consider the agenda approved by common consent. And next, the minutes from our March 19th meeting. Any uh adjustments to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, uh minutes from March 19th are approved. All right. Um so, first or next is public comment. Um I want to mention that this is going to be the only opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh we did do a public hearing during our last meeting on the topic that we're going to be continuing as part of old business. So, uh, if you do have a public comment, uh, you could comment on anything obviously including, um, the impact fees. So, uh, anybody for public comment?

Oh, what the heck? Oh, what the heck? Okay, Mr. Snicknate, please. is on.

Hello there. Paul Stikney Samish. Um, I've turned in some stuff. I'm not going to go over every single thing there because a I wouldn't have time and b there's no need to, you know, repeat some of it. But a couple things I would like to read into the record. Where I'm coming from is what I wrote in my email to you guys and it is genuine. I strongly assert that the way forward. Oh, and you know, by the way, let's start with a quote from Martin Luther King that I'm not going to get correct, but his quote is there is never a it's always a good time to do the right thing. And I assert that the right thing is adding market rate housing. We need in the community authentic the bottom up to meet longstanding needs in market rate housing mostly from 500 to 8 million5. And that would help create revenues in, you know, sustainable ways to address past infrastructure deficiency. Because if you look through what I sent in, the vast majority of our infrastructure problem has nothing to do with growth. For the last 20 years in Seamish, we've only done roughly 14 or 15% of the houses that were here. It has everything to do with what was inherited at 1999 when that plus King County pipeline homes were 85%. So, we have prior deficiencies that new development can't pay for. So, I'm looking to kill two birds with one stone, add genuine market rate housing we need that helps to create revenues to

help meet some of the prior, you know, deficiencies of the past. A couple specifics. You know, I'm not going to say I wish I had more time because I would probably just go on and on. So, I'll I'll try to keep it short here. Um, I have noticed some things that I can't reconcile in the fees. And I will also say to start with that I still am very troubled that a 3,000 square ft high-end condominium in town center pays the same thing as a 3,000 single family home somewhere in the city. They do not create the same demands on the traffic transportation system. Why are they paying the same thing? Also, I couldn't figure this out, but it appears to me that the PM peak trip ends is inflating the PM peak rates from the IT manual and rates are going up. A case in point, in the 2006 or 14 rates, a senior adult single family home was roughly $1,160 impact fee if attached or 2700 if you know detached. in this table in the packet those two same things are 5571 or 4642 but I'm lost it doesn't say what that size is it just it a lot of this doesn't add up and to me I don't think it is passible as it is today with the information you have but that's just my opinion

okay thank you Paul uh anybody else Evan anyone online. All right. So, uh, time to move on to old business then. Um, and so I want to do a couple of, uh, I guess preface statements as Evan's getting set up here. Um, first off, this is continued deliberation of the proposed park and transportation impact fees. Uh, and then also the the municipal code basically rewrite or change. Um, so that's our focus. We're continuing, you know, we've had six meetings already on this, so this is number seven. It adds up. Um, the agenda packet provided responses to questions that we posed last time. Uh, and so, uh, you know, Evan, I I don't know if you're going to touch on those briefly, but, you know, there were responses to the critical questions that we had. Uh, and I wanted to recognize that and thank FCS and the staff for for getting those answers to us. Um the objective of this meeting is to take action and to make recommendations on these impact fees so that we can provide those recommendations to council. So we want to complete that tonight. Uh hopefully we can uh without moving to a number eight meeting. Um so the important part of this is the process that we're going to use. So brief presentation from Evan. Um then we will make motions and deliberate on each of the policy needs. Uh we'll start with the main motion and deliberate. Uh before voting on the main motion, we may add and deliberate and vote on amendments to the main motion. Uh and then through the video recording and notes that we take um we'll be able to capture our rationale, put that together in the recommendations. Okay. So this is a motion and debating and making motions

and passing motions meeting. Um and once we close the meeting um staff primarily with some review from myself and say it is the chair and vice chair will prepare the recommendations and we can include any you know dissenting opinions. So it's very clear for council what we've been thinking and the the nature of the deliberations that we've had. So with that, Evan, you're ready. All right. Thank you, chair, and good evening, commission. Uh, for the record, Evan Fischer, senior management analyst with community development, joined by David Pile. And I think that was a great introduction, and I appreciate it. So, it will u actually cause me to repeat just a little bit of that information, but it doesn't hurt to hit it a few times. So tonight's meeting objectives are to again address briefly the questions from last meeting which we did put in the agenda bill but to take action on these three items. The first the key item is uh first key item is the impact fee report and the proposed scaling uh impact fees for parks and transportation. The second then we're going to ask this broader question of and this is a topic we brought up before but does the commission recommend that the city council uh assess 100% of the calculated values or somewhere between 100 and zero because they have that discretion and then we'll be looking at the code topics uh the code as a whole we'll ask for your recommendation on but specifically we're looking for direction on how we should write into that code uh any reductions or waiverss for affordable housing at different at different income bands, what exemptions we should consider like for ADUs or additions or possibly other exemptions if you have them. And then we'll talk about the deferral limits for large developments. And we'll get into that in a little bit more detail in a in a pre uh a further slide.

So, just to spend a few minutes revisiting what we talked about last time, there were some questions that we walked away with, consulted with FCS, and hopefully were able to address in the agenda bill, but we want to spend just a minute talking about them. So, the first is again, can we summarize the historic investment methodology used for the parks impact fees? And this was a helpful revisiting with FCS because admittedly there has been some confusion. Um the the idea of the historic investment methodology is to to capture the total asset value of our park system as it is and that sets a benchmark for the level of park service that we've provided to the city. We then use the current population to derive a parks value per person and that gives us a realistic way to estimate how much we need to spend per person to maintain that level of service to support future growth. The second part is where there was a lot of confusion and again I apologize for this and FCS wanted me to extend their apologies because on the November 6 meeting if you go back and watch that tape uh Commissioner Elkawad brought up a good question of how how are donations counted for in the valuation method. FCS at that meeting said that donations aren't counted in that valuation. If the land is gifted to the city, that would be a zero for land value and we would just count for any improvements the city made. And the idea there was that the valuation would be strictly based on any investments the city made. They have clarified that they were incorrect on November 6 that the any donations what we're trying to capture is the total value of the asset. So that would be land value and improvement value whether it came from a donation or a purchase. So that hopefully helps clarify where that I think it's a $399 million total valuation of the park system came from and it does include

donated land. And if you think about it, it would also include like when the city was incorporated, we inherited parks from King County like Beaver Lake Park. So it includes uh the total value of that asset. Um there was a question of is this methodology can I'll run through them and then circle back. Is it uh there was a a question of is this methodology commonly used and the answer was yes. This is kind of the predominant method for valuing park systems for the purposes of impact fee calculation. Um Kirkland uses it. They said they're doing Redmond right now and Redmond's strongly considering this valuation method. So it is a common methodology for uh impact fee studies. Were other methodologies considered? Yes, FCS did look at other methodologies and there ended up being some really some real limiting factors and the key one would be is the the historic investment methodology that they're recommending allows the city to spend impact fee dollars on any projects listed on that capital facilities list. Whereas a different methodology more like the transportation methodology if you think would would require the city to go project by project and assess how much of that pro how much of that project is strictly for expanding capacity and then we'd only be able to spend the the fees on the portion that is expanding. So it gives the city a lot more flexibility in how we support our capital facilities development uh with this with this historic investment method methodology which is why they recommended it. And then lastly there was a question in confusion again I'm going to extend FCS's apology uh apologies and my apologies for this but uh Mr. Stney and chair Bresco pointed out that the updated version of the report upped the maximum square footage amount for the

maximum fee from 2600 square ft to 3500 ft². And there was a question at the last meeting was this a typo or was this based on data? And they uh they let us know without letting us know um that during the course of the study between the versions of the reports they got updated um updated data that confirmed that 3500 ft would be the correct setting point for that maximum um fee value. So I'll pause there because I I saw at least one potential question. Oops, I'm all elbows tonight. So apologies but uh I'll pause for any questions and clarification before we move on.

I have just one question and I was reading and I had this question which might seem a little bit of a tangent but I'll just ask this. Let us say that I have a donation of a land which is valued at let's say $2 million and then there is a consideration to build a let's call it a wedding hall where there's going to be people who are coming the city is going to make money out of rentals and other things that is there on that or that it's going to be changed into an R4 and it's going to be it's going to be made made a dwelling for for lack of a a term. How is the donation accounted at at those two times? Would would that be just the land or the land and the perceived value of that land which changes in each of these two aspects? And I could not square that when I read through the documentation. I mean when I read through and watched the the the meeting and so that's why I had a question on that.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think uh it it would depend on how it's used. If it is donated and it becomes park land set as parkland, then the value of that park asset would be the the land value, the assessed land value, so the $2 million or whatever you said. If once the city got the parkland and then built a $5 million wedding venue hall and then charged fees to use it, the it would be the parkland and the improvement value. So the five it wouldn't count for the revenues generated through the

the weddings. If you were to go a different route and it would be reszoned and sold through development, then it wouldn't be it wouldn't be part of the park system and it wouldn't be counted at all towards evaluation. Yeah. So that doesn't get counted in that option three that I talked about. If it is the first one, which is that it's just a park land, it'll be constrictor for the land. And with the second option, which is that they'll be done and let's say a $5 million wedding hall is taken, then it'll be evaluated at $7 million, but not for any of the revenue that comes out of it while the while the property is being used. As best I can get. Y perfect. Thank you. Value of land and improvements. Yep.

Okay. Anything else or we'll move on? Can I follow up AJ's question? You say the value of the land value of the land at the time of a purchase even though that in his hypothetical situation if the zoning will change from basically open space or parks to a retail the value of land will be substantially different. So when you say value of land based on the time of a purchase of the property by by the city or the value of land would change automatically over time. Uh the the first option so when it the value of the land when it was donated or bought and then if it were bought 10 years ago it would be brought to present day dollar terms. There would be an escalator or whatever to make sure it was at a net present value. But um the first the first way

Thank you. Yep. So, there's also some conversation about the the blended fee and the impacts of multifamily housing. And so, we thought we'd spend a minute on that because we did also talk to FCS about this. And uh it's important to remember that the transportation impact fees are based on the idea of offsetting the impacts of growth on our system as it is today and the characteristics of our system. So, when you think of our system currently, it's comprised mostly of single family housing units. right now roughly 87%. Uh so the blended fee is derived by basically a weighted average of the proportion of single family to multifamily units and you could see the the formula there to uh run through and and get you that blended fee amount. And ultimately the the thing to remember is that impact fees are not meant to incentivize a certain type of housing like middle housing units or multif family housing units. They're meant to help uh fund infrastructure to offset the impacts of growth. So I hear Mr. Stikney's point around um trip generation rates and the impacts of multif family housing. Um but it's again it's our impact fees are based on an assessment of our system and uh its composition. Actually, just maybe to um reinforce that, I've thought a little bit about this because there's multiple methodologies. Every one of the methodologies is at best an estimate. It really is. And you could start to think about, well, you know, the single family, the impact is changing as the makeup of the city changes. How many families have youth, the young kids, how many, you know, all that. You could go on and on and on. Think of all of these whatifs. So, where I've gotten to, frankly, maybe this is

jumping ahead a bit, but is that this is a methodology FCS has used elsewhere. It's legally defensible. We could come up with other methodologies. You could also tear those apart, too. So, um that's in my mind, is this a consistent methodology throughout? And is legally defensible. Le, you've brought that up supported by what the consultant has seen and used elsewhere. And so from that standpoint, it doesn't make a lot of sense to, you know, relitigate the basic methodology. And that triggered my brain on two things that FCS said that I think are important to touch on right now. And one is well David mentioned this ear earlier in our private conversation is that when the time comes that our proportion shifts and changes and we have more multif family or single family we will we can update the blended fee and respond accordingly. Second point is that the reason FCS recommended a blended fee and use a blended fee is that their reading of the RCW and the statute is that we're we're creating a single methodology per square foot for uh a single fee for housing units, not housing types. So not middle housing, not multifamily, but for housing units and creating a scaling methodology for that based on bedrooms, trips or square footage. So that's their reading of the RCW is that the blended fee approach creates a single fee for all housing units. So this is kind of reiterating what the chair was uh saying earlier is you know a way a framework for us to get through the night because we do have some a lot of a lot of things to touch on and get feedback on. So, first will be the the

question again on the impact fee report and the scaling impact fees. We'll pause there. We'll deliberate. We'll make a motion. Once we get through with that, then we'll go on to the question of how the commission recommends that the fees be assessed. Deliberate, make a motion, vote. Then we'll go through each of the code issues. And then lastly, we'll look at the code as a whole with the modifications you all have deliberated and voted on. independently and say, are we ready to move all those things forward as a group? And in the next the next slides go through each of those things individually. And the the first one up again is, you know, does the commission recommend to the city council the scaling parks and transport transportation impact fees out as outlined in the impact fee report? And by way uh you know to help get started as a starting place we've in included a recommended motion of kind of staff's perspective of how we think it would go or recommend it would go but again that's your discretion. So we've created a starting place but feel free to run with it however you find feel appropriate.

Definitely appreciate that. And uh Evan you mentioned about deliberate and emotion. Um actually I think for Robert's rules you could certainly do that questions make a motion deliberate it is and I think since we've had a lot of conversations on this uh unless you all disagree uh what I would suggest is that we make a motion assume it's seconded then have deliberations based on the deliberations decide and vote. Yeah. So otherwise we make questions we make a motion deliberate some more. So, so would anybody like to make a motion?

Um, before we make a motion, I have a small request, chair. Um, and I'm so sorry to spring this like this, but um, I should have sent an email. I have a million excuses to do it because I grew up in Catholic school. I'm going to give all the excuses later on. But uh the point that I wanted to tell is that uh I have now applied for a permit to get a an ADU added for my property and it's now with the NE SSWD for water and sewer uh impact that's there. So for that part of the discussion alone and I think that comes under section three of what you mentioned

I would like to recuse myself and if there's some other place that you think that ADU impact is I thought it was only in section 3 but if it is in any other place please let me know and I will recuse myself from that as well. Yeah really appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah and it's just in section three. So that's what I Okay. So that means I've done my homework. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I would like to uh move forward with a motion, but before I do that, I just want to emphasize that this broad motion does not set whether or not we're at 100% or 50%. Doesn't address any exemptions and it also doesn't address whether we're going to do square foot or room count. So those are things that we can discuss and amend under this broader umbrella. Is that room count square foot? I the that would be that was a staff recommendation if I remember right.

Uh the staff recommendation is accepting the impact fee report as drafted which which uses the square footage methodology. Strike the last one then. Yeah. So, I'll go forward with I move to recommend to the city council the scaling parks and transportation impact fees as presented in the impact fee report and found as exhibit one in the agenda packet. Okay, we have a motion. Anybody second? I second that. Okay, stereo. No, no, you can second it. It's okay.

Wait a minute. I have a bigger I have another question. I think before getting to a discussion of scaling I thought that we're supposed to take a motion and express our position as far as the consultants report impact fee and the for formula that they use that's exactly what this that is a scaling that's different no it is it is reference of the report it says a scaling well that's part of what is in the report I think that there are two different issues the discount the second thing that we're going to talk about is one is methodology ology. The other one is a scaling. Evan, if you go back deals with the methodology

the the report in the scaling methodology. The report outlines the scaling methodology. So the report walks through the methodology for calculating the parks and transportation impact fee and then talks about how it takes those calculated fee amounts and applies a scaling method to get our blended and blended and parks and transportation per square foot fee amounts. So it's all it's all it's all captured right there in the report. If you go back, Evan, that's one or two slides and the so up the one with the arrows. So next uh will be the reduction in fees. So it maybe that's just semantics or terminology, but the reduction in fees would be a way of scaling the recommended from the impact report or the the report to 0 to 100%. So that'll be a second motion. So maybe the the wording of the under number one wording and the scaling impact fee should be a part of number two. That's what I'm saying. The first subject is the whole approach that a consultant has taken as far as calculating the impact fee the methodology and the scaling comes after that.

We see it as allin-one. You don't get the scaling impact. You don't get the scaling impact fees without the methodology and it's all captured right there in the report. So we see it all as one item and to reject the methodology would be to reject the scaling impact fees. So well and the the key reference is what's in exhibit one and exhibit one is the report that doesn't have any kind of reduction in the impact fees included in it. So the if I remember right the new state RCW allows for us to use the scaling and maybe there's confusion over semantics here. If we recommend 100% to council, council could scale that back or we could to 75% of that 100% scaled fee. that

that gets kind of nuanced but but what we're talking about in terms of if we want to reduce the fee we reduce the percentage not the methodology the scaling methodology is that yeah yep I think you're right and it is getting confusing in the scaling what we're referring to in number one as scaling is ultimately the per square foot amount of a parks fee and the transportation fee That's what we're talking about as a scaling impact fee the base. Yeah, exactly. It's it

it scales depending on this the size of development. So a smaller development pays less impact fee than a larger development. So that's what we mean by scaling impact fees. And number one, what John is saying is correct. Then in step two, it's like as David always says, the dials and the levers, right? One of the local policy decisions we have is you can turn the dial up all the way to 10 and charge all of the fees or you can set it somewhere in between. So maybe that's what you're what you're thinking of is as scaling is turning the dial and reducing the fee amount. I'm not sure if I'm helping address your your concerns or not.

No, my concern is that that let me tell you where I'm coming from. I I'm I'm fully supportive of scaling but I'm the supporting of the methodology that the consultant has used and I have my reasons and I have made it in number of emails to to the council as well as to the staff that the methodology has a lot of uh errors in my judgment as far as how they came to the conclusion that that is the way to calculate but the scaling I don't have any problem I'm fully fully supportive yes So, we don't really have a choice about scaling. We are required under state law to scale our impact fees. And I'm not against,

right? And and I don't think it's that I think that's moot. I don't think it matters whether you're against it or not. We are required to do that by state law. Right. I think so if you in this case, he would vote no because you do not support the formula that that is the foundation of the scale fee that is generated. So, right simple. He would just Yeah.

Yeah. And so what we'll do, we'll have deliberations and this is the way I look at it is the report that FCS submitted and it's in exhibit one where the motion is really to say we accept that and that is the framework methodology that Seamish will use to determine the base maybe is a good word impact fee scaling amounts right and then so um now for deliberations if anybody has and said as you obviously do some concerns about that methodology um and those who have maybe feel good about it. This is the time to dis discuss those and have the deliberations uh and to determine whether we uh vote all in the affirmative or a mixed vote or reject the motion.

I have just a clarification you mentioned sorry can you hear me? Okay. So I have just a clarification. You mentioned that this was done. Obviously we not the first city to do this kind of thing where we're figuring out the scaling of the impact fees and then we're going to talk about the reduction of the impact fees and all those things. Now while we are still doing that can you just um and I was thinking and thinking but I could not get to it is that what was the city cities that were used as an example when we built this model for for Samish that we are considering right now were were there anything were there any cities that were done and the reason I'm asking that is because um where were they considerable little bedroom communities uh like we have over here. And I'm not saying that it should not have a town center, it should not have something, it should not have a downtown or anything like that, but was there a significant residential population that we used as our metric when we built this impact free structure that we put into place? Gosh, it's been excuse me, it's been a while since we've talked with FCS about other cities. I do know we're we're at the early end of cities adopting this because it was due uh 6 months after the adoption of our comp plan and we're the first group of cities going through comp plan updates. We're early like Redmond is behind. We actually in a meeting with Redmond alerted them. Okay, that's that's good for me because I was worried that I was completely missing that part of the syllabus where there was probably some other city that was there and I was not seeing that city or I was not seeing what they did with the impact fees and all those things. But your answer confirms that point to me is that we we are on the front end of those cities

and and I'm not saying they're they're not I can't honestly remember at the

moment examples they got it. That's got it. The question then that I have goes back to the model that we put. The model is perfectly fine for me. The example that you gave me is something I can understand. and I can wrap my brain around it of 17,445 and 6,733 um um but what I'm trying to understand is that doesn't this doesn't this have an unintended impact of it becoming uh a city that is more um attractive for having this multimode family housing um And that will cause more impact on a lot of other factors that we are not considering right now given that we are at the front end of it. And so if we come back do we have that option to say okay we thought it was 17,445 and 6733 we we have it a little bit off in this thing and it should actually be 15,000 and like $9,000 or something like that and correct that. I thought we had that option. I just want to confirm that that option is still a valid liver that we can use sometime in the future if you find out that that is the case. Well, if we were to find out that the total composition of housing in the city has changed where we now have 20% multifamily and 80% residential, then yeah, we could adjust that and reflect it accordingly. Um, I don't think that there's anything inherent about this methodology or the scale the scaling impact fees that make it more or less attractive for particularly multifamily housing. I think it could create more incentive for smaller housing units period because again the

whole idea the state had with this is to charge less impact fees for smaller proportionate impact fees. Smaller units would pay less and bigger units would pay more. That could result you know often times multif family units are smaller so it could result in multif family buildings. But um again, the idea of an impact fee is that it would then collect revenues for the city to spend to help offset the impacts on its systems to support new growth. So if growth does occur, it's part of the tool used to help support growth. Got it. So just like I had some questions on the model. So we'll be discussing when we go to number two later on or are we disc deliberating that right now? I just wasn't clear what was the conclusion on

it would be it'd be now ideally once once we get past number one we'll be done with the conversation about the models and then we'll be on to the the other issues. Yep. So go ahead if you're Yeah. Yeah. Well, I can go ahead right. But I thought he was ahead first. He had some questions on the models. So I don't I'll go after him.

No, I I don't have a question. And um my position is that that the model that consultant has used is basically capacitydriven congestion peak hour calculation and as a result it favors the projects that will be funded from the impact fee restricted to the intersection improvement, capacity improvement, no regard for the sidewalk, no regard for the non-motorized transportation. Those are not recognized. And as a result, and that's exactly unfortunately what's happening. If you look at the right now the impact fee and the CIP, you have a list of projects multimodal that in my lifetime probably the city is not going to be able to fund these projects and and build it because it's so big. And the reason is that because the model based on large projects corridor wide intersection improvement and capacity intersection capacity improvement during the peak hours and this is in contrast with the city transportation master plan, transit plan and all that and everybody including the council. The council was very adamant that our system is multimodal but the formula that they use is not multimodal by any sense of imagination.

Can I can I make a clarifying point to that because I I I appreciate these comments and and we've had a lot of conversations about this at this meet at these meetings and also offline and other channels right and I appreciate your willingness to share this with us and to try to understand each other. Right. Um, but I want to highlight that I think what you're referring to is how the the capital facilities plan, the CIP, capital improvements plan, whatever it might be called, the jargon, um, how that serves as an input into the model. So, if I may, I think what you're saying is that it's not that you disagree with the model itself. it's that you disagree with the input going into the model because we haven't gone through the process of amending our transportation master plan, our CIP list and the list of projects that go along with that and that you would like to see that list of projects include multimodal projects, other projects that are of different scale and that might be able to be more attainable and all of those things. That's not so much the model, that is the input. And what we have said in response to that is is that we we hear you in some levels. We don't disagree, but that that would mean we'd have to first go through updating the TMP and updating the CIP as part of the budget process before we finish the rest of this work. So we would then pause this work, wait until the CIP list is updated, and then resume this work with that new range of inputs that are going into the model that are responding to what you're talking about. Actually I I while you're talking I pulled a copy of the report and I don't know what page is that transportation fee calculation methods eligible cost of capacity in capacity increase projects divided by growth in

person trip ends equal to traffic impact fees is is actually this fundamental of the methodology. We did talk about this last time and again I'll try to reiterate that what we're talking about capacity is capacity of our systems not just so it's it's not just level or intersection capacity it is an assessment of are we adding so our current capacity is everything we have now all of our roads are our road capacity our sidewalks are our sidewalk capacity any eligible capacity adding projects are those that build bring new capacity onto those existing systems. So that includes road road miles, but it also includes trails, bike facilities, uh sidewalks. That all adds capacity. That's that top line, and that's the assessment the consultant does. I'm just going to actually give me a second to share my screen. That goes back to those percentages that we talked about. Um coming up. So again that those eligible capacity projects these are this is the CIP list that was used as an input right the yellow highlighted ones have a multimodal component as part of that project. So these were ones and I don't know if this is exhaustive. This is where my admittedly I was doing this quickly. This is where I ran out of time but these yellow ones were confirmed by our senior transportation planner that they have a multiodal component. that elig eligibility percentage here right in the in the uh the center column here these ones of different percent that percentage is saying how much of that project is increasing system capacity so I guess I'm just trying to clarify to be

clear that there are multi multimodal projects the model does account for them the eligibility percentage of capacity adding is how much of each of those projects adds capacity versus repairs existing capacity cuz remember state law is clear. You can only use impact fees to fund capacity adding projects. You cannot use impact fees to do repairs in existing systems. So the model does account for multimodal. It is based on adding capacity to the system because by definition that's what impact fees are supposed to do. And the the model uses uh person trips as the denominator instead of vehicle trips which in the past it was based on vehicle trips which limited us to only doing road projects. Person trips allows us to look at multimmodal projects. So I just from staff's perspective those things are accounted for. We might just disagree and that's okay. I just want I just want to be clear on that because

simply changing from the vehicle trips to person trips doesn't address the concern of the multimodalism. I read that the uh senior transportation planner response to my email but I totally technically disagree with it. Hey, um I'm still trying to understand a little bit more your concern around multimodal because on page 22 of our agenda packet in the report from the consultants talks about trip ends. Um city's transportation master plan provided estimated PM peak hour vehicle trips for 2025 and 2024. FCS used national data to convert these PM peak hour person trip to person trip ends. So the person trip versus vehicle. This better align multimodal transportation projects to the charge basis. So, as I read this and where I'm having trouble understanding your concerns is that uh if we're hoping that the and wanting to see multimodal supported by the impact fees, the approach that they took using person, not vehicle, uh and the way they tied it into the national data um and they say clearly in their report to better align with multimotal transportation projects. Well, if I if I may, I want to go back to the comment that both David and Evan brought up and they say that you guys you think that the reference to the capacity applies to all modes of modes of transportation. That's what you're saying. When the formula says capacity doesn't mean vehicular capacity doesn't mean intersection capacity, right?

System system capacity system capacity. It would have solved the problem would it would basically address my concern if we had on those list of the project that Evan highlighted a standalone project that addresses those multimodels system for instance for instance a good example is a sidewalk changing the vehicle trips to more the person trip how would address the capacity or or lack of capacity of the sidewalk or a crosswalk well I think that gets back to the um the project list and updates to the project list that are planned over the next year or two years, right?

And and also the other part in what you're saying is how does it address that's the percentage that's can be allocated to the need for or the result of increasing capacity of the system. Yep. I I agree with that. And I'd also say that part of it is not FCS's issue. It's an internal issue of how we choose to prioritize our projects. I mean, that's understood.

Yeah. So, and as chair Bresco said, the CIP list is coming back. I believe uh the council will be starting to have a conversation with that in June uh along with the budget. So, they'll be looking at those different projects. And I don't know how transport how the public works department and transportation team chooses to break out projects. I don't know if they're focusing on specifically individual sidewalk and multimmoal projects versus s you know a more uh um you know a a road with bike lanes with you know like a holistic yeah combined project approach. But none of anything listed your issues with I I hear your issues and I think they're fair. It's it's really not an FCS problem. It's a city problem of how we choose to do our transportation planning.

No, I'm not accusing any consultant. I'm just saying that the way that I see it, I have a strong technical reservation about the accuracy of using that formula to calculate the impact fee. So So hey, what here's what I'd like to do now. So say we'll we'll come back to you. So you've you made at least initial concerns about um the technical uh accuracy of the methodology, right? But but again I want to make sure that I I'm making it clear. I I'm fully supportive of the scaling. I have a problem methodology.

Right. Right. Yeah. That's clear. At least to me it's clear. So but we should hear from others. So how about let's we go around this way. S we'll come back to you if there's other things you'd just like to mention. So John, would you what's your position on the motion?

Since I made the motion, I support it. Um I I think a lot of the concern there's timing issues with between we're already behind deadlines on this part of the comp plan. Budgets coming up, you know, so this is going to be a very iterative process over time. I'm looking at Michael back there in the audience. Ultimately, the budget stuff comes down to council decisions about what gets included in CIP and and exactly what what those look like. You know, is it a new sidewalk because the development is close to a school? You know, that's going to decide how they can spend some of this impact fee money. Assuming we recommend to the council that at least some percentage of um impact fee is charged. I'd go 100% but that's my personal

Yeah, that's the next next one. Okay, that's

Yep. My my my is the same as last time that the way we evaluate or value the parks and again I'll use the same example I used the last time that if someone today donates 100 acres to the city that will actually negatively impact how much impact fee we collect from our fellow neighbors who wants to build property. properties or from any developer who wants to build a property instead of helping it's going to make it worse. And that's that's where I have an issue with the methodology. I heard that Kirkland uses it. I heard that Redmond is about to use it. What what other methodologies that other cities are using? Redmond and Kirkland and are two out of many. And uh again I I I don't honestly I don't want to repeat what we talked about last time because I don't think you changed anything. You you just showed me that yes what I was saying from before was correct that they are including the donated lands. It's inflating the value. They they are they are inflating the value of the parks which is not helping the impact fee to become lesser which is making houses not affordable. It's increasing the value of building houses.

Appreciate that. One one I got the the one that's missing the button. One one uh thing that might be helpful to the council is understand and in the past you have said that you're you disagree with that. One thing that might be helpful is to understand what you would do differently. Um, we understand that you don't agree with it, but one thing that would be helpful is if you could explain then how would you do it? Uh I asked in the past that if we look at different cities the the areas that are parks per per the people who live in the city. Do we have enough parks or do we need more parks? In my opinion we have plenty of parks. Like I said if we walk to any park in the city of Seamish it's empty. I do not believe we need more parks and probably we do not need more parks for the next 10 years. We need to improve the quality of services we provide in the parks. We need that CIP list. We need more items in that CIP list. I I would fully support that. We we need to improve those parks significantly. But to use the value of the parks themselves as the way to come up with an impact fee, that's where my disagreement is. So it sounds like your disagreement is with the level of service standard that is a park acreage per person.

My disagreement is with the way we come up with the impact fee. I don't want to say my disagreement is with the quality of service that we provide.

So the level of service is set by the city's parks and recreation open space plan and by the comprehensive plan and within those plans the level of service is anchored by the the acreage per person. That is why the methodology that is being used for the purpose of impact fees is related back to the value of acreage per person which then results in us having a corresponding uh measurable uh fee that could go along with new development in order to sustain that acreage per person that is identified by the parks and recreation open space plan and the comprehensive plan and I understand the desire to want to have a different level of service. However, to do that, we would first need to amend the parks and recreation open space plan. Then we would need to amend the comprehensive plan in which we would amend the capital facilities plan to identify a different level of service which is a different standard. Maybe it is a a recreation facility um by square foot of you know that there's got to be a different way to measure that service for that quality of of that facility. Um but currently that is not how it is set up in those documents. So again, much like the disagreement about the capital facilities plan for transportation, there is a process to do that. And given where we are, the reason why we ended up with that that methodology is because of that level of service that was set years ago in the pros plan, two years ago in the comp plan, and that we are now following up on this phase of of implementing uh that through impact fees.

Yep. Thank you. I see a similarities of what what is Jean is talking about is exactly the concern that I have on a transportation. Exactly. So a suggestion here in terms of

um not going through dramatic changes to um all these plans but coming at it from the other direction and that is instead of s suggesting 100% of the parks fee to council you suggest some different percent to mitigate and offset um the donated properties or however you want to do it, but make it a budget issue rather than trying to change the methodology. It it's a way to reduce it, but honestly, I wouldn't be able to justify it. If someone says to me, how did you pick the number? It's just going to be a wild guess. So, the answer for us as to how you pick the number is that oh, the percentage. I mean, I guess you could understand what percentage of the properties listed on the list are donated and you could simply adjust it based on that.

Uh, John, you your background in sparks and red. Can you educate us a little bit of what what Sean is talking about as far as and I totally agree with what what he's saying that instead of increasing the increasing the value of a land therefore charging more to the developer for the parks buying more parks park space that we probably don't need it but improve the quality and the and the features of the typical Can you elaborate on this based on your background?

Right. I keep this quick. Um, in the consultant study, they want to do total valuation. The parks department wants to know that. The parks commission definitely wants to know that. And that's probably why they've included everything in including the kitchen sink. So from the from the parks department perspective, they want to make sure everything's in there. If there needs to be an adjustment to how much the impact fee is charged to new development, that becomes a budget issue, as David suggested, could be reduced by looking at how much donated property there was or some other factor, but reduce it on the budget side rather than in the methodology side.

No, that's not I don't think that that's what Isam is talking about. what Disham is talking about. Instead of focusing on purchasing the property for the future expansion of the park, improve the facilities that you offer in each park. Evan can speak to that.

Well, yeah, and that's what I was looking and trying to pull up here. So, listed in the report is the capital facilities project list in the park section which is on screen now. And you can see there is a line item towards down at the bottom here of land acquisition and it's $4.3 million. But the majority of the the improvements are improving the existing park system. And remember, like we said earlier, the the benefit of the historic investment methodology is that we can use the impact fee revenues on any of these projects here, any anything listed here. So we can the the big dollar ones like the Big Rock South the phase one improvements or uh you know the the synthetic turf overlays. These are all eligible to be funded by impact fees based on this methodology. And I think at a higher level really the question is is do you do you want it is a revenue source for the parks system for the parks department to use on these system improvements and by rejecting it we are rejecting a revenue source.

Time out. Time out. Not necessarily every one of these because if these some some of these items has to do with the deficiency of existing system you cannot charge a park impact fee. you can on parks, you cannot with transportation. And again, that's we've talked about this at a couple meetings about they are are fundamentally modeled differently. And the historic investment approach, which we've used in the park system, allows for that spending. If I could add one thing here too. Um, one thing to keep in mind is that the parks fee that we're talking about in the methodology, the capital facilities list, the pros plan, the the level of service, that is all under the purview of the parks and recreation commission. So, the pros plan was developed by the parks and recreation open space commission. It was approved by the city council. the the um the the method of measuring the level of service was something that was developed through the parks department with the pros with the parks commission. Um and there is the parks commission as I understand it I can't speak for them does have a strong interest in both improving our existing parks but also land acquisition. So that that nine-person body would have a lot to say about this and we are basing the way we are modeling these fees on the direction that they have given through the pros plan through the the the capital facilities element and the comprehensive plan and we are simply here to implement it. Um, so if we're here second-guessing their whole approach to how they measure level of service and their whole approach to whether we should be acquiring land with a land acquisition strategy, that's a whole another conversation and we probably should stop talking about this alto together, take it back to the parks commission or maybe have a joint meeting with them so that they have a say in this as well because it sounds

like we're basically going a different direction than what they have done through the pros plan, through the capital facilities planning effort and through their level of service and how they've set it. Hey, I have two things. One, Evan, slide that up. So, it says total growth related portion of the CIP is about 36 point. What What does the rest of that paragraph say? Or

as this value is greater than the value needed for growth, no adjustment is required to reduce the impact fee. So when I read this and I may be missing something. It's been I I haven't read this prior to this particular meeting but for once before um the way I read that is when um the consultants maybe in concert with the parks commission or department looked at this whole list which totaled the 36 37 million that they said that we don't need to make an adjustment. we're good using the methodology of the value of the land. So it seemed internally consistent to me frankly. Um so I know we've got there's a lot of energy around these things. What I'm going to we want to hear from Mazi too. Uh and

if I can just say one thing quick. My issue is not with the way the parks and recreation commission they come up with their capital improvement list. My issue is the way the consultant calculates the per capita. That that's where my issue lies.

Yeah. And what I was going to say is we we will get to a vote. We'll either pass or not. If we don't pass, then we're basically saying that we're we're rejecting the report from the consultant. And I we'll have to talk a little bit about what implications that would have. What I think from a council standpoint might be better. And I'm not I'm not trying to sway the vote here, but if we do pass it, uh be very clear about the concerns that we have. The report that we send to council should be very clear. And in the sense and I usually don't like to do this but it would be upward managing the council to say you've heard our concerns and now you all have to decide whether to accept or reject the methodology based on the significant debate that we've had and the clarity around hasham your concerns and sed your concerns and we'll just have to make those crystal clear in the report to council

and I know that some of the council members either attend or or watch the videos so they'll have a chance to you here first stand so to speak. So uh we should hear from you too. Thank you. Thank you for giving me time. So my concern or question is basically around the sensitivity of the assumptions. So many of the fee calculations depend on assumptions such as population growth, generation rates and the share of transportation projects attributed attributable to growth. Did FCS perform any sensitivity analysis to show how the impact fees would change if these assumptions vary? For example, if growth is slower or if trip pattern changes. So any any idea we have on that?

We we didn't they didn't do any sort of sensitivity analysis. It was outside of their scope. The the assumptions we used are what we've been working with the last four or five years on the comp plan process is that we as a city are planning for 20 years of growth under the comprehensive plan the growth management act which this is all spin-off from and we are assuming we are planning for 2100 units of new housing over a 20-year period. So that's what we asked them to plug into their formula because that's what we're planning for. We're trying to it's again it's the idea of internal consistency. That's what that's what the county the whole log process is has said we can anticipate in growth. So that's that's what we've used.

Yeah. But given the conditions I mean you know you've seen layoffs happening around this part of the world. You know the way things are changing with AI and technology and you know less people actually needed to do those jobs. You know what we assumed 5 years ago may be different 10 years from now. I mean I don't know. I I don't have a crystal ball to predict that but at least do we have some like is this something which we can change in the future we want to set it in stone right saying this is what numbers are because those numbers could go down right

well as David said yeah like we do we do the comp plan process every 10 years so in 10 years we'll reook at the growth target the 20-year growth target we'll set a new one but on a a sooner time frame if as a city we're noticing like hey we're not growing we're not it's not it's flatlined or people are leaving, we can choose to recalculate our impact fees because we could say, hey, one thing we know this is set based on an assumption of growth that we're not meeting. So at which point we can use the same formula but use different inputs to to recalculate our fees. So do we do look at this at a year year-by-year basis? Do we look at this or is it fiveyear basis we look at it?

We're proposing that it would be done looked at with the budget process. So every two years we do we adopt a new budget and we we do sort of a a check, right? Like are we in line with the growth we've expected or are we way off? If we're generally in line, I don't know it makes sense that we go through this process every 2 years. Yeah. Plus orus 5% is okay up and down. I mean you be true but but if it's a bigger jump, right? I mean I mean the new Washington state income tax that got passed, right? People it could really change. Yeah. And which especially because it's a very millionaire kind of area. They're saying that millionaire tax might affect and people might move out. I mean I don't know what the growth may be. It might go down. I don't know. Yep. At which point we can re if if directed we'll we can update it. That is my concern. So thank you.

It's a good question. Thank you. A yeah, can you go back to the slide to the page where you had the highlights?

Yes, this number with the highlights. I just want to cover one point out of that. Okay, here we go. So, we we've looked I looked at this thing for for the inputs, right? When I was seeing these inputs and I saw that we have here we have accounted for some $32.2 million in here. They're looking at $37 million as the total impact fee. we have some some some other calculations that will come in and that's why comes your paragraph at the end at the bottom of the other slide that other page that you were showing which said uh we are not going to change anything because it is accounted for am I right in lining up these two things first of all

close but this is the transportation impact fee input and we were talking about the parks impact fee and the parks impact fee and Again, they're fundamentally calculated differently.

They're fundamentally calculated differently. Okay, that's good. Now, over here, right, and we've talked about the transportation fee, impact fee, addition, and all of those things. So, I looked at this thing and I used to think that, okay, we look at the Isakqua Pine Lake Road and the 238th lane, uh, and signal improvements that has, um, that has barely any, uh, eligibility percentage that's that's coming up into this thing. So, so, so that does the this one. Then I looked at I used to look I mean I I when I used to look at this number I used to see before your highlights were there the Southeast connector road and new signal on Southeast 8th Street and that is a transportation impact fee and that has a really good impact out of it. That's 100%. So it does all of these things. I and I I was rationalizing all of it together and I was thinking okay this is good. But when m when commissioner Elkawat said um you know it we have parks and we have these things and we are not using it and we're not we're not making we're not making enough out of it. I don't know why we are having an expense that is adding on to these things and I know that these two are unrelated or or these two are not the same thing but eventually all of it adds up into one specific pressure point and that specific pressure point becomes the cost of living in Seamish which keeps on increasing with all these fees all these projects and everything that goes on with this whole thing. And going back to what uh Commissioner Mazer said, which is that with the way the economy is changing with the with the population that's over here, AI needs us to have lesser jobs. It's going to it it has an impact on everyone. It's it's going to change the way we are doing these things. I went back into thinking what uh

director David Pile said which is that you know these are the livers and these are the buttons that we can decide to press in the 2-year review period and come back and say okay this was not what we thought it is there is not enough of the growth over here we have to reduce this down or we have to increase that we we don't think it's 7.67% like you have over here 7.6% 6% like you have over here, but it should be at 25%. For this thing, but it'll be something else for something else and then it'll add up on to doing that. Am I getting too far into the weed to decide this thing, or is it the is the understanding that at the end of it, we've all everybody has driven into this concept of let's look at it at $37 million. Let's look at this at the traffic impact fees of $32 million. Let's look at it. Let's compare. Let's get it to a point. And then after that, we will we will use the we'll use the levers and the buttons as uh director David says all the time to figure out where we land about this whole thing when we don't have it. If that's the approach, I understand that approach. I appreciate that approach and I think that because we are at the front end of a lot of these things, we we don't have a good template to run with and we may become the template for it and I understand that. But if that is the case, I would definitely encourage that we should acknowledge it in the document to say that we will we will review it at the 2-year period with the comment that Commissioner Hisham had, which is that we will see the usage and figure out whether this is all valid, this is needed and and then change it based on that metric. At this point, we are not even acknowledging that point. And if you don't acknowledge that point, my worry is that we'll keep on building. We'll keep on making it at 37 at whatever million dollars or whatever the amount is and then we're going to come back and we're going to give the city

council an unenviable role. Sorry, I got so excited. We'll give the city council an unenviable role to say, okay, this is the cost that is there. This is the money that we thought is coming. It doesn't look like it's coming. So there's no other point but to now charge the people who are living in the city to pay for what we have already broken ground for and that will end up making it much harder for us to achieve any of the other goals that we have established for this thing. So, can we make it into the into the 2-year plan to say that we are going to go back and we're going to look at utilization of these resources that we're going to invest. And at that point, we will take a hard decision whether we want it or not. And if you don't do that, we run into the risk. But if you do that, at least we have a timeline and a metric that we can go for. Well, there was a lot there. So, I I hope I can address parts of it. um or all of it effectively. But one thing to note is that we've been collecting transportation impact fees for 20 odd years. This is not a new thing. The only thing that is new about it is that it now scales based on the size of development. And FCS is largely dusting off the old methodologies we've been using. So this is not a new untested thing. This is creating a way for the city to pay for infrastructure to support new growth. And if we choose not to do it, it it's like the idea um I think what you wanted to add clarify something.

Yes. I I don't want to say that we are not going to do it. What I'm saying is that at the end of two years when we come up for the first review, I want to definitely look at to see how is the city utilizing or is is primed to utilize some of these improvements that are there and to change the way we calculate it at that point in time and then every two years after that or whatever time that we decide it to be to do that to actually put that in put that into the ground to do it because if we don't do that, we are doing this purely as a theoretical exercise. At this point, we're doing this as a theoretical exercise and then the city council is going to come and is going to have to deal with an actual problem and that is the shortfall. And when that shortfall happens, we're going to cut everything. And I'll make it very simple. We'll cut off fireworks to say, let's make it happen.

But there but there's no revenue projections here. This is not what

it's not a revenue projection. What I'm saying is that revenue projections will come up at at a later point in time because we are looking at cost projections over here, investment projections over here and that does not nobody has a blank check right now to say I'll give you $37 million do whatever you want to do with it right I we are definitely going to look at it and come back and see has this been utilized at that point we don't have a way to say we earned this much money out of it there is no way we're going to do that none of these projects building a sidewalk is not going to make bring revenue into the picture, right? But what I'm saying is that we have to then make a Sophie's choice question of whether it is whether it's living up to its worth or not. And that goes back to Commissioner Hisham's question of why are we building more parks when we have so many parks over here? That time we might come back and say, "Yeah, we plan for it. We planned for 14 parks. It doesn't look like we using even the seven parks that we have. Why build this 14 parks? we will stop at stop at 8 or 9 to figure that out and and to without stating that we have a quantitative given we having a quantitative discussion let's add a quantitative point to say let's come back to a hard review 2 years from now to see how the utilization is and if the utilization does not line up to where we think it would be in a in that 20-ear cycle let's change the buttons and the less

so let me um so I was taking notes so what I was hearing is it uh a part of our transmitter letter will include a recommendation to take a hard look at two years. And you said utilization. So so if I capture it right, what utilization of the fees, the impact fees or utilization of the what? Um the utilization of the um how do I say this? I'm trying to find the right word. The utilization of the facilities, if you'll call it that, the parks or this you may want to say assumptions. Sorry. Assumptions. Yeah, the Yeah, the exemptions. Yeah. Okay, that's a good one. Actually, that's a better way to say it.

We'll listen and tie that together along with the concerns about the way the calculation is for the park impact fees. Um, is there anything else that you you No, that that was my biggest concern at this as we go through it. Right now, we're doing a very theoretical exercise and it all lines up. It seems like it's all line lining up here and there and everywhere, but we're doing it based on numbers. We're doing it on a quantitative scale and we're not doing it on a qualitative scale, but I'm saying that let's measure the qualitative use in 2 years from now and then come back to do it.

No, just if I may add, I mean having numbers and doing theoretical is is not wrong. I mean that's that's that's good to do but to do it at one time and just forget about it is not right. Every two years or whatever every repeatedly we go to it should be live. It should not be a fix and say that's it. every two years revisit and say hey whatever assumption we had whatever numbers we projected did we achieve this did we go above them did we go below them if we go below them or above them then adjust the model adjust the plan so on whatever levers are and then say now this is what is and every two years they may go up they may go down we don't know exactly because I don't have a lot to predict

this is what I used in this thing which is why I went back to your this one into coming back and I know that this is not the one please again all the caveat that I want to add that this is not the one but we we will come back to saying that if you look at this you said that the transportation impact out of Isakqua Pine Lake Road is at a 7.6%. Right? No. No. What it's saying is that 7.6% of that project adds capacity to the system. Add capacity to therefore 7.6% of that total project cost would be eligible to be eligible for this one. So 7.6% is what you're saying is the eligible.

We can come back and we can look at it to say actually this is very close to a couple of schools. This is very close to uh the Pine Lake mall, the Pine Lake strip mall. Everything is there. It seems like it's not 7.6%, it's 14.4%. Let's go ahead and look at that for that.

I I think I'm following. I think what in theory though, what would have happened ideally is that that project would have been built. So, it would just be out being used by people in the community. It would no longer be assessed by how much capacity it's adding because it would have it's on the project list. This is And ideally that project would have been funded in part by using impact fees and built out there servicing the community. So I think it's hard there. I don't know you couldn't revisit it then because it wouldn't be included on the project list cuz it's built. So in a future iteration, ideally these projects will have been funded and built and will be have added capacity to the system if if they add capacity or repaired the existing system and they wouldn't be counted next time in the transportation model because again they're fundamentally very very different about how they calculate it. So uh I think that's why I feel confused about this example is because in theory it will be built or it will the amount of its eligible capacity that it could add.

Yeah. Yeah. I understand where where I got it wrong. I was not more this on that particular project that is there. I was just using it as an example. But my my my thought process was when I saw the yellow versus the non- yellow part of it was to say yeah where there we go for it for the yellow parts of it which which says 100% and other things we're going to come back and we're doing this thing. What I'm saying is that can we do the same thing in the other one too to to and and use the levers. At this point I don't see anywhere where we have where we are even giving a notification. We're even giving a an idea of where those levers and buttons are of what what we can what we can change what we can do and that makes this model extremely brittle commissioner Maher said.

Yeah. And I think I'm following you a little bit more like where can the adjustments be made? Where can the adjustments be done? Yeah. Well, part of what makes these these models tricky and complicated is they're trying to come up with a sound legally defensible methodology for estimating the value of the system or the impact the future impacts of a system. And so it needs to be a very quantitative datadriven exercise. I completely And so I think there's a little bit of a tension of that's why it's hard for us to spend so much time talking about the methodology because it just needs to be what it needs to be to be defensible and robust and a reasonable estimation of our impacts there. If we when when we get

Yeah. And simple, right? Because there is no perfect way to do a lot of this stuff. We unfortunately the policy realm is a gray area and we look at long-term assumptions and whatifs and what whatnotss but it's always we're going to live in the gray a little bit. This is the best tool we have currently for estimating the value of our systems and how to then charge newcomers to the system so they pay their share to improve it as they use them. That's again the whole idea. Um I've lost my thread a little bit. I'm sorry. I I completely agree with you.

Oh, the discretion is coming once we get past this method. Again, the staff's recommendation is the methodology is sound. It is what it is. You will then have discretion on do you charge how much of it do you charge? If your concern is that it's putting too much burden on newcomers to the community, which I think ultimately is Hisham's Hasham's point, then a sound recommendation would be to choose to charge less or none of the parks fee in in in Commissioner Elkawad's example.

But so that goes back to the buttons and levers that you were talking about, which is that we will then do that. I completely agree with that. What I'm saying is that can we also add that into the language that we are going to recommend to say that we will definitely look at this in two years and start pushing the limits and we've got a note here and Evan I'm sure that you know you you watch the videos but it's also written into the code to do a assessment every two years or to use escalation based on I don't think that it makes reference to the two years is frequently and that's that's the question that I have it It's frequently. It doesn't say two years. Yeah. And part of that was to leave some discretion. That's right.

To the council. Yeah. It was it was originally that, but we did change it. Okay. In part because this is this is a this is now a timeconsuming effort that we've gone through and to obligate ourselves to do this every 2 years might not make sense if our growth projections are reasonably within the 5 10%.

I I'm not even to the 2-year model. If you say that it's the fouryear, that's fine. What I'm saying is that let's put it in the this one to give a date and a time because this model is an evolving model and without the date we can never go back and review it and do this thing and we will either build something that is not used or we will not build for something that needs to be there. One thing that I can say predictably that is true that unless state law changes we will be and one of the biggest inputs as I understand it aside from the methodology about how we you know whether we're using a a acreage per person or uh you know end trips people and trips right those are are parts of the puzzle but the other biggest part of the puzzle that I keep that we I think we've heard the most about in this whole process is the CIP lists And one thing that I do know is that we do update the CIP lists as part of the budget every two years. So, as long as we're updating those lists and as long as that at as part of that process, we are assessing how we are progressing with housing in the city and whether we're meeting our state and county obligation for housing and whether we're meeting our internal need for housing as we hear about, we have the ability to push those buttons, turn those dials to say that, okay, the the the the CIP list and the methodology ology results in this base fee per square foot and we can choose to say we don't want to collect any of it as a matter of a market catalyst. If we said we hey we're not seeing any new housing being built in the city and we wanted to add a market catalyst. The council wanted the commission wanted to recommend it. The council wanted to do it. We could choose as a city as a policy choice not to collect an impact fee. We could also

on a limited time basis

for a limited time basis and then we revisit it again in two years and keep revisiting it and maybe then the the like the comment about you know the economy and jobs and things like that maybe that's changed and the the where we are now historically have been is that we do this every 10 years and it's not working. So we are proposing to try to be more responsive to do it every two years. Um, and if we don't do it every two year, do we don't do it in 2 years, well then there's a automatic clause built into the code regarding a market factor or excuse me, a inflation adjustment. There's a term that's better. I I'm not doing a good job describing it. I apologize, but that that would be included there. So I think what what we are saying is is that this is the formula that we have brought forward that is based on the on the one hand for transportation the transportation master plan the capital facilities element of the comp plan and the capital facilities um uh plan or excuse me capital capital investment plan uh list that we have that's for transportation and that's what that's based on and we understand that there's disagreement about the projects that are on the list and that there should be smaller projects that are more attainable because we actually want to build them. Um, not just big projects that are pie in the sky that we'll never do. Um, and we understand that that needs to be updated and we need to do that. That's part of that other part that's bringing the new CIP list in in 2 years or I guess this year. We understand that on the other side that there is some disagreement and and about the the fact that do we really need to buy more parks land? Why do we have a a um a level of service that is pinned on an acreage per person? Are we just chasing acreage or are we chasing a quality of the experience for the use the user? And we might want to evaluate our CIP as it relates to um that and the

pros plan and maybe there needs to be a tweak made to the pros plan to better reflect that. And that is direct feedback. We're going to be meeting more closely with parks and parks commission. We'd like to have a joint meeting with you all in the near future and I think that would be a good time to address that. But for now, our adopted and embedded in the comp plan and in the pros plan is is an a level of service that is based on acreage per person. So that is how we came up with the formula. So in that case, it's those two factors. It's the it's the level of service and the capital facilities plan that plays into that one. So given that and given the results that we have based on what we're given the the CIP the the TMP the the person and trips the the pros plan the level of service the the acreage per person the CIP that supports that we end up with these two fees these fee these base fees on a per square foot level that can be scaled to small units at the lowest end 3500T units now at the the high end and the next so if you if you understand that we understand you might not agree with exactly how all that works but there's a lot of pieces to move to change those things we can work on that but if you can move to the next step the next if you go back to the list of things

can I can I can I

let me just finish one thing I'm sorry one the next thing you're going to be talking about is whether or not you should charge the whole fee and you whether you think it's too high whether you think because of these factors maybe we should only charge 75% of it. And it's going to be hard to pick that number to to your credit, right? Um but that is part of the policy decision is we think it's too high. We think it should be lower. We think that that given that there's all this extra park land, maybe we should bring it down 25%. Maybe we only charge 75% of it. That's that next step in this whole process. Thank you for bearing. I appreciate I want to get back to uh a comment and then can you go back to that highlighted list please?

Uh sorry no problem. I want to kind of make a point that everybody should know that list of projects and impact fee. That's fine. No problem. Okay. So question on that list basically tells us three things. The project, project cost and eligibility. Right. Who created that? City or city staff or consultant?

It was created by city staff with the city's transportation consultant DKS with the city's uh impact fee consultant um FCS. Right. There is nothing we lost. There is nothing in the report says what was the basis what is the formula used to calculate the eligibility. Let me give it an example. That's good feedback. I think the Holly way the Holy Way project that is number one everybody comes and talk about the deficiency eligibility according to that list is 6%. Yeah. Would you believe that? Well, I I I'd add Crusader away TR 125 is shown at 0%.

So that's my question that what was what was the formula that was used to to calculate eligibility and that is something we can bring back to FCS that we could ask that they thread into excuse me well it would be FCS because it' be part of the report and now it outlines that methodology

back to Mr. Mazir's comment about the troop generation or a number of trips or future actually I was seeing something on one of these AI site that city of Samish is a leader in telecommuting in in the whole Pujasan region that is not included these numbers that you see is coming from the IT international located in Washington DC and this this trip generation that they use to calculate that the consultant and city staff uses is average condition not for the city of Seamish that you have high number of the people that they using other modes of transportation like like

but that is changing because now Microsoft has gone go back to work so those numbers will change

exactly that's what I'm saying that yeah all of this stuff like I started early on about any model is is just that it's our best illustration and there's lots of different ways of doing that and all of them are fraught with all sorts of issues And so you take your best shot. So kind of where I'm at on this is after seven meetings or six and a half meeting 7 and 1/2 whatever the numbers um that the basic report has a methodology the formulas the formulas not the list of transportation projects and it provides a defensible way of determining the impact fees. Uh, and frankly I I in prior meetings I brought some similar things up including Hasham about the parks because I I was having trouble getting my arms around using the value of the parks for parks projects. Um, but all that's saying is that we've got so much square footage or acreage of parks and we need to maintain it in some way or improve it. I mean not maintain improve it. It doesn't imply buying new property and in fact the list of projects only one of them has if I remember right or a small number have new property. So I think the question for us and for me is is this methodology solid enough to go with or would we say go back to the drawing board and produce a whole different methodology.

Yeah. and I don't think that's worth our cost as a city to do that. Frankly, there's a cost for continuing this thing and I don't want to pay it. Um, however, I think there's some really important points and um the report because it is it's going to be the sort of the reference document, right? And if things are unclear in that, so for example, great point say about how exactly is that transportation eligibility percentage determined? You know, is there any guidelines for that or is there a reference manual out in DC or someplace that should be referenced? And I think we should make that in the notes assuming that we pass this forward that there are some uh necessary refinements to the report to enable it to be a good reference document. And that would be that's at least one that I noted. And then there's a few things that you know we've got some concerns about and we've had them for every single meeting. So we should capture those and make sure that the council members understand those right. Um, but are they enough to say we should throw out the whole methodology and at least for parks and if not for both start fresh and and frankly I can't support doing that from a fiscal responsibility standpoint for the city.

One point that we haven't discussed you and I we discussed it with the staff but for the rest of the my fellow commissioners there is a provision for the developers if they dispute the impact fee there's a process. Yeah. And that's part of there's a process. I just want to kind of remind them there is a process that they can hire consultant and submit it to the city. City forward it to the city's consultant. They review it and then based on that Can I say something wrong?

No. Can I have one thing to what you're saying? So one thing to also remember is we're looking at a lot of large dollar numbers with these CIP lists. impact fees are collecting basically pennies on the dollar compared to what it costs for us to to make infrastructure improvements in the city. And my tongue-in-cheek way to say this is we we could have spent already more in these seven meetings than what we actually would have collected in the first year. Um just saying um so it it is a very small amount of money um based on the rate that we grow. I mean, I'm looking at the Office of Financial Management um population reports and it shows that for 2025, our population was 68480. For 2024 was 68410. So 70 people we grew in one year. Um and for 2023 it was 68280. So we've grown 200 people from 2023. Um so these are reports that are showing that growth. Now the growth was faster in the past. There's there's different periods really. It depends on as was stated, you know, trends in employment and housing need and those types of things. Um so there are there are different rates of growth at different times. But the point being is that impact fees does not bring in a lot of revenue to the city for infrastructure. Um so just keep that in mind. That's in my mind that's that's one of the things in the background is that we're not we're not really making a lot of money here. Um well and to add to that uh because one of the actually the reason the assignment we all got this was to get this so that impact fees reflect um square footage. In our case, bigger units are going to pay more because they have more impact. And um small units actually the amount of money is going to be relatively small. You know, the bigger units it gets to be

a little bit more significant, but on the bigger units it's going to be, you know, percentages, not 10 or 15. It's going to be 3% or 4% or 2% to the cost. Not that that's irrelevant, but it's relatively small. So anyways, we've been through we've gone around uh we have a motion and a second on the motion. Uh and this is about accepting the report that's shown in exhibit one. I'm ready to ask for a vote. Does anybody else want to make one more additional comment? Trying to push us along a little bit. So I hope you can appreciate that. Okay. So um who is in favor of the motion to accept the report shown in exhibit one?

I am I I I three four. Okay. And opposed two. Okay. 42. And we do appreciate the conversation because we have all the information around the the other perspectives that we can make sure to capture in the um recommendation to the council and the sending opinions. for sure. That's what I meant by that. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay. And I'm also thinking um normally I guess David between you and Evan or Evan you put together when we've done these in the past the the letter you draft that um when Mark was chair Mark and I would do a review. Usually it was great. um and we would sign. Um we'll do a little bit more thorough review and maybe this time we might want for the dissenting opinions to make sure that you have a chance to you know make sure we've captured those well uh because we really do want the information of our debates to be very clear for for council. Sure. Will we have a meeting with the council in the future sometime? Don't we have one every once a month? Could you bring this up at that time?

It's once a year thing typically. once a year. At the commission and council's discretion, they could choose to increase the frequency. Um, but traditionally, it's been once a year in the fall, usually in October, September, October, I think. Um, I do want to highlight that, aren't we going to cancel this on the 21st? Yes. Yep. So, there will be a fairly tight turnaround on that letter. So, uh, we're going to be working on it right away. And in order for us to get it in the packet for publication to the council, we would need to have it published on uh the 17th, Friday the 17th. So just want you to be aware for that this first part. I know we still have more to do here, but wanted you to be aware of that.

So a question. So David, when you send a report to the council and those that voted against, you're going to be basically showing what we said our position. Are you going to be rebattling our our position and make the statement the staff staff responses to those comments as well? No, we're not planning on that. That that's that's I hope that you don't. Yeah, I think we're just we're just trying to represent as best as we understand um what those positions are and we might reach out to you for for some some who voted um to support to make sure we're getting it right. We're not trying to put words in your mouth. So um we want to be careful of that

and actually if it's uh more expedient given the time frame Evan if you want to reach out to Sid and Ham directly with the draft before going to us. Sure. That would probably be a little bit more efficient either way. But that's I think that might be better. So good. All right. One down. It's the one we've had the most conversations.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh because the next one and John is already on record about the scaling. So um we see here that staff is recommending the 100% of the maximum calculated impact fees. So basically follow the formulas that that are in the report. Well, yeah, for now and and we recommend this in large part because it's historically what we've done. And as David said, ultimately the big picture we're talking about a fairly small amount of money, but it is money we can use to support building our projects. And we have a we have a projects building issue. We need more projects to support. So which is the revenue helps. It's not a huge thing, but it helps. Also, just as a point of context, on February 3rd, we asked this question to the council just kind of as a preliminary uh what are you feeling? And I think to a person, they said make collecting 100% makes sense to them but they were eager for your input.

If I can just say something here because I heard it multiple times that the impact feeds not that much and the revenue helps. Yes, additional revenue helps but when you take this additional revenue from someone who wants to build a house, it hurts and it will increase the cost of housing. We saw it a couple weeks ago on the couple that their house was destructed by the storm and the revenue that we were trying to collect from them and how it was hurting them. So I one one is one too much. So I I wouldn't say it's not that much. It's too much for someone who wants to build.

Yeah. And well there's maybe a slightly way a different way of thinking. This is not going to be a new thing. I mean these impact fees have been assessed again for 20 plus years in the city thereabouts. So it's not

again but it is again the idea that when someone these systems that we all use currently are being paid for by current residents tax dollars and the impact fees whenever their housing unit was built. So this system has been built by the folks here. The idea is that the folks coming here who are going to use the systems and we need to build more systems to accommodate them coming here are kind of paying their fair share. The idea is development is is paying some of the share of the impacts of development. So I think it's just an alternative way of thinking about it. So in this case where a house was there impact fees were paid 10 15 20 years ago whatever and something happened storm happened whatever and we just rebuilding it we are not adding any extra capacity any extra trip because the same four people who are living are just going to live in it probably the same size of the house so there should not be any new impact fees correct

we'll get into that hang on hang on that's going to be one of the other portions yeah the third bullet here is specifically around that is when it's okay to say no.

But there's something here that sometimes we say there's no fee. There's no impact fee on existing. It's only on new. We know that new sets the price of existing. When we increase the price of new, existing price, the market will go up and everything will continue going up. So it will have a negative impact on existing even though it's not direct but indirectly it will increase. Indirectly property taxes will increase. Indirectly monthly payments will increase. Indirectly retirees who are on limited income, they will face additional taxes, additional property taxes. So don't tell me it doesn't have an effect. It has a huge effect.

Well, all I'm saying is that it's had the effect every time always a new house has been built. That's what I'm saying. Doesn't make it right. But I I also want to highlight one thing and and I'm not I I I understand that that that side of it too that the cost of producing the housing is increased. Absolutely. And if if you're a person who is building a home that is going to then move into the home and own the home, sure. I I I agree with that. Um the part that I that I see over and over and play out in the community is that and and and it is a common thing that that a product the value of a product is not what it costs to produce it. It is what someone will pay for it. So assessors and appra appraisers set values of homes for the purpose of sale. It it is not dependent on what it costs to build it. It is what the market will bring to sell it. And we hear builders all the time say if if you add these fees on, you're going to make housing more expensive. And the reality there is it's sort of I I don't disagree that that's part of the equation. However, the the value of something on the market is not what it costs to produce it. It is what someone will pay for it.

Couple of questions. Last time that we talked David and Evans, I asked that if there's some numbers from the other jurisdictions as far as if they do show reduction impact or they have impact and what has been the consequences on that as far as bringing more businesses to the city. Do you have any numbers? No, I think it gets really tough to it's tough to quantify that I think of of being able to show a direct relationship between uh jurisdictions choosing to assess less impact fee and maybe more more building. It could be a number of factors that is causing more building. It could be interest rates or people moving in for jobs. I mean there's so many things I think

or bus line or Yeah. It gets Yeah. Yeah. And also how about how about listing possible tradeoffs more or less what is talking about that if you go with 100% if you go with the no with the answer no to that question and then go with 100% what would be the trade-off consequences as far as less number of developers coming and building. though it would be nice to have some some trade-off items that in the case that fees are reduced or not reduced, what would we impact on a development?

I think that that's great feedback and we can definitely think about how to present that to the council when we bring it forward to them. Um, and based on your feedback about where you think, you know, we should land. Um, I I will highlight that based on my experience working with a wide range of builders, whether it's a individual homeowner who's trying to build a home or whether it's a builder who's trying to build a, you know, 30 unit subdivision, um, and any range in between there. that by and large it's not the impact fees that are causing the costs and causing a builder to want to build a home in the city or causing an individual homeowner to try their success in building a home in the city. It is things like tree retention regulations, storm water rules, um setbacks, other envelope restrictions that go into that that make the land economics of the entire project much more expensive because of how efficiently that land is being used. And ultimately at the end of the day, impact fees are a very small part of that equation compared to other large land use economic drivers like tree retention and storm water that play into how a home is designed and fits on a site.

The other question, David, if you recall, I asked Could I interrupt for sure? Sure. So that we can get to the real question here, which is the recommendation to council. Um I think a so we can have a discussion about is it going to be 100% or something less. I think that's the question in front of us right now. Um and I think that's what we should be discussing. So to that that's what we're discussing. Do you know do you know that we haven't we haven't made the let's make the motion. I'm going to make the motion. I move to recommend

one one second. Uh John uh just to the this is just a word thing but your question and answers are in congress. Your question says does the commission recommend to the city to reduce the amount of impact fee on all units? The answer to that is no and if so what should the reduction be and what justification should the commission provide? The answer is 0% for that and then state that I move the city council assess 100%. Because we're not answering the questions that you put up. So, so we'll make the motion and then we'll ask the question. It's a good catch. You understand the intent though. So,

okay. So, I move to recommend to the that the city council assess 100% of the maximum scale calculated impact fees. Do we have a second? Okay, I'll go for it. I'll second it. All right. Thank you, AJ. And so discussion could include an amendment to that motion if we'd like to have less than 100%. So that's how we will work that. Got it.

So we'll start around this way. Go around and um you know say if you support 100% or something else if something else you know what would be at least a rough logic or rationale for that something else. And it could be as simple as I just think the fees are too high, you know, u but it would be nice to have some rationale for well 75% makes sense because maybe hard to do. Um but anyway, so John, my only comment here is just to refine this. You might think about, oh, okay, I want 100% on transportation, but only 80% on parks. So that's that's a potential way to refine this a bit. Otherwise, I support 100% all across the board. Just a point of clarification. Are we discussing both of the parks and rake on one? Okay. Like I said earlier, it's very hard to to come up with a percentage. So I would go with 50%. if if I have to pick a number, but I can I cannot defend it. I I cannot sit here and tell you how did I pick it just because I like half of it. But but but that that's not that should not be the way we do this. I'm I'm I'm just being honest here

actually just for clarification. So um that would and I'm going to put words in your mouth. Tell me if I'm misstating, but basically you're saying the impact fees because of the calculation are higher than they should be. We should reduce from 100%. And you're tossing out 50% as a starting point because I have to pick a number. The way the way we should do it, we should go over the numbers, agree on the methodology, and come up with the right impact fee instead of just sitting here and saying, "Uh, I like 50%." So, uh, I like 50%. One friendly proposal could be that you request that we assess the percentage of parks that are part of the the total um valuation of the cash valuation that have been donated and that as a matter of percentage we reduce the impact fee accordingly. At least that is related to a metric Nazi.

Um my question is basically I discussing this in this part of the next part is because I have some numbers I want to talk about regarding uh affordable housing. So should we discuss in this one or the next one because I don't want 100% basically what a well this is a kind of across the board whether it's affordable housing or not. So if we my understanding at least the way I was thinking about this is later on when we get to should there be some additional discount for lower AMI housing yes

uh let's say we do with 50% we do 50% and then further reduction for the low affordable housing so for the nonaffordable or for the what do you call regular housing I'm okay with the 100% or 50 whatever number we have but I have some other suggestions for the lower housing and ADUs and which is question three, right? So, I I'll refer that. Thank you. Yeah, I'm good for this then. Thank you. I don't have any data point to oppose the staff recommended motion of 100%. So, we'll go with the 100% at this moment. Say

uh I would go with the 25 I would go with the 25% across the board. But then once come to the housing I would like it into taking into consideration of the point that Mr. Signney brought up equity location maybe consideration for zone impact fee ratio for instance if the housing is built in a town center the rate should be the impact fee should be a little bit less than the other areas. I don't know how we going to be bringing that into some uh numbers but 25% across the board but further reduction for the affordable housing and some for the different zones.

Okay. And go ahead. Well, I I think it would be helpful to make sure in I think in the letter, right, to Commissioner Elquad's point, it it is very arbitrary to say 50% and then stop and and we can throw a percentage at it and the council can consider it, but the why behind it, I think I would like maybe just a short it reiteration of the why of from both of you because I think it's more impactful to say to the council, Commissioner Elquad thought a reduction by 50% % made sense because it lessened the impact on new development and and aims to reduce the cost of housing or what whatever you would say. So is that does that capture your sentiment? I would I mean it again I I cannot tell you how I came up with the number. when that's fair and and so maybe don't give a number and just say you think they should be reduced for the reason of and if there's a way we can help the council quant if they agree with that sentiment and we can help them quantify what that could look like

it's much better to say it like that it should be reduced I disagree with the methodology I I keep repeating it and I know that we are beyond that what methodology you're talking about the way we calculated the impact fee oh I see Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. You're right. No, it would be helpful if the why

I I think that you you summarize it very well. My concern is that that I look at the list of compro of cities in here. We are unfortunately we are after North Pin I think is the most expensive. reveal the second and I strongly believe that despite the fact that David seemed to not disagree not to agree with me that every dollar counts to the developer if you reduce the impact fee there's a good potential that you're going to see more development now uh David can I asked you this question before please clarify that again what is the reason that we not looking into nonresidential use and discuss that as far as potential impact act fee reduction even though that that that goes through different process commercial use offices spaces and all that why we not discuss anything here

why we focus on the residential again it's a choice to to assess impact fees period so it's a choice to assess them across the board on on commercial uses or residential uses so if you choose to reduction for all unit types we we've sort of taken up units because we're mostly talking about housing units and Samish but it would apply the reduction would apply across the board including residential commercial and so forth. So that would be I didn't know that till you just mentioned it. I thought that we only looking at residential but the impact fee that you're talking about no matter what the magic number is that would apply to the commercial as well.

I mean a percent if correct. So if there would be a if if we say 50% reduction that would apply incentive then in then then the incentive to reduce it is going to be substantially more to bring more development not only residential but commercial we desperately need it and that's the reason that I wanted to go with the minimum of 25%. But the further further reduction based on the zonal and equity issue town center versus other areas. So you would be recommend zone based impact fees.

Okay. That would be the state law allows us to create um what are they called? Service areas. So you would recommend service areas for further reduction beyond 25%. a specific town center related service area. Do we have only one service area? The whole city is the service area.

So what that would mean right is defining multiple service areas and determining the impact for each of those. And the only the reason I brought this up was in one of the prior meetings I thought at that point you would also need to go back to the basic formulas not just the percent reduction. That's a question. Um because there's there's different the reason that came up before was that um let's say an area of Samish is all built out there's not going to be any transportation added to uh address increased capacity and if that was a separate service area there would be no need to have impact fees for transportation. That's how that conversation went several meetings ago. So

what what is the reason that we have only one service area? What is the definition of service area?

It could be for example in in the transportation realm being broken down into transportation assessment zones. Um you could break it down into neighborhoods. You know some cities have um certain areas where they're anticipating more growth and that their system is in those areas might need to be improved and therefore that might result in a higher impact fee because that system is not as built out. Um there's a wide range of reasons why you would choose different service areas. Seamish is just not complicated enough to warrant having different service areas. We are for all purposes a very simple city. Um and if you wanted to add service areas that then results in our having to operate a program and if we have to operate a program then we have to bring on staff to staff that program. The city's biggest ongoing expense is its staffing. And one of the challenges with our fiscal sustainability is staffing. So we recommend that you keep it simple because we don't want to have to grow a program that would therefore manage different service areas and have to staff that program to support it.

Don't we have already established sub areas? We have one sub area in the city that is the town center but that's not the same as a service area like from the town standpoint. that is different than a service area. And it's important to to note that it would be hard to select the town center sub area as a service area and have a different transportation impact fee for that area because it is so intertwined with the broader system network. I thought that the direction from the new council is that that city staff should be focusing in new sub area or or sub area other than town center.

We do not have those on the books. We have in the city's future land use map as part of the 2024 adopted comprehensive plan the concept of future sub areas including Pine Lake, Englewood and Kohlani. In addition to that, there are I think five neighborhood centers that are conceptual neighborhood centers. All of which before they are put in place as an official sub area or neighborhood center would have to go through a formal sub area process likely an EIS and about a 2 to threeyear process to pull together a sub area for any one of those. Thank you.

Okay. Um, I I understand and and um appreciate the concerns about the impact fees and every every little dollar adds up to the costs and affordability is a huge issue. Um, I try to look at this the reason I'm I will say for the 100% is that although that's one element, there's a lot of elements that factor into development cost. David, you listed a bunch of them. just the time to get permits adds cost a lot. You know, every month of delay adds cost. And so in the grand scheme of things, although I do get and I totally appreciate every dollar matters, um we also need to be able to pay for infrastructure. And when I think about the concerns from the citizens that drove part of the election, it was about traffic and infrastructure, right? So necessary evil impact fees help. So I would I would be in favor of the 100%. U before voting, Evan, you were taking some notes and you caught Yeah. Could you at least not try to word smith them now, but at least capture the essence of what you put in so we can get a sense of what would be added to the the letter.

Do you want to do a motion to extend? Oh, look at that. Time flies. Let's let's finish the statement and then Yes. Yeah. Well, I think the commissioner both the commissioners seem to head out at the notion that impact fees should be reduced ultimately to lower the cost of new housing. You're you're not putting the numbers of 25%. I'll include I'll include 25%. I can include 50% if it matter. I mean if you want I I think the sentiment is more interesting to the council probably than the number. Um but I will absolutely include 25% for both.

Mine mine was not only 25% but the further reduction to the 50% based on the zonal or equity ratios. I don't know how you're going to define the equity issue. Yeah. And we'll we'll include it. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. We'll be able to capture that in the video. So, okay. So, we'll take a vote on the motion first and then we'll make a motion next to extend. All right. All in favor of the 100% motion as on the table say I. I. I. I. And opposed? I Okay. 42. All right. And would somebody like to make a motion to extend the meeting?

So move till 9 o'clock. Yeah, let's go to 9. Yeah, we're going to need more than that. All right. All in favor? Oh, unanimous. Great. Where's one tonight? All right, let's go to the next one. An option. Do we vote against it? Yeah, we can. All right, so this is this is the one Mazi that you're asking about, right? the affordable housing and further uh discounts for that. Um Evan, do you want to tee this up or should we just read that and

Well, I mean, I think what we tried to follow was a bit of a combination of what felt logical from what we've heard from the group and also um the idea that the deeply affordable housing is largely publicly subsidized anyway and charging any sort of impact fee might not make a whole lot of sense. So we we have proposed that for the deeply affordable range from 0 to 50% AMI, we'd wave impact fees. We would reduce impact fees for housing in the range of 50% up to 80% AMI, 51% to 80 by half. And then we would reduce 80% AMI to 100% AMI by 20%. before starting discussion of roughly what would be a house value at the 100% AMI. Oh man,

I know we've seen that but I can you it's in the Paul says I will take pause for it and we can David might be able to look in the comp plan because it's in there as well but yeah either Thank you, Paul. All right. Should we continue going around like continue going around like we've been? We've got a We've got a No, you cadence going. You want to make a motion before going around? Well, John's been making the motion, so that's okay. I'll throw a motion in a row.

Thank you, Z. I move to recommend that the city council wave impact fees for affordable housing at 0 to 50% AMI, reduce impact fees by 50% for affordable housing at 51 to 80% AMI, and reduce impact fees by 20% for affordable housing at 81 to 100% AMI. Second. Second. Oh, sorry. Almost got it.

All right, cool. And um as we start, I think one of the things that we should at least recognize is the um targets that we have in the comprehensive comprehensive plan around uh these affordable housing levels. So this could be complimentary to that as opposed to in some ways inhibiting. Right. I think part of the conversation David and I had is it's, you know, it's part of the in incentive toolkit that we have to help address affordable housing. It's it's part of a broader suite of tools. Am I up first?

Okay. Um just to refresh my memory and address I think MSI's question um ADUs will automatically be exempt because they're 1500 ft or less. Is that do I remember that right? David you answer

they are exempt from the inclusionary affordable housing requirement. Uh ADUs would be regulated at a th00and square feet or less according to state law and our code. Um, the cottages are 1500 square feet, so they would be exempt from the inclusionary affordable housing requirement. Um, is that your discretion to choose to exempt? Well, ADUs would be It depends on the size of the unit, right? The primary unit. the primary unit you can I think you can assess a maximum on an AD you can assess a maximum of 50% of the impact fee of the primary unit of the primary unit right

in in our next section we're going to have an opportunity to determine if we want to weigh fees yeah y okay thank you can be no more than 50% of the um the total the total fee impact fee for the primary unit. Yet to remember that I know what what are the other cities doing?

Again, I think we'd have to look at what exists now. So what what is based on the static fee versus the scaling fee model? And I think a lot of the cities we've looked at sees similar reductions of 20% for 80% AMI, 50% for 50% AMI, and steeper for affordable. It seems pretty in line with what we've seen across the board and sort of some of the recommendations we've heard from March. Okay. Thank you. Mhm.

So just before I start, uh just want a clarification on the ADU. So section 3B is ADU. We're going to talk about it later. So now, okay, so I just talk about affordable housing. Okay. So yeah, I mean some suggestions I had, one of them was the tiered fee reductions for affordable housing. Um I have a little bit more conservative numbers here, but I'm okay to go with these. Uh but there's other options we could have is for example a fee deferral program. So allow developers of affordable housing to defer payments of impact fees until after occupancy or sale. This reduces upfront financial barriers and improves cash flow for projects targeting low-income households. That's one option. The other one is allow developers to earn credit towards fees. They provide amenities that benefit the community like public open spaces, green spaces, trails, transportation improvements, etc. So, this can make affordable housing financially viable while still funding infrastructure. And um yeah, those are two I have. The other one is on edus. talk about later. But

yeah, both of those are actually allowed in code. Um, deferrals was something we'll talk about a little bit later, but any project can defer to the point of uh occupancy or sale. And uh if a development were to provide something that is identified on the project list, then they would be eligible to receive a credit. So, okay. Thank you. Good feedback. That's Yep. Of all the code modifications, 3A is my favorite. So, good. Nice.

I guess ditto to me. I mean, everything I'm I'm comfortable with these numbers. Call the vote quick. Is this the same planning commission? I think it's past 8:30. That's Let's go. Let's go. All right. So, let's take a a vote on the motion. All right. All in favor level of sensitivity of the issues. That's what it is. All in favor? I I Okay. Any opposed? All right. Oh, our first unanimous. Well, that wasn't extending, but that'sending.

All right. Um Yeah. And um there's also the one about the deferral, right? That's the last one. Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, this one uh is something we've been we've been flirting with and are excited to talk about. Should we uh include in the code exemptions for additions, accessory dwelling units, and potentially other exemptions you may have, but I think these were the ones that made most sense to us is additions and accessory dwelling units. understanding that rebuilds if it if done within a certain time frame are already um exempt.

Okay, I move the motion. Anybody? I second. Okay, we've got a motion and a second to exempt impact fees on additions and accessory dwelling units. So that's meaning none of these fees will apply to those. All right, discussion. I have a question. David and Evans, Mike, we talked about this. There's some reference made to some alteration. Remember we talked about it at the meeting that we had. I said that they're not included in exemptions. I thought that you're going to be changing this. We didn't have time to change. I mean, it was 2 days ago,

but do you want to kind of elaborate on that? Is if you could remind it would be helpful of a reminder or you could you there were some exemptions. These are copies of the of the uh code right now. Exemptions included, but then this wordage is not there. So, somebody makes an assumption that any more alteration would be exempt. Yeah, the the vice chair identified a opportunity to um reshuffle and clarify the relationship between two sections of code. Um one being um exemptions for payment of fees for um changes in use

reference made to any alter any alteration any alteration. That's right. That caught my eyes

and that we need to clarify what that means. um and and clarify what it means in with regard to exemptions and reductions. Whereas it currently states, assessment of fees for redevelopment or changes in use for a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement, or new accessory building. The impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by an amount equal to the current impact fee rate for the prior use provided that the applicant has previously paid the required impact fee for the original use and provided that the prior use has not been abandoned for more than 12 months. So I think the question was why is the term alteration used in there and what do you mean by that? If you're changing out a sink or or

Exactly. or putting a new counter top in, is it subject to an impact? I think largely this one the intention of this that line is really speaking more about commercial properties and tenant improvements because a tenant improvement when they come in to submit a tenant improvement uh application, they're it's signaling a change of use and flagging for us that they might be bringing a lot more trips into the system. So we need to assess that that balance of the impact fee. But it is but as you recall my suggestion was to put an asterisk down the bottom that this statement applies to the commercial notation. Yes. We could just change that to tenant improvement. Yeah. Yeah. Make it say tenant improvement instead of alteration. Exactly. That'd be clearer, wouldn't it?

Yeah. I appreciate the comment on that one. Thank you. It's it's another clarification uh and then we can continue debate. So, um, this is not saying that if we're doing an addition that there's, uh, there's it's saying there's no impact fee, even if the addition is greater than the original. So,

yeah, the the So, the way the code is currently set up is it exempts um tear down rebuilds if it's the same size. It exempts um tear down rebuilds as an act of nature if it's the same size. Um but but when you are doing a home addition or if you're tearing down and rebuilding with a larger unit, it exempts up to the original size of the unit, but you would then pay on the square footage um for um the additional square footage that you're adding. Yeah. And the reason I asked that is the way this is stated is that you're not paying for that additional square footage.

So policy choice.

Yeah. is if you if as we we you all as a community want your fellow community members who are building a big or doing an a home addition or who might have like the the Walker family have had their unfortunately had their home destroyed by um an act of nature and if you wanted to rebuild that very small modest home to a bigger home should you have to pay the um the impact fee. Now, this would also play out in the form of development, redevelopment. If you had a 1acre lot in the R4 and you had a single home there and it was very small and a developer bought it and they tore down the home and rebuilt out the lot with four units on that one acre and you would only be paying on on if this was and the home was much bigger, you'd only be paying on three units because the developer would be able to count that one as a rebuild of an existing unit. That's currently how we do it

where it's it's one, you know, it's a number. It's one down, one up. You don't pay on it. That's what I was just thinking about too that an example like that might happen and you need to be able to capture it. Uh further discussion now that we've got some clarifications, further discussion. Anybody have anything they want to add? Yeah. How's it gone? Are we going in order or Well, John's John was I think he's I give up my time. Thank you. You yield too much time.

You yield the time. Thank you. So my question is I'm trying to understand the definition of ADU because we're talking exemptions on ADU. So I I mean you just added a little bit more information. Just want to make sure I'm clear. So if I have an existing house and if I add another unit in the same lot. So if it was whatever like the mother-in-law apartment or whatever I create on top of the next garage whatever that counts as an ADU. Correct. Right. So there are two forms of ADUs. There's what are called datadus detached accessory dwelling units and then there are addus attached accessory dwelling units. Okay.

Right. So you you could in theory that this is where this turns gets gets really complicated and and I'm sorry first of all um but but what what happens is is if if you had a home for a home and you wanted to do an addition on it,

the way the code is currently set up is you would be paying a an a fee an impact fee on the square footage for the addition beyond what is currently there today. Um now however if you were to choose to exempt accessory dwelling units and that addition that you were doing was in the form of an ADU um you would not you would not have to pay it because that accessory dwelling unit is exempt. Right? So what that does is it creates sort of this fairness question about should you be allowed to add on to your home um to do additional living space just to add on to your home. Say you have additional kids or something. um we see that all the time. Um or and and where you'd have to pay it, but should you be allowed to build an accessory dwelling unit and not have to pay it?

Um right. So I I I would say that the good news there is that one of the things that we have heard over and over again in this community is that our housing stock is too single-minded. it it only ha allows for large single family homes that that provide for somebody for a certain portion of their life cycle need and that then they have to downsize and move out and and maybe move out of the city because there are not options. So one one of the benefits of keeping that structure I'm just trying to think of the different pros and cons is that you would be promoting people towards building pushing people towards building um addus instead of just additions and that that might then allow for the housing stock to be diversified down the line whereby they could um then rent that unit at a later date. they could choose to move into it and rent the primary unit and that that it could be adaptable to be used as part of the primary unit or apart from the primary unit and it it starts to produce more diverse housing stock for the city going forward which is one of the objectives that we understand.

Now there's a whole lot of things to consider here. So we're here to answer questions. I'll stop talking but there there's a lot of pros and cons to think about.

Right. So again my my suggestion or my opinion here is that if we are if you have an existing unit and then you making a detached unit to help city get more affordable housing or anything then I'm for that exception for that. Now if there's already a unit that is there say it's a 3,000t home and I'm upgrading it to 5,000 or whatever I'm adding more square footage again that there are two parts to it. If the number of people is not changing then you're not actually adding more impact. it's the same number of cars or same number of trips or whatever, same number of park visits. But if there's an addition to the family, you're getting three more kids, then there's three more potential car trips or whatever, then in that So again, so there's three parts to look at it, right? So I'm I'm for the exemption for two out of those three, which is one the ADU which is being added as a detach or which is being added as an attach but there's no increase in number of people and I don't know how you come up with that calculation. I don't know how you calculate that but so I guess yeah that's what it but if it is going to have an impact then I think there should be an impact fee because that's what it is an impact fee

why should we look at two different kind of set of guidelines if it is attached or detach so the only reason I want so I understand when we having a occupancy point of view it wouldn't make any difference from a detach yes the occupancy is going to increase but because we want to encourage middle and low income housing that ADU is one way to get it without having to break down our, you know, other green areas and all that stuff because I have an R4 area and only have one house there. I could add two other small units and do that without impacting other areas, right? So, that's the way I look at it. So, that's an exemption exemption I'm ready to give because it helps us solve our affordable housing problem.

David, on a typical year, how many requests do you have? How many applications for the ID use in the city with the new rules that's going up? I think this year this was last year 10 year 10 so far this year about ADUs that we've seen we we we see probably three to four inquiries for project guidance about ADUs a month and all these not a lot but that's still but still more than zero more than zero yeah but insignificant but are they mostly detached

mostly detached we have had some interest in people rebuilding their homes and renovating their homes to incorporate ate ADUs for extended family um where they might have um you know mother-in-law moving in or an unemployed brother moving in or something like that you know so um we we have seen that interest go up as well um keep in mind that you cannot build an ADU in any of the subdivisions that have HOAs in the city that have restrictions on the types of dwelling units which is about 80% of the city so ADUs are not really widely allowed in the city. They're only allowed in the older developments and in the unplatted areas. Um so yeah,

so I I mean listening to all the things I mean looking at the pros and cons overall I think the exemption is good to have. I think that's what I feel. I mean it's not it's too difficult to divide it the way I was looking at it's too complicated. So let's just Yeah. Thank you. And you want to be recused, right? What he said. No, I I would respectfully recuse myself from this discussion. Yeah, he's about to recuse you anyway. So, I don't know if that's a verb.

If I think about them, probably half of them it's for people that they just need an extra space, a kid who is now older that needs a separate space or like you said, the mother-in-law who lives with you that she needs her own space and maybe the other half it's additional income. they want to build an additional unit so they can rent it or like you said they move into it and they rent the the house. There's no way to quantify them. So that's why I would just go with exempting them. And

I also would go for exemption but I have a question. Uh should we be concerned about the size of the ADUs because the staff recommendation doesn't say is that would that apply to any size? It's defined as a up to a th00and square feet. So a school I see. Okay. Yeah. And typically we see ADUs occupied by one or two people. Um we have a few staff who live in the city in ADUs. They're rental. They rent from uh property owners here in the city and they live in ADUs. And I don't really know that an ADU can carry much more than than two people. Maybe two people and a kid. That kind of thing.

All right, my turn. Um yeah, I I like this. And um I thought a little bit about you know just there there is some additional impact but I think like my neighborhood we wouldn't be able to put this in we have an HOA but um you know just in the general you've got people aging out moving you've got kids moving away mother-in-laws moving in there's this dynamic that's going on and net net who knows what the impact is going to be right on the transportation in that local area and we want to encourage these kind of things. And then also on the additions, this goes back to when we had the uh the discussion last time about the fees, you know, and it's the same thing, this property rights versus the community needs. So, yeah. So, that's where I'm at on this. So, I I have one followup question because I heard a couple different things here and I want to make sure we got this right. So, I I I my concern lies in that I think there's interest in exempting impact fees for additions for existing homes that are maybe being torn down and rebuilt on an existing lot or for homes that are destroyed by active nature and being rebuilt and maybe enlarged because they were too small before. um but that we might not want to exempt homes that are being torn down by way of development where lots are being divided, redivided and restated and new homes are being built. So what that would mean is that we would grant the exception for when there is not a multiplication of lots occurring. We would not grant it in that case, but we would grant it in all cases when it is the existing lot that is being retained and there is simply a home being added onto or torn down, rebuilt or destroyed by active nature and rebuilt and enlarged.

What about just go ahead middle housing? How are we treating those? Well, middle housing in that case um would be well that's a really fascinating one. It'd be scaled impact fee except that if you were to tear down a house and come back with two units, I suppose that'd be multiplication. So then then you'd be paying it at the scaled fee rate, right? Um so that would be caught that would be captured however it's gets stated that the description you gave and actually both of them including the middle housing feels like that's development

and where I come down on this is like when we're developing a subdivision or you know impact fees if I'm doing something to my home not you know that kind of thing and that what you described really felt like now we're doing some development. We're taking this unit, we're clearing out some other area and up pops multiple units, you know. So, and so if that could be clear, if it needs to be clarified, we should do that. If if it's clear enough in this, then fine. But yeah, so I appreciate that and that might have also helped us. I think you just hit on something that light bulb went off in my head about the inclusionary affordable housing requirements and the exemptions related to development or not development. And maybe we could re recycle this for some other purposes at a future conversation down the road.

Sorry, I just want to add just because you brought up a good point. I just thought of something. Sorry. Um, it is a new house being I mean do we want to encourage this to builders is that you build a single family home but you still have two units in it. I mean this is very popular if you go up in Vancouver where they have basement homes. So the the the tenant lives on the top the owner but then they rent out the one lower unit which is a basement. and they have their own separate entrance. It is still one unit. It's not two separate attached units. It's not a multif family or a town home because it's still one home but there are two people living in it. There are two different electric meters, light, whatever, you know. So, do we want as a city to encourage it because that's the way Vancouver is solving the housing crisis because now they're getting two instead of one and it's not impacting the environment as such because you're not cutting more trees and because the footprint is the same,

right? So, absolutely. So that would fall in the adu the ex the attached new but as you said this is a development but you could you could build it you could build a whole subdivision you could build 20 homes which are 40 homes actually because each of them is two homes right so in that case you would be paying the fee on the primary unit but not the accessory dwelling unit. Right? So then that would encourage builders to build right two homes and you would get potentially double their capacity and with only one impact fee with only one impact fee. That's what I'm saying. Exactly. That's why the builder is incentivized and yeah

because one of the units is primary one is accessory. You know what what's interesting also is under the ADU laws now that are in place and we haven't started to see this really but it's coming our way. Yeah. is you could actually build an accessory dwelling unit on your side or backyard if you didn't live in a HOA neighborhood and you could condominiumize it and sell it. Right. So, new laws. Yeah. But I'm talking of an HOA like it's a proper 20 20 home or 40 home community. You actually double the capacity by allowing them to build basement homes. AB: Absolutely. And we are starting to see builders see that and want to do that and we feel that that is a product that this community would be really interested in. I mean Wenor is doing it all. I mean you go to Wenor you see those homes are there all over.

Can you imagine if Highraftoft had been built that way? Do you It almost looks like it's built that way. It should have been built that way. It has three levels. It has three levels in it. David, is there is there any language that we can add to the code to actually encourage what Mazir is talking about? Yeah, that that'd be a separate work plan item we could talk about, but I you know we we we do already encourage it by way of middle housing allowances. So, we do allow for those units and that multiplication of density in that way. Um, I think it's just a matter of of builders catching on to it and being able to make it pencil by square footage. All right. Are we ready for vote? Yes. All right. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Unanimous for those allowed to vote. Well, he's abstaining. Yeah. Abstain. Yeah. Yeah. All right. His will doesn't count. Of course it counts. All right. So now, huh? Before we go on further, should we extend? We went to 9:15. So Oh, 9:15. Okay. Sorry. 14 minutes.

Okay. Yeah. Uh so this item 3C is about deferrals and currently the code states and uh the RCW allows that um the city can give deferrals for up to 20 units for a single project proponent. And then after that point, you don't have to give deferrals anymore and you could charge the impact fees at time of permit issuance rather than at the point of sale or occupancy. The question then for the commission is should this be limit should this limit be higher or removed? Staff are recommending that we just remove the limit and allow a project to defer to the point of sale occupancy. I mean, I just want to say based on what he said earlier about coming up with a number out of your hat. How did the number 20 come? I mean, what was the the purpose?

It's in it's in the RCW. So, I I don't know. I would have to ask the legislature at some Washington state. Oh, not not the mammary code. Oh, right. Yep. I was going to say why are we even deferring any? But you're going to say it's in RCW they chose 20. I mean, they will create a real impact. If I'm a developer and I'm adding 20 houses, I'm I'm I'm adding a real impact. Why am I not paying that fee right away to allow the city to start planning for whatever changes the city needs to do?

And because the RCW says so, it's kind of the unfortunate answer, but it is deferrals. We have to allow for deferrals.

So deferrals are so I I hear what you're saying. Absolutely. And the way the city currently plans for that is that we we account for that money as if it's been receded as if it's revenue. There is a certain window of time when that product will be brought to market and it will go through escrow and that fee will be paid to us. Right? There is it it will happen. There is a risk that a project will after building permits have been issued because otherwise it's not paid till building permits are issued anyway. But there is a potential that a project could go bankrupt. In my time here, I've seen two projects both four lot one four one five lot small projects minimal minimal impact in that way but in that case the people aren't moving in so the people aren't arriving so the the impact isn't really there yet. Um so the on the flip side to it one of the biggest tools we hear about from or the biggest issues with development these days is that there are not many cash builders anymore. Most builders are building on credit and that when you are extending a credit line or consuming your credit line for the purpose of paying fees that won't get you to actually building a product that you can then sell that it depletes your ability to build that that product. So what that does is it it changes the dynamic and we end up with with a fewer fewer options for builders. we end up with cash builders, which is a good thing in a lot of ways, but it but it narrows down the the range of builders that might come to the community because they can't get that that waiver on that or I wouldn't call it a waiver, it's the excuse me, the deferral of the fee until escrow of when the home is sold. So I just had a followup question on that because I remember with past discussions we had that the impact fee that is paid by whatever the construction happens has to be used in a certain amount of time. So my question then referred going back

to his deferral is where does that clock start? Does that clock start on the time they start building or does it start when they defer and they pay the money and because if it does the latter I'm okay with it but if it's not you're eating up that time it could take two two or three years to build a project and you just lost that time right so it it it it start the clock starts when we collect the fee so the fee is assessed okay when the permit's issued right so the fee is calculated then but they could choose to pay it then a cash builder would pay it um or a credit builder would defer it and and it would be we at that point would have that account in our system. we would see that money as being available

um and we would start planning that that contribution towards the project and if you defer it then that would that money would enter the system and that that's when the time would start that is the clock that is the limit on the amount and that deferral time is on sale right it's not after sale right it's not like a future two years after sale or something right it's it's on sale yeah it's on sale okay so then deferral is either um is either occupancy or first sale, whichever comes first. So, and that's when the impact comes in because now people are moving in. So, till then there's no any or when occupancy occurs is when people could quickly move in.

We we see a lot of homes sold pre-sold pre-sales. That's how most of the the subdivisions here are sold as pre-sales.

Um there was one other thing I wanted to to raise. So it it it is a reality that we as a city have had a hard time spending our impact fee dollars specifically in in transportation or traffic fees. Um in part because of what um the vice chair has raised is that the list of projects are fairly large and we cannot choose smaller projects because we we don't have those available to spend impact fee dollars on. So, I doesn't really affect deferral too much, but just to be aware is that we have bump we have bumped into time frames where we're getting close to having to give the money back. Um, it is a reality. So, really wanting to refine that CIP list going forward so that we have projects on the shelf that are ready to build that are meaningful to the community would be really great.

Thank you. Another quick question or maybe it's a comment and then we could do a quick We haven't actually made the motion yet, I don't think. Not sure. We'd have to play the tapes back. But um hey, so um we're thinking a little bit about the cost of housing and if we don't allow deferrals, there's a cost to that to the builders, right? it will show up because they they have to come up with the money up earlier, right? And because it's coming up earlier, there's some cost to them to be providing that money rather than later. It's a that present value thing, right? Opportunity cost, right?

Opportunity cost. Actually, that's a better phrase. Yeah. So, so that would be an argument for allowing the deferrals. All right. And and just a point of clarification, we have to allow deferrals up until 20 units for a single proponent. Yeah. So, we should get a motion. Yeah. Someone new. I move to recommend that the city council do not cap the number of deferral of offered to a single project. Okay. A second. All right. Second. We've got a motion with a second. Any further discussion?

I just had one point to make in that and again this is going to mathematics here. So yes, there's a deferral, right? So it could be 2 months or it could be 10 months or whatever it is there's some amount of interest involved in that, right? Because if you collected on day one versus day 100 or whatever that money could have earn interest, right? So when we defer, could we add that interest onto it? So instead of collecting $100, now you're collecting $105 or whatever the 5% interest or whatever, assuming whatever the interest rates are at that time.

I think it' be a good question for legal. I I don't know that the statute specifically allows us to do that. Um but I I see what you're saying is, you know, is is you get assessed. Another way to do it would be is that if you defer that you are assessed the fee in place at the time of payment

or some fee. Exactly. Because because what what might happen is somebody might get a pick up a building permit the day before a new fee goes into effect and they might do that deliberately and then defer it and then they could basically move that payment point down the line a year and a half and they've avoided that new fee that's would have been would have been in place when when you know if they'd had to pay it at the that if they'd had to pay the fee in place at the time of right of payment

because I'm gonna come back to Mike said about the opportunity cost, right? That's what it is. So, so if you defer later, I mean, if we collected the money, the city would put it in a bank account and we would earn interest on it. So, we're losing that amount and I don't know. I think it's a great question for legal. That is definitely a downside and something to be aware of. Yes, maybe city council can research that one. Or legal. or well legal legal we'll have that together by the whatever it's the 21st

maybe that's why they picked 20 instead of leaving it open so that it's a happy medium for everyone most of the developments let's say there are 40 and 20 is we split the difference Mhm. We very rarely see projects bigger than 20 units in the city. Um if they are, it's only by a few. Yeah. Not counting highra. Call to vote. Okay. Further conversation. Any other any other deliberation? Are we ready to vote? All right. We have the motion. All in favor of the motion say I. I. I.

Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. And then we still need to the overall draft of the code, the code package itself with these amendments attached. Exactly. Yep. And so that's what this motion here is trying to trying to capture is recommend the the code set as amended by what we've talked about tonight. So, we would work to take what we heard tonight, incorporate it in the updated draft, and then include those updates to the city council when they see it on April 21st along with the U edit that you identified. Exactly. Say it's

How about those How about those no votes? How is this going to be reflected in this? Well, it's separate. The no votes will be captured as we've discussed in the recommendation letter. They'll absolutely be capt. So if I say yes still means no to to my no. I was thinking about this and if it is included then I should say I hammer and now we should should say no to this. Um actually no. Can I just move the motion first Mike before we have a discussion? Can I just move the motion no to the no? I was going to move the motion before we start a discussion on it. Oh,

that's actually Well, let's make two motions. First to extend for like 10 minutes or something like that. I second. Okay. And like all in favor of extending say I. All right. Now, yeah. Can I make a motion to can I move a motion to um move to recommend SMC 2110605 impact fees to the city council is present in exhibit 2.

And a second. I second. All right. Okay. We've got a motion in a second. And actually to clarify why I said no, I if I if my notes are right and my brain is right um might not be. It's been a long long day but um the concerns were about the report and the basically for the methodology that they use to calculate the parks and the transport. Exactly. What we're talking about now is the code. Those are two separate things. as long as they're two separate thing, but I thought that you said that that basically includes everything. I I meant everything code related. Okay.

And we've made these motions, you know, that will factor into the code. So about the exemptions and so forth, the AMI pieces and the edits. So that's the part that will be modifying the code, right? And so everything else that's in the code will say, "Yep, looks good given these amendments and edits, right?" So, okay. So, any further discussion about the content of the code silence. That's a good thing, I think, at this time. Are we ready to vote? All right. Maybe we didn't have to extend the meeting. Darn. Okay. All in favor say I.

Any opposed. All right. Motion carries. We got a lot done tonight. Yay. Check it out. Congratulations. We did it. Good work. You were so confident. I knew we were going to get there, Mike. You promised. Another one, please. actually actually it would have been me with a hey there's still there's there's still one or the sorry there's still one or two other things. So um we've got the agenda uh or the upcoming agenda. So the things that are coming up in the next meetings. So we should mention that briefly. Yeah. The next next meeting. Oh yeah. Right.

Right. We're going to revisit title 24A. It's a Miriam. I think Jackie and I gave a presentation a few weeks ago about um title 24A. So, they're going to come back with some discussion questions and then we're going to revisit the bylaws to talk about how we incorporate um the second public comment if we want to do that at the end of the meeting and then any other sort of broader discussions we want to have about the process in in moving through work items as a commission. Are we going to have the Are we going to have a uh public hearing on 24A eventually? I think that's that is not going to be the next meeting. Not the next meeting, right? Yeah. Thank you. Y that's it. So we'll see each other in two weeks.

A few short weeks. Yep. Yeah. So hope everybody has a good holiday weekend whether you're celebrating Passover or Easter. And any objections to adjourn? I hear no objections. So, by common consent, we're out of here. Yeah.