City Council - Regular Meeting

The meeting of the Puyallup City Council for March 10 is called to order. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Smolcombe. Present. JOSE Council Member Kastema? ATLAS: Present. JOSE MANUELLE: Member Gilliam?

LAURA Present.

Deputy Mayor Johnson?

LAURA DOTTORI Present.

MACHT:

MACHT:

I'd like to now consider the agenda. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.

Second.

The council retreat minutes. Do I hear a motion to approve those minutes? So moved.

Second. All

in favor, please so indicate.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. We'll move on to approve the minutes of February DELL: four, the council retreat minutes for the second evening. Motion? So moved.

Second.

GREGORY All in favor?

GREGORY Aye. Thank GREGORY you.

Moving right along, presentations and proclamations. We have a proclamation this evening honoring the American Red Cross. I will read the same. Whereas for more than a century, the American Red Cross has been at the forefront of helping Americans prevent, prepare for, and respond to large and small disasters, Families and communities depend on the Red Cross in times of need. And the Red Cross depends on American people to sustain the foundation.

And whereas in Puyallup, the American Red Cross works tirelessly through its volunteers to support us when disaster strikes, when someone needs life saving blood, or the comfort of a helping hand. It provides twenty four hour support to members of the military and veterans and their families, and provides training in CPR, aquatic safety, and first aid. And whereas the Red Cross makes Puyallup safer and stronger, and Puyallup formally recognizes the American Red Cross and its critical humanitarian role in our community and honors the South Puget Sound and Olympic chapters, contribute the South Puget Sound and Olympic chapters contribution to making the city a better place. And whereas Larry Blake, executive liaison for the American Red Cross most recently deployed to the flood disasters in the state of Washington, as well as numerous national disasters. Now therefore, I, Ned Whitting, the mayor of the city of Puyallup, Washington, do hereby proclaim March 2026 as American Red Cross month in witness whereof I have heretofore set my hand and caused the seal of the city of Puyallup to be affixed this March 2026.

And Larry, if you'd like to meet me right up front, we'll get the pictures, and we'll give you a chance to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, counsel. Just a few words here. In my capacity with the Red Cross, and I've been with them about ten years, I deploy quite frequently to all the major disasters. And what I notice when I go on my deployments, the Red Cross does a really good job of sheltering, feeding, spiritual care, mental health care, reunification.

We do a wonderful job. In the ten years I've been with the Red Cross, though, I never had the opportunity to deploy my home state here of Washington until this last December. And as you recall, we had atmospheric rivers with lots of flooding, especially up north. And what I did was observe the same type of thing, what the Red Cross does. But I saw something very different this time. I saw community come together like I've never seen it before. I had phone call after phone call day in and day out, how can I help my neighbors, Municipalities, elected officials, calling me? This normally doesn't happen. They take care of their own. But I was getting call after call.

And it's not in the Red Cross playbook to take in donations. We're not equipped to do that. We handle it on our own. But as you recall, this was during December. It was Christmas. And I was going around from shelters, and I saw a lot of sad kids not experiencing Christmas. And so when I was taking those phone calls, I said, you can help. You can buy Christmas gifts. And the next day, I was deluged with gifts. And we put them in the hands of every one of those kids.

It was the greatest Christmas I ever experienced. And that's not our playbook, but that's community coming together. And it made me proud not only to be a Red Crosser, and I mean, I get emotional right now, but to be a Washingtonian. This is community you could be proud of. And if you ever had to experience a disaster in the future, know that the Red Cross would be here for you, but so would your community. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Larry. We appreciate all that you do.

Thank you.

We have a second proclamation, Women's History Month proclamation sponsored by council member Lauren Adler. I will read it as follows. Whereas March is recognized as Women's History Month, a time to honor and celebrate the contributions, achievements, and resilience of women throughout history, and whereas the city of Puyallup recognizes the invaluable role women play in serving, working, and strengthening our community, including more than 150 female city employees and nearly 2,000 female small business owners operating within the city. And whereas many of these women business owners represent the heart of Puyallup and the incredible impact they have to our downtown, including, just to mention a few, all things fun sports, Atomic Genius Records, Lazy Ballerina Wine Bar, the Cat and Rabbit Cake Shop, Lick Homemade Ice Cream Cascades, Firehouse Pet Shops, Wicked Pie Pizzeria, Newell Hunt Furniture, and Savory and Sweet Salonish, and many more, and whereas women from all walks of life have made significant contributions in education, business, health care, the arts, public service, and countless other fields that enrich and sustain our community, and whereas these contributions include female leaders of the Puyallup tribe of Indians, female veterans and active duty military members, female police officers and first responders, female athletes, former and current female mayors and city council members, a female municipal court judge, female state representatives, female school district superintendents, female community college presidents, female chamber of commerce leaders, and the first female chief executive officer of the Washington State Fair in its history, and whereas women have been leaders not only in securing their own rights to suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and peace movements that have helped create a more just and equitable society for all.

And whereas despite these lasting contributions, the role of women in history has too often been overlooked or undervalued in historical literature, education, and study. And whereas the city of Puyallup reaffirms its commitment to honoring, supporting, and empowering women and girls by promoting equity and expanding opportunities in every aspect of city and civic and community life. Now, therefore, I, Ned Whitting, mayor of the city of Puyallup, Washington, do hereby proclaim March 2026 as Women's History Month in the city of Puyallup. In witness whereof, I have heretofore set my hand and caused the seal of the city of Puyallup to be affixed this March 2026. And we have a number of individuals coming forward to receive this.

Kim Field from All Things Fun Sports, Jodi Robinson and Cody Welcher from Firehouse Pets, Shelby Scher from Cascades, and Lynn Larson from Lazy Ballerina. Thank you.

I am the voice. Good evening, and thank you, council members. Today, we take a moment to honor the incredible women who came before us, the women who dared to challenge the status quo, break barriers, and open doors for generations to follow. Throughout history, women have shaped our world in powerful ways women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who fought tirelessly for equality under the law Rosa Parks, who quiet and encouraged sparked a civil rights movement, and Amelia Earhart, who refused to accept the limits and soared into the sky to prove that women could achieve anything they put their mind to. But history isn't only made by famous names in the books.

It's also made by teachers who inspire young minds, mothers who raise strong families, women and leaders who guide our community thank you and our friends who support each other in those challenging times. Every woman has a story. Every woman has strength. Every woman has the power to make the difference. Today, we celebrate the local women, the entrepreneurs of our community, the women who take risks, build business, create opportunity, invest their time, their passion, and their talent into making our community stronger.

We celebrate not only the women who changed history, but the women who are making history right now in our community, in our workplace, on the trails and roads that we run, and every day, acts of courage and kindness that will shape the world around us. When women support women, incredible things can happen. We lift each other higher, we create opportunities, and we build a future where the next generation of girls grow up believing there is no limit to what they can do. So today, let us honor the past, celebrate the present, and build the future for every woman's voice to be heard, to be valued, and to be empowered. Thank you.

Thank you. And I realize that there's additional women entrepreneurs and executive directors in our audience. Could those of you others stand and be recognized as well? And Kim has some extra proclamations. Apologize for not inviting you up to be in the picture.

Okay, so moving along, we're to the citizen comments portion of the meeting. So I'd like to ask the city clerk to provide instructions for public comments.

This part of the meeting is for general citizen comments. Please reserve any public hearing testimony to that section of the agenda. The mayor will call on those who have provided their names in advance, then the mayor will call for other citizens who wish to speak. For the record please state your name and address or city council district in which you reside. Please direct your comments to the council as a whole not individual council members. All comments are limited to three minutes. The clerk will provide verbal notice but only thirty seconds remain. As a reminder, this portion of meeting is counsel's opportunity to hear from the community and not the time to engage in debate. Lastly, per state law, this public comment period cannot be used to speak in support of or in opposition to a ballot measure or individual candidacy. And no such comments will be allowed.

Thank you. First, we'll hear from Penny Thorpe.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Penny Thorpe, District 3. Today, I heard Senator Warnock reminding us that we figured out how much community matters and how much we affect each other and how much we need to support each other when COVID happened. And not only did we care about our own individual health, but we cared about our neighbors' health because we realized how much it impacted us. This is why I am asking, once again, for a resolution or an ordinance to support diversity, equity, and inclusion in our community.

One of the problems that we have is that we don't understand how the more vulnerable populations are not being served, and we are not honoring the impact that they have on us, but also that we have on them. It is time to consider all. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Kathleen McLeod.

Kathleen McLeod, Penny's neighbor. This is always uncomfortable to speak to something that has been dismissed so often. So, I'm going to reflect on what I talked about last time I was up here, which is how to change minds, yours. The fight says, I don't want to change. The flight says, I know what I know, and that's my comfort zone.

So, again, I'm gonna ask you to consider how this impacts, this time, DEI. Starting with definitions, equality is when everyone gets the same resources, while equity is when the resources are distributed based on need. It should be that simple. Everybody should lift themselves up by their bootstrap. That's what they're told.

We don't need this. But until you realize that not everybody has boots or straps, that's where equity comes in. So I'm going to tell you about the graduating class of Mercer High School that I helped teach back in the '80s. I'm going to use this word californicated because that's what was happening in the Northwest. All those people from California figured out that their houses were three times what ours were. They sold it. They brought their cash. And they moved up here. We couldn't afford to buy a house. The school system got all their kids.

Here's the problem. Those kids had a California education. They came to Mercer Island where the curriculum was more challenging, the teachers were better, and the parents were a lot more involved. 97% of the students who started in Merswan School District and graduated from there, 97% were going to college. Those California kids came, instead of getting As and Bs, they got Bs and Cs. And their parents were very unhappy, wanted to blame us. And we said, they're getting the same test as everybody else's. And it took a whole semester to figure out that they were being given B's and A's in California in a very different expectation than what we had at that school. So we tried to help them. We mentored them.

We did everything we could. And we failed. Their lack of equity of education impacted them the rest of their lives, even though they were in a district where ninety seven percent of the students actually went to college. It was so frustrating. Their younger siblings were fine. But those four years, they were lost. That's just one of the many ways that equity matters. Why we need to educate everybody the same, why we need to give everybody what they need. That's what our constitution wants us to do, is designed to do. That's when we flow.

We change because we know we need to, and we know that this is the basis and the reason for diversion, equity, and inclusion. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Becky

Good evening. My name is Becky Condra. My address is 15507 129th Avenue Court East. I am here because I am president of Tapestry Singers and also Secretary of Arts Downtown. And I wanted to share with you something very special that happened weekend before last. Tapestry Singers is a community choir that is based here in Puyallup. It is also part of Arts Downtown. And on Saturday, February 28, we had our annual Puyallup Food Bank benefit concert. And it was an amazing concert, standing room only. We had Pierce College Chamber Choir that performed One of the Puyallup School District's steel drum groups performed.

They were amazing. Tapestry singers and lots of other people and individuals performed. That day, we raised $2,462 for the food bank, as well as three sixty three pounds of food. And then on top of that, the United Methodist Church, where we performed our concert, handed a check over to the food bank for a little over $2,000 So it was a wonderful day for the food bank. And we were very thrilled to support an organization that is so important for our community. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks.

Thank you, Becky. Next, we'll hear from Ruth Anderson.

Kudos to the Tapestry folks. We enjoyed the concert. Ruth Anderson, District 2. Three items which play off of the Women's Proclamation. First, 03/31/1776, In a letter to her husband, John Adams, then in Philadelphia working on documents anticipating freedom from British governance, Abigail Adams wrote perhaps the most famous statement in defense of women's rights of the American Revolutionary era.

Remember the ladies. On Sunday, 07/19/2026, the Fruitland Grange is sponsoring a tea with Abigail, featuring a storyteller interpreting the feisty wife of our second president and mother of the sixth. The Grange could use some support for this endeavor if there is sitting money available for helping educate youth about the revolution. Second item, Re Women concerns a Puyallup landmark. The Washington and Alaska chapter of the ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic, the GAR, purchased the Meeker Mansion in 1915 for $8,000 with the help of the state legislature.

They operated it as a home for widows and orphans of the Civil War until it was sold to become a nursing home in 1948. Final item two local sisters, graduates of Puyallup High School, Calla Layton, class of 1909, and Grace Layton, class of 1912, enlisted in the Navy in 1918 as Yeomanettes and were stationed in Bremerton during the First World War. CALA later became the first adjutant of the newly formed American Legion Post sixty seven in 1919. These women were the first of many local women who served their country during ensuing wars and are doing so now. Thank you.

Thank you. Andy, you're next.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Andy Anderson, District 2. I have a report from the battlefield two fifty years ago. All last fall, Colonel Henry Knox, in a remarkable logistical feat, transported nearly 60 tons of captured cannons and mortars from Fort Ticonderoga in Upstate New York across frozen rivers to the Continental Army camps outside of Boston.

The arrival of this heavy artillery allowed General Washington to fortify Dorchester Heights, a position that commanded Boston and its harbor in late January seventeen seventy six. Faced with the threat of bombardment, British General William Howe decided to evacuate the city. The British left Boston in 03/17/1776, marking a major psychological victory for the Americans. The British left for New York, and then Washington then followed them down there shortly thereafter. Thomas Paine published a document in January called Common Sense, in which he argued that the revolutionaries, if you will, needed to publish a document to the world declaring their independence and argued strongly for that because he said, if a manifesto to be published and dispatched to foreign courts setting forth the mysteries we have endured and the peaceful methods we have ineffectually used for redress, declaring at the same time that not being able any longer to live happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connections, at the same time assuring all such courts of our peaceful disposition toward them and our desire of entering into trade with them, such a memorial would produce more good effects to this continent than if a ship were freighted with petitions to Britain.

Finally, the modern day instance, the National Archives periodically loads up documents and things and transports them around the country so that they can be seen by wider audiences than those that just come to the archives. And this year, the Freedom Plane is currently in Kansas City, Missouri. It will be in Seattle from July 30 to August 16. And those things will be exhibited at Mohi. It's worth seeing. Thank you.

Thank you, Andy. Next, we'll hear from Andralyn Esguardo.

Good evening, council members. My name is Angeline E. Schiergo from Pierce County District 2. I'm here to speak about the Women's History Month proclamation as we not only recognize and acknowledge how women have been underestimated as the underdogs over time, there are more achievements and trials of proven resilience that should not go unnoticed that have increased the standards of our country, such as the first black American and Asian American VP, Kamala Harris, in 2021 the first woman to serve as Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, in 2021 first Native American woman US poet laureate, Joy Harjo, in 2019 first senator to give birth while in office, Latamie Duckworth of Illinois in 2018 first African American woman to be the librarian of Congress in 2016, Carla Hayden the first woman to graduate from the US Army Ranger School in 2015, Kristen Greest and Shay Haver, first elected female senator from Hawaii, and the first Asian American woman elected to the Senate in 2013, Maisie Hirono, the first Latina Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2009. And we cannot forget the famous female leaders and activists of the Women's Suffrage Unit who fought for women's voting rights, Alice Paul, Lucy Burns, Ida

B.

Wells, and Susan B. Anthony in 1920, like what was displayed in the movie Iron Drawed Angels. Their strength to burst barriers down fifty or the fifty year barrier, along with determination, has still paved the path of survivors in our recent years as role models, like for me. Thank you for honoring a month dedicated to gender that has become empowered more than before, striving for an escalation in notable opportunities to place a larger footprint in our history for other girls and women to follow. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Dave Churchman.

Good evening. All this anti British sentiment here makes me feel quite homesick. They judgement district two. Here's something different for you. Congratulations and a big thank you for a job well done to the Puyallup police detectives and the FBI team at Quantico.

Their diligent effort in the completion of the investigation to last last summer's death threat to a city commission member was thorough and conclusive. For those who are unaware, it is the whole matter was bogus. It was a sham. 146 page report has been forwarded by the police to the county prosecutor to assess filing charges against the complainant. The issue was big.

It was a major event as it formed the basis of last November's city election campaigns. It is still front and center in the d e r DEI contingent. But most troubling was the inappropriate posted on social media last summer by and also in the news tribune by two council members who insinuated that our city is comprised of racists and bigots. It was clearly done for personal gain. When are we gonna get when are we, the public, gonna get an apology for that? Puyallup is a decent town with good people. Anyone wanted a copy of the FBI and police report? Just ask me and I'll mail it to you. It's a 146 pages. It's a tough read, but it is thorough.

I can I can verify those FBI guys at Quantico do a damn good job? Again, thanks to the detectives, the forensic, and the behavioral scientists at the FBI. They did very good work. So the matter is closed. The f b the news tribune called me this afternoon, or I called them, to to follow-up on their story from last August. And I think they're gonna put the thing out fairly soon. Thank you.

You're saying it's not out, and you have a

copy of it, and you can get it out? Yeah.

I'll take one.

JOHN Good. Just give me your address, and I'll email it to you.

JOHN Next,

we'll hear from Arthur West.

Good evening, mayor and members of the Puyallup City Council. My name is Arthur West. I'd like to speak today about Sunshine Week and the benefits of public disclosure of Puyallup related records. So happy Sunshine Week. And I can't escape a feeling of deja vu.

It's been nearly a decade since the Vermillion case, where we fought all the way up to the Federal Supreme Court over council member disclosure of communications of council members. So here we are again. Last August, I filed a request for council and planning commission communications about the claimed death threats that had been circulating, litigated when there was an overbroad exemption asserted. And just last week, I received 146 pages of police investigation records that incontrovertibly demonstrate that the racist death threats reported by the chair of your planning commission were completely fake and fabricated. And these fake death threats weren't in a vacuum.

They were used for political gain. They were used in very tight political races. And they were used to besmirch your honorable former mayor. So while you may think the PRA is a pesky law, please realize that it took a lawsuit under the PRA to compel disclosure of the very records that demonstrate that Puyallup is not a hotbed of dangerous racist extremists and that the members of your planning commission and city council are also not the type of people who can be reasonably accused of racist extremist threats. And in conclusion, I'd like to point out that I stand in full solidarity with those seeking social equity for women and for our black sisters and brothers who are trying to assert equal rights.

I've spoken on social equity issues before the legislature. I, along with the ACLU, I was appointed amicus curiae to address First Amendment issues in the Adams County persecution of Afro Man for his writing funny songs about them and distributing the very shirt that I'm wearing today

because

of an Aframan lemon pound cake shirt. But it's my policy to expose political corruption wherever it is, regardless of race, gender, or political orientation. And this is not a unique thing to any race or person. These type of political, underhanded political things need to be denounced from whoever does them. And that should be

done Mr.

Mayor, you've reached three minutes.

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, that concludes our citizen comments that people filed for before the meeting. Is there anybody present here tonight that would like to speak at this time? Oh, I missed Eric. Eric Showersi. Sorry, yours came in late.

I know. I'm sorry.

I feel like there's just got to be a way to make this more tall person friendly. And I'm not even that tall. Okay. Hey, I'm Eric. District 2. Maybe something like this. Oh, all right. There we go. Cool. He has refused to be governed by laws. He has refused to pass laws for large groups of people. He has ensured the representative house passes little to nothing against his will. He has obstructed laws for naturalizing citizens and foreigners. He has obstructed the administration of justice. He has erected a multitude of new offices.

He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He is affected to render the military independent and or superior to the civilian power. For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world, for imposing taxes on us without our consent, for transporting us beyond seas to be tried, for pretended offenses, he has excited domestic insurrection among us. But enough about King George the third. Let's talk about Trump two hundred and fifty years later.

Donald has unilaterally dismantled congressionally enacted departments without congressional approval. A chief federal judge has stated that ICE has violated 74 court orders. Donald Trump used Triple Canopy, an armed private security firm, to stop elected politicians from entering federal buildings. DHS deported a deaf child without his hearing aids and a girl in the middle of her cancer treatment. They canceled USA aid or USAID leading to the deaths of roughly five hundred thousand people in the last twelve months.

That's roughly a hundred and sixty six nine elevens. That's more than all the lives of US soldiers lost in World War two. And in one decade, it will be near the equivalent of everyone murdered during the Nazi Holocaust. Donald tried to dismantle the fourteenth amendment, which provides us and everyone in our borders the same rights. ICE is ignoring the fourth the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from warrantless searches.

The Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs, which cost us $200,000,000,000 to be unconstitutional. ICE killed a man for carrying a holstered weapon after they had disarmed him. Trump took out two world leaders without congressional approval. ICE killed a woman for her first amendment rights, shooting her in the back. Trump declared literal war on Chicago. Trump withheld funds from states that he didn't like. He has threatened allies. He has coddled enemies. He has failed to uphold the most basic principles expected of the executive officer. Over the last two hundred and fifty years, more than 1,300,000 US service men and women have lost their lives fighting men just like him.

Every day he remains in office, we insult their sacrifice. When we say no kings, it is because we are dealing with a petulant child who acts like one. This March 28, Indivisible Puyallup will be joining the national No Kings movement. And we encourage all of you to raise your voice and stand with us, not for a single man, but for this entire nation, its past, its present, and its future. Thank you.

Okay, now I'm ready to take any additional public comments from anyone that hasn't desires to now speak. Okay, with that, we'll close the public comments and move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is comprised of items that are non controversial and are passed as a group. Is there anything on the consent agenda that any of my colleagues would like to take off?

If not Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I'd to pull more discussion for 4A, either now or later, whenever you prefer.

Okay, let's move that to 6B. So do I hear a motion to advance items 4B through 4I?

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Okay. We'll now move on to considerations and requests. The first is federal opportunity zones update. We'll hear a presentation by our public affairs officer, Eric Johnson. And federal relations consultant, Jen Covino, will give a presentation.

Yes, that's correct. Good evening, mayor and counsel. Eric Johnson, public affairs officer. And I also have in the background Jennifer Covino, who's our federal relations consultant. She'll be assisting me with questions and answers you may have from this presentation. So with that, we'll go ahead and get started. Tonight, this evening, we're going to be talking about federal opportunity zones for our agenda this evening. First, I will talk about a background on the Opportunity Zones program. Then we'll switch gears and talk about the new program that was recently made permanent called Opportunity Zones two point zero. Then we will talk about the two census tracts that are in the city of Puyallup that qualify to be Opportunity Zones.

And then we will end it with next steps and then questions and answers. And then also tonight, we are seeking direction from you all on which of these two census tracts to apply for federal opportunity zone designation. So first off, what are opportunity zones? So the Federal Opportunity Zones Program was created out of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was passed as a way to spur private investors to invest in census tracts that are considered economically distressed. So the first round of census tracts were designated back in 2018, and each state determined how that application process was determined.

In 2018, the governor at the time designated 139 census tracts in the state of Washington as opportunity zones. And the program is administered in the state of Washington by Washington Department of Commerce. So how do opportunity zones work? So first of all, when an opportunity zone gets designated, after the census tract gets designated, it creates certain tax benefits for private investors. So in order for a private investor to take advantage of these tax incentives, they have to establish what's called a Qualified Opportunity Fund, or a QOF.

And when you think of a QOF, you can think of it as essentially an investment vehicle, typically an LLC or a partnership or a corporation. An investor invests those funds into the QOF to then purchase a property or a business that's located within the opportunity zone. Doing this, they can defer capital gains taxes that are accrued based on how much and for how long they hold the property for. So for example, if an investor, say, invests in a QOF for a property and holds that property for five years, they can defer up to 10% of the capital gains taxes that are accrued in that five years. And very interestingly, if they hold that property for the entire ten year period, all accrued capital gains taxes are tax free.

So that's a very attractive way to get investors to want to build housing or commercial developments in these opportunity zones. In order to take advantage of these tax incentives, there's two key criteria that these investors have to adhere to. And it's that 90% of the QOF assets must be used on that property or business within the opportunity zone. And then also, the funds must also be used to substantially improve the property by 100. And that 100% designation is based on the purchase price of the property or business within a thirty month period.

So an example in our area, in 2021, in the city of Tacoma, there was a development that a private investor invested in in the city up in the Hilltop neighborhood. It was called KOZ on MLK Project. As you can see, a rendering over there. It was built in 2021. There was a private investor that invested in QOF funds to develop a 161 new affordable housing units along with a Ground Floor commercial space on the Ground Floor over on MLK in the city of Tacoma.

And according to the Department of Commerce's website, this project represents about a $15,000,000 investment in the city of Tacoma for that project. So switching gears a little bit, we're going to talk about the new permanent program that was recently designated by the federal government. It was made permanent. The new program includes stricter guidelines on how many opportunity zones can be designated in each state. Starting from the South and going clockwise, you can see that it goes from Pioneer and goes west to about 7th Street Northwest.

Then it jogs north, where it goes west on 7th Avenue Northwest, to 11th Street Northwest. Then it goes down to Stewart, then west on Stewart about 15th Street Northwest, which is the western boundary line right there. And then from 15th Street Northwest, it goes all the way north to essentially the river. And then it jogs. It follows the river all the way down to the 512 and south back to Pioneer.

So just give you kind of a point of reference. Some advantages to this census tract. It is located in our downtown area. We have some current developments that could qualify to utilize this opportunity zones program, most notably the Korn Feet Campbell development. It also incorporates the River Road corridor area. And it's also located within our downtown regional growth center. And one disadvantage is that it doesn't exclude certain sections of downtown. I mentioned that Pioneer is kind of the southern boundary line right there. So it would exclude certain projects that could have qualified, such as the AOB project.

CHRISTIAN Councilmember Castaville. Go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Eric, could you go to the previous slide?

Yes. Posed

questions, but I didn't hear the answers, Such as, my understanding of opportunity zones when they were first introduced is that they were around business development, not necessarily housing. That must have been a new addition, or at least it must have been a modification of it. Because the impetus before was that this is a way to develop jobs for your area. So to answer this question is, does it create jobs? If I start a company in an opportunity zone, and the company is valued at, let's say, 10,000,000, and within ten years, it's now valued at $100,000,000 that would be tax exempt, correct?

If the person that starts that business, they invest in a QOF, and they use those funds in the QOF to build that business or invest in that business. So yes, they could be tax exempt. Any capital gains taxes that are accrued during that ten year period could be exempted if it's held for ten years.

JOSHUA Okay. So all right. That's something I'd like to explore more. Anyway, that's fine. Thank you.

JOSHUA Okay. So let's see. Moving on to the second census tract that qualifies, this one is 53053073405. It has a median family income of 92,865 and a poverty rate of 11.66%. So just like the previous slide, we have an image of that census tract over on the right.

And so the southern boundary line is at 23rd Avenue Southeast. So going clockwise again, it travels west on 23rd all the way to the SR 512. Then it essentially follows the SR 512 North to East Pioneer, where it goes east slightly and then south to 13th Street Southeast. And then it goes to 12th Avenue Southeast. From 12th Avenue Southeast, it goes east to 21st Street Southeast, and then south on 21st To 19th, and then it travels west to 17th Street Southeast, and then back down to 23rd Avenue Southeast.

So some advantages of the census tract is that there are some areas zoned for high and medium density multifamily, which could be taken advantage of from an investor. And there's also some commercial areas along Meridian that are in close proximity to multi care Good Samaritan Hospital that could be a potential for investors to invest in as an opportunity zone. Some disadvantages we don't have any current active projects that would qualify for this. Not to say that there couldn't be one that could come up in the future if this were to be designated as an opportunity zone. It's not currently located in a regional growth center.

And then the area a large portion of the area to the east, you can see here, is primarily low urban density single family and also public facility, which is Wildwood Park. Got another question?

Yes. Go ahead.

That's Okay.

Council member.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It says proximity to multi care Good Samaritan Hospital. It looks like it's in it. Explain to me how it's only approximate.

Oh, I'm referring to commercial areas that are in close proximity to multi care Good Samaritan Hospital. So essentially, Meridian, there are some commercial areas that could be

But Good Sam is in this Correct. So explain to me the complexities of a company, like on the River Road, for example. I know some developers who are building buildings in that area. Specifically, I think auto dealers are expanding. Now, can they set up one of these entities that you explained? Do they have to set it up separate from their current corporation?

Correct.

They do. And they can do that. Just a I guess, and they could be the sole investor for that, correct? Correct.

And there can be multiple investors that can invest in the same QOF, too. So if there's like two or three that want to go in altogether, they can invest in the same QOF, if that makes sense.

But it only deals with capital gains. That's really the only advantage out of this. You have to, in essence, sell it in the future. Right, thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, mayor. I want to go back to the second option B. And if I recall right when I was going over with our city manager a few I think it was yesterday, doesn't a lot of this include at least part of the corridor of our Meridian Corridor going up and down the Meridian Corridor, at least up as high?

Yep. Yep. So essentially, yeah, when go underneath the SR 512 of Meridian, that's what we're talking about right here, kind of that western

side And I understand, under the comprehensive plan update, theoretically, that's going be zoned for some very high intensity development up and down that Meridian Corridor. So what is absent now when this new thing rolls out could generate massive new investment in that corridor up and down our Meridian Avenue. Correct. Which, even though it may not be located in the regional growth center, it's certainly an arterial that connects both of our regional growth centers. So I think having that list as a disadvantage isn't a bad problem.

It's just a great vein that connects our two regional growth centers. The other thing, too, is a disadvantage no current active projects would qualify. If this is meant to encourage new investment, I don't really necessarily want to give existing investments already got their investment already here to give them more benefits. This is the whole idea of my opinion to generate new investment. So I wouldn't call that necessarily a disadvantage. Might be an advantage to generate new investment in our area.

And that's very interesting. You mentioned that when I participated in the webinar a couple weeks ago, there were a bunch of different economic development folks around the county that were talking with commerce about this very topic. They said, well, what about the opportunity zones where there aren't any current projects? Doesn't mean that there can't be in the future. So it's over a ten year period. So there's definitely opportunity for future opportunities.

But what I'm saying is I don't really necessarily want to benefit the AOB lot or the Bell property or the Corn and Fort Campbell. They're already committed. There's contracts signed. I'm looking to generate some investment zones that can generate new business. Right.

And with the, you know, I think 500 and some odd million investments happening at Good Samaritan Hospital, you know that what's going happen around the area is that's going to draw in new investment. So what a perfect area to have potentially this opportunity zone because it's going to generate new investment. I'll give you an example. When Nordstrom, when they decided to go into the country of Canada to open up some new stores, I talked to a commercial agent who worked in Vancouver, and he said as soon as Nordstrom announced that they were going to put a downtown store, all of the real estate around that area, prices went up, investment went in because they knew this is gonna be a catalyst they could kinda glean off of. With this hospital going in here, and as councilor Castellan mentioned, it's right in the middle of this opportunity zone when they begin this construction of 500 and some odd million dollars.

I would think that a lot of the that Meridian Corridor is gonna be generating potential new investment. To me, that would be a great location we should be considering versus the River Road, which I'm not opposed. But many of those, I looked on the River Road one, is on this side, the South side of River Road, not on the North Side, if I recall right. And most of those families don't sell. So, I don't know what capital gains would invest them. So, that's my thought. So, I just want to put that out there for a council consideration on that.

Okay. And then, I just have one more slide after this, if that's okay.

Ms. Cazino, did you have something you wanted to add at this point in time?

JENNIFER Jen had her hand up.

JENNIFER Jen? JENNIFER I wanted to just offer some additional context on the qualifying businesses in opportunity zones. There are some litmus tests, if that's of interest. Or I can circle back after Eric wraps up.

Go ahead, Eric.

That's Okay. Yeah. So next steps so we've received word from the Washington State Department of Commerce that applications are going to be opening on April 1. And then applications will then close on May 1. So we have approximately one month to get our applications in.

From there, Department of Commerce will review, score, and then send their list of recommended opportunity zones to the governor approximately early summer between May 2026. And then the governor is supposed to announce and send his list of nominations to the US Treasury on around 07/01/2026. And then the new opportunity zones will become official on 01/01/2027. And so again, tonight, seeking direction from you all on which of the census tracts to apply for opportunity zones designation.

Okay. And Jen, would you like to join in now?

JENNIFER Sure. Just to help manage expectations and offer some additional requirements beyond what Eric already did. Such a wonderful job of explaining. Eric, I have to tell you, I'm very impressed with that overview given the complexities of the topic. I did want to note generally in terms of just weighing your options with where there is already interest in making investments.

The last time we went through the implementation process with the IRS serving as the lead federal agency on it with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, there were specific dates established for that limit to be forward looking rather than retroactive. So last time around, in terms of qualified opportunity zone properties, qualifying ownership interests in a corporation or a partnership, that operates a qualified opportunity zone business or a certain tangible property within, a qualified opportunity fund would would need to be acquired after, critical dates are outlined. So that's first and foremost. And that corporation or partnership had to be a QOZ business. And for 90% of the holding period of that interest, the corporation or partnership was maintained as a qualified opportunity zone business.

And then just looking at definitions, there are some critical terms that Eric's already alluded to here. But in terms of the business itself, there is a 50% of gross income test that gets applied to the business as it grows. And for each taxable year, that business has to earn at least 50% of its gross income overall from business activities that are located within that qualified opportunity zone. There's three safe harbors that a business could use to to meet the standards of that test, taking into account whether at least half of aggregate hours of service received by the business were performed in the qualified opportunity zone, whether at least half the aggregate amounts that the business paid for services were for services performed in the qualified opportunity zone, or whether necessary tangible property and necessary business functions were located in that qualified opportunity zone. So, there are some standards, you know, that that go beyond just establishment but for maintenance going forward.

And just wanted to add to Eric's presentation some additional context here for your consideration. Across the whole of the federal government, the Trump Vance administration is seeking to prioritize investment of federal resources in qualified opportunity zones that were designated during the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. That's something we saw during the first Trump administration, and that lasts until today. With those designations coming to a sunset in 2026 and looking forward to the next round, the two point o opportunity zones, I do wanna just call your attention, to the fact that across the whole of the federal agencies, there is a discretionary competitive preference priority that shows up on the evaluation of discretionary grant applications across a number of different federal agencies, particularly the US Department of Transportation, has issued guidance by secretary Sean Duffy directing DOT across its modes to encourage investment in opportunity zones. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development under secretary Scott Turner, who actually led the Opportunity Zones Initiative for the White House during the first Trump administration.

He's now the HUD secretary. He's provided a similar directive for HUD to to direct discretionary grants to projects either located in opportunity zones or serving residents of opportunity zones. There is a major piece of housing legislation that is currently moving quickly on Capitol Hill, the 21st Century Road To Housing Act, which seeks to help local and state governments to, deliver housing supply and address affordability challenges. There are a number of provisions within that legislation that is likely to move and hopefully be enacted into law soon that would give additional preferential consideration to housing projects, in opportunity zones and would formalize that for the next sort of ten year designation phase of OZ. So I would just also encourage you to consider beyond the scope of projects that may, be qualified for for investments here.

If you are looking across the city at where you are hoping to, advance either infrastructure or housing projects, even economic development, projects, then I would encourage you to keep that in mind as well because, certainly, at least for the next three years at the federal level, we expect this administration to prioritize it. I would expect Republican administrations to continue to prioritize it over the next ten years. And even when Democrats sort of deemphasized opportunity zones during the Biden years, there were still some categorical, preferences that were written into certain grants guidance during that time. So just making you aware of those full considerations. Appreciate all of your time GREEN: tonight.

Yeah. Thank you, Jen, for those insights. We appreciate that.

JOSHUA Sounds a lot more complicated than it looked on the surface. Councilmember Smolko.

JOSHUA Oh, speaking to that thank you, mayor the bottom line that I just want to summarize with, as I understand it, is that Oz, the Zones two point zero, is a tool, not a solution. My concern is that in the right hands with the right conditions attached conditions being the operative word here it can accelerate investment in places that need it. But without guardrails, it can benefit investors at community expense. So I would like to moving forward, I would love for us to consider passing a resolution or community benefit agreement that would require affordable housing percentages, local hiring, or anti displacement protections as a condition of the city's support for any investment in this two point zero tool?

Jen, would you like to respond to that?

JENNIFER Sure. I would just offer that in the previous round, for local governments that were offering some local incentive beyond just the opportunity zones package in and of itself, You know, we often saw, cities and counties trying to lay or additional incentives. Those types of community benefit agreements were, were oftentimes used. And I would just share with you all some original context. The the original legislation was carried by senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, and senator Tim Scott, a Republican, from South Carolina.

So this was a bipartisan effort. At the time, there was much greater, there was a much greater emphasis on guardrails, like those community benefit agreements that fell out of the original legislation. But some cities have adopted those policies anyways to really leverage it for

the community. Just wanted to

make you aware of that.

Thank you. Council Member King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Johnson. What role will the city play in promoting the opportunity zone areas once we approve them?

JOSHUA Yeah. So I think one of the things that we can do is certainly promote it through our traditional means, create a website page, start reaching out to potential investors that might be interested in those opportunity zones, establish ways and means of connecting with those folks individually and letting them know, hey, we have this opportunity zone that's available. Here are some tax incentives that you can take advantage of. So yes, so to answer your question, we can certainly promote this out and get in front of investors. This is kind of like what Councilmember Smokull said. This is a tool that we can then use to promote out to the development community.

JOSHUA And do any of these potential zones require any additional investment in infrastructure roads, sewer, water, that type of thing with the additional roads that could become?

JOSHUA Yeah. So to my understanding, there could be, depending on what gets developed in the future. But that would need to be determined once a project is brought before development and permitting services department.

And we currently do not have any opportunity zones at this time.

Correct.

All right. Thank you.

Yep.

Council Member Kastema. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This evening, are you asking us to choose between one of these, or can we have both?

We could certainly do both.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

JOSHUA Good question, Councilor Marquez. If we could have both, why would we even opt for a choice then? Why wasn't that just presented as a package?

JOSHUA We could certainly do both if counsel wanted to. The way that we presented, we wanted to make sure that we showed the differences between the two census tracts. But it's certainly an option to do both if counsel so chooses.

But it seems to me it should have been one package he could do both. Was there an advantage of separating them or choosing one in terms of odds of getting accepted? Let's speak to that, because I want to understand that before we move forward on this.

JOSHUA I

think Jen.

JOSHUA JOSHUA

Jen,

you have something

to JOSHUA Yeah, Deputy Mayor Johnson, just to make you aware, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act actually required that governors are placing greater emphasis on rural opportunity funds. And so as Washington State undertakes this process, I think the city wants to understand if there is a need to prioritize one over the other because fewer urban opportunity zones will be designated in this round. I think it might be helpful just to understand if the state comes back and asks us because of their limitations needing to identify more rural zones, that the staff would be prepared to offer that recommendation back to the state if their hands are forced.

So if I understand correctly in continuation of my question, if we were to, let's just say, take both, it could be problematic because they only have so many allotments they can hand out per state. And so we'd be seen as potentially being greedy. So if we're going to put all our eggs in one basket, take one and do it, the odds might be a little potentially better. Is that a fair assessment?

In theory, yes. And especially considering what Jen said, there is a high emphasis on rural areas. And since both of our census tracts are urban, there is an argument, kind of like what you said. Put the eggs into one really strong application. Yeah.

Well, I'd like to work that through. Can I ask Katie to come up? I want ask some questions about that zoning. Would you mind? Yeah, thanks. If we're going to go for the best bang for our buck, I do think we had to talk about what potential developments. So I want to go back to that Meridian Corridor and understand when this conference of planning takes place. It'll allow for a lot of things that will generate jobs. And so we talked about underserved housing and then jobs. And I think, mayor Kastamah, you mentioned, you know, jobs in our town. I would think that with this new zoning designation up and down the Meridian Corridor, that will allow for open it up pretty wide open for hotels all the way up and down that corridor. Isn't that fairly correct?

Yes. That zoning change did redesignate much of that corridor that was multifamily, high density multifamily, to mixed use that allows for commercial and multifamily. So a lot more opportunity there along that corridor.

Yeah. And with the Washington State Fair continuing to grow and expand the need for hotels nearby, the fair certainly makes a great location up and down Meridian. So, we already have, what, three hotels. Well, technically four, if you kind of count the you know, a little bit other one, right there on Meridian. So imagine, you know, as the as the, you know, Washington State Fair begins to grow, the need for jobs in hotels. And most of those hotels are employing a lot of people, and so that's a great opportunity. Also, does this does this zoning allow for potentially increased medical buildings if they wanted to open down that corridor? Is that limited, or is does this area include medical buildings for new development as well?

So this area on the map does include medical. That mixed use zoning along the corridor could allow for medical, certainly. So we also have medical specific zoning, but the mixed use zoning certainly allows for that.

Again, just want to petition my colleagues to consider these factors as, again, the gorilla in the room, or two gorillas in the room, the huge investment of a Good Samaritan Hospital of $500,000,000 You've got the increased expansion of Washington State Fair, you've got this corridor for opportunity zones for investment for jobs at high density really ripe right there and it's new investment. The other ones you know there's some existing developments that may benefit but big deal they've already committed they're satisfied with what pencils out. You have some River Road, which I think, you know, has some value there, but we haven't seen any new surges of millions of dollars growth like we're seeing here. I would I would I would say that option b, if we're gonna put all of our eggs in one basket and really vie for this, I would encourage counsel to look at it from that standpoint, that probably this section here, section B, would be a great choice. That's all I had.

Thank you.

Okay, are we complete? Yes. So you're looking for some guidance on this. We've heard some opinions. Is there a consensus amongst us of which of those two zones we'd like to put forward?

Any more discussion of that? We've heard strongly from Councilmember from Deputy Mayor Johnson. Councilmember Castamet. I

will agree with Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Councilmember Gilliam. GREGORY G.

Thank you, mayor. We're primed for census tract number 53053073405, the second option. We're already having things set in motion, so that would make the most sense to me to support that over the other. Thank you.

Are there any contrary opinions? I think you have your guidance.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Let's move on to item 5B, zoning map and code updates. We're going to have a presentation by planning manager Katie Baker and senior planner Kendall Walls. WALLS:

Good evening. Kendall Walls will be doing the presentation tonight, but Katie will be here for support. Thank you very much. We are here tonight to talk about phase two zoning map and code updates. This is a part of the 2026 DPS work plan, a part of package six.

And we've identified a few areas where we could use some additional policy direction from you all before we really dive into the real work. And so that's why we're here tonight. We've also identified some other policy questions that will be coming before you at future meetings to get some additional guidance on this phase two package of amendments. So you'll see us probably in the next couple months. For our presentation tonight, I'll just cover the purpose of the updates with a quick overview of phase two zoning changes.

Tonight, we're really trying to focus on the single family residential zones and looking for a policy direction so we can move forward with map changes as well

as

changes to the municipal code. Just a quick reminder of why we're doing this, This is part of the city's required comprehensive plan update that this is something that all cities in Washington state go through periodically. We adopted the periodic update last year. So this is a part of the implementation of that plan. There's also been those changes in state law that we need to address and reflect in our zoning code.

And then also, the city adopted a housing action plan in 2021 that set priorities for expanding housing options and affordability. And these zone changes helped to implement those goals of the housing action plan. So for a brief overview of the phase two updates, we already went through phase one with counsel that was adopted last month. So that was kind of the more straightforward package of changes. Phase two that we're now transitioning to focus on are areas that we identified that required additional time for code development, work with the planning commission, as well as property owners.

And some examples of changes that are included in phase two are our mixed use zoning updates, where it's applied, but also just the standards themselves. So we'll be bringing that to you at a future meeting to discuss in more detail, as well as our new neighborhood serving commercial zoning designation. That's in development, and that's something that we'll bring forward to you at a future date. So more to come on those elements. But again, tonight, we're here to focus on the single family residential zones, or what we commonly refer to as RS zones.

For a little background of the housing action plan I mentioned, it was adopted in 2021 with the goal to expand affordable housing options for all community members. Some of the priority strategies in the housing action plan look at revising existing zoning rules, particularly to allow more types of housing and to simplify the zone structure. Several housing action plan strategies have already been implemented. Tonight's proposal addresses one of those remaining strategies that has not been implemented yet. To give a little also background on our existing single family residential RS zones, We currently have five zones.

That's the RS35, RS10, RS8, RS6, and RS4 zones. The RS35 zone is implemented by the rural buffer residential zone. So it does have a different land use designation. And as a reminder, those need to align when we are applying them on the map. They do have to talk to each other between the future land use map and the zoning map.

RS 108, and six all have the low density residential future land use designation. And RS4, which I apologize was a slight error in your packet, it had LDRs, the future land use, in the table in your packet. But that was changed in the periodic update process. So it has the future land use designation of the moderate density residential. Each zone has a different minimum lot size and different allowable density ranges, essentially controlling how many homes can be built per acre.

So the RS35 is our more low density, our lowest density designation. And then RS4 is our more dense single family residential zone. And the housing action plan identified that this five zone system was more complex than necessary. And so that's why it was identifying it and recommending consolidation of our single family residential zones. And that's what we're here to to talk about tonight.

JOSHUA Councilmember Gilliam.

JULIE Thank you, Mayor. Kendall, I've been asking myself this, and I just don't know the answer, so I need to ask you. When we're talking about residential zones here, in the back of my mind, I'm processing and pondering about the parking requirements. So if we condense or we keep it larger, do we still have parking lot requirements for these residential designations? Is that ever going to go away?

We still have parking standards. They're actually handled in a different chapter of code. And it's by use type. And it sets a required off street parking requirement based on these.

That So

cleared a lot for me because I'm like, I'm leaning this way because of parking requirements. If there's not Sure. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Councilmember Castama. Yes. By the way, on that point, did not the legislature restricted those parking requirements? So it said, for any houses, you can only require one, correct, on-site?

Middle housing has parking restrictions. I'm not sure that standard single family.

I think you better check into that because they changed that as separate statute that minimized parking. You could only require one. And so Councilmember Gilliam, your concern is certainly a concern that I have. And that on apartments, multifamily, it's half. That's all you can do.

That's citywide. And then there's also a restriction if it's within a transit area within a certain distance, that it is zero for multifamily. And I'm not sure what it is for. But I ask, please verify what I'm saying. So I just don't want you to give the picture that everything is continuing the status quo because it's not regarding parking. And then, but please verify that, okay? And then, the question I was going to ask you though is, okay, if you want to consolidate, we have five. What's the goal here?

That's kind of our question to you all. So I'll kind of get to that with the presentation. The housing action plan had identified taking the five and essentially going to it's a little confusing with our RS35 zone. So eliminating the RS35 from the discussion, it's not going anywhere. It's going to be retained.

We're really looking at RS4 through RS10. And the housing action plan identified consolidating those to have four into two. So that's our question of, is that still our goal? Some things have changed through the process. And so that's what we have here in the presentation tonight to kind of talk through what's changed since the housing action plan recommendation was made and seeing if that's still the direction we want to go or if we want to retain three versus two.

JULIET Understand. But now three versus two as opposed to five, because you're excluding the urban buffer or the rural buffer zone. And then that's four.

I know.

And now you want to go to two. But then you just said it's going to

It would ultimately be three if we do the two option. It's confusing. I understand. We're talking about low density residential zones. So it's going to be in this area here.

But we could keep five. We can walk away this evening with five, right? Yes. Okay, good. Thank you.

Would you like to continue your presentation so that we have all the information? Are you JULIE

It's entirely up to you, Mayor.

JULIE Okay. Proceed.

JULIET Okay. So the map here on the slide is showing existing RS zones. This takes into account the changes that were recently adopted with phase one. So this is showing you'll notice the RS4 is eliminated from the map from those changes in the future land use map changes. So we have RS6, RS8, RS10, and RS35 on the map currently.

And it kind of gives you an idea of where those zones are applied in the city now. You can see that there's a large amount of RS-ten in the city. And then RS-eight is serving as a transitional zone between RS-six and RS-ten. So as I alluded to just a little bit ago, the housing action plan recommendation was to consolidate the RS4 and RS6 zones and then combine RS8 and RS10 and just remaining leaving RS35 as it has a different land use designation. There were also recommendations related to middle housing allowance options.

But changes that have occurred since the housing action plan adoption are obviously the state mandates for middle housing in our predominantly single family residential zones. And we also wanted to make it clear middle housing is something that's being handled. We're working on permanent regulations. It's a little bit separate from the conversation as far as the standards go. We'll be coming forward at a study session later this month to talk about the permanent regulations for middle housing, but wanted to recognize that those mandates do change how our single family residential zones function now, as well as the fact that the future land use map changes and the phase one changes that have already occurred have eliminated RS4 zoning now.

And so we're left with, how would you like us to move forward? The housing action plan set forth combining RS4 and RS6 and RS8 with RS10, which doesn't quite match with what we're left with, with the changes that have occurred with the periodic update and the state mandates. So we have a revised approach that is what we're seeking input on from you all tonight, which we could move forward retaining two low density residential zones, each having similar use allowances but differing property development standards, similar like looking at minimum lot sizes. Maybe we have a smaller lot size near our more urban center areas and then a larger lot size applied elsewhere in the city. In that approach, we would again retain RS35.

There may be proposed changes to the standards for RS35 through this process, but retaining it as a zoning designation on our map, And just recognizing that reevaluation of RS35 and our road buffer residential land use designation was identified as a future action item. So that would be kind of dealt with at a future date. We would look at that in more detail comprehensively. Alternatively, we could retain three low density residential zones with same use allowances, but really work with our planning commission to establish standards to differentiate between the three zones. So that is our question tonight.

I had prepared a table to kind of think through the pros and cons of these two options. When we talk two zones, again, is the two low density residential zones. Looking as a summary of these different items that we identified, two zones appears to be a simpler option, easier for applicants and staff to implement, and creates more of a clear urban versus larger lot distinction and provides some streamlined opportunity in the code. Three zones offers more nuance. It allows for a middle tier that could serve as a transition between neighborhood types and may provide more flexibility for areas with infrastructure constraints or potential critical areas.

The challenge with three zones is that after the state's middle housing mandates, they become much more similar when we have the same use allowances across the board. And so it kind of raises the question as to whether or not a third tier is necessary. So this is my last slide. This is the same map that was on the prior slide, just to give a visual depiction of how our zoning is applied currently in the city. And our question is, do POLPS neighborhoods warrant meaningfully distinct standards, or do the three zones function similarly today?

And so going forward, how should we move forward with consolidation of these RS zones?

Yeah, I'd like to weigh in a little bit. I was very involved in the housing action plan and had a number of things that like to I wanted to focus on and implement changes. This was one of those areas, the combination of the 4.6 and the 8.1. But intervening legislation has really changed the landscape here. And I do not feel like there's the need nor the benefit to making those changes the way they were originally anticipated in the housing action plan.

So, as regards this particular aspect, I would say that my own interpretation is that the housing action plan item on this is obsolete because of the intervening state legislations. So, as we address this, do we do two or do we do three, I think there's still some benefit to simplifying our code and streamlining it a little bit. So, would just like to say that I'm in favor of combining the eight and the 10. The difference between those two codes is pretty small already, And so, them is not going to change the character of our neighborhoods, particularly, as far as I'm concerned. I think it makes the administration the code and keeping the code current a lot easier.

I would argue in favor of that. Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I noticed this slide on policy direction showing the various regions of our city is different. You eliminated the RS4, is that right? Because the first one, I think, had RS4. Refresh my memory, is RS4 obsolete? Now is it off? That's off. Correct.

Yeah. This is the same map as on the prior I

thought I saw RS4 there.

The RS just to clarify, the RS4 is no longer low density residential. It's now moderate density residential. So it's not being addressed by this.

So for example, if I'm just going to use just, again, basic overall, you know, RS6 means you could have a house on a smaller lot, right? So you could theoretically, 6,000 foot lot, you could have a house. But on an RS10, you have to have a 10,000 foot lot. I mean, is that kind of basic rudimentary? So, when I look at this, I'm going to, you know, kind of, I think, you know, Council Member Kasimis kind of rubbed off on me a little bit in terms of unfair zoning standards and the burden really being upon District 1.

When you look at District 1 on the map, it has the most highest density living. And yet, you look at District 2 where I reside, District 3, you've got these big sprawling areas where the density is is certainly not encouraged or even allowed. And so here we are wanting to have infill of infill density of affordable housing, and yet all the burden is on District 1 to provide that. But yet, if you live in District 2 or District 3, in some essence, you're protected with these big large yards and big, you know, wide neighbors. You know, the days of the the final frontier of having rolling acres are over.

We live in the city now. Infill is a reality, and I don't not sure why we implement zoning that doesn't allow property rights for people to put in higher density housing much like, you know, District 1 has been for for a hundred years. I'd like to suggest that we simplify it all the way and go RS 6 across the whole city. And you want simple. They're simple.

Now, in areas in District 2, doesn't mean that every lot is gonna turn into an RRSX. It just means that if a person wants the big spread, they can buy a big acre and never develop it and have that nice wide open space. But somebody that wants to provide affordable housing in that area, why would we limit them? Much like District 1 certainly has the bulk of high density housing. No other district has it.

It doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem equitable in terms of zoning standards. And if we're looking for infill and there's pressure on us, why are we taking, in essence, District 2 and District 3, two thirds of our city, and then having a higher bar of residential development in there provided it meets infrastructure and the buffers and all those things. So don't take it out of

the

context. But I really feel that is fair. It's simple. It's equitable. And I'm not sure why they deserve, and I live there, and I have an acre. So believe me, I love my wide open space. I have this great, in a sense, trail across the street, big buffers. But it's not fair that those areas don't get to absorb infill, but district one certainly has been doing it all along. So I'd recommend council that we take a look at RS6 across the board and make it fair across the whole city. That's simplified. Thank you.

Council member Smolko.

Thank you. Similarly, actually, to what Deputy Mayor Johnson is saying is that my recommendation would be that we keep six and ten. I liked four just because it preserved some of that housing affordability, but it scared the crud out of me thinking about fires and Central Pierce's ability Aviv's ability to get there and respond. So I think that RS 10 serves a legitimate purpose. It captures our larger lot, lower density areas, but gives those residents in those neighborhoods assurance that one thing I know that former mayor Kastema has said is to preserve the character of those neighborhoods, those communities.

I think that it would allow us to do that, but without eliminating a low density option. So that six, if that's the lowest we can go, I would like us to keep the endpoints, in other words, so that we can absorb some of that. We have more wiggle room, I think, it feels like, more to play with. And just keeping the mid range there open for everybody.

Council member Gilliam.

Thank you, mayor. I like the idea of combining to two zones, so the four-six and the eight-ten. I like the ability to simplify so that we can be more efficient with building and just kind of cut through the red tape. And I like the idea of keeping options available as well.

So

that's why I like the first option.

Thank you. Thank you.

Do you have a slide that shows the different setbacks?

I don't. Our intent is to kind of look at that once we receive direction of the different if we are going to focus on two versus three. And those standards will likely be adjusted, depending on the feedback we receive.

CHRISTIE Yes. Okay. Deputy Mayor Johnson.

I just want to follow-up to Council Member Smokull's suggestion of what did you say? Four and ten? Or what did you say?

Six and ten.

CHRISTIE Six and So I'm concerned about the 10. If we go with that, it doesn't change anything. Half the city, as you've outlined, is 10. So if we keep it at 10, there's no higher density of living going on there. So I don't know how that encourages density. It seemed that we had to at least go something lower. So I'm concerned about that. So can you address that if we kept it at 10? How does that help anywhere else in the city in terms of increasing more infill?

So, you know, the way we've looked at it is it doesn't necessarily have to stay RS 10 if that's the route we go. Ultimately, we're likely going to be changing the naming structure of our residential zones in general. And we can take a look at maybe there's a hybrid of standards between the zones that we currently have that we then use to create the new zones. So it wouldn't necessarily have to be the exact application of RS-ten as it is today. But I took that as retaining two low density residential zones. And we'll work with the planning commission to further refine the actual

But property if four is off the table and 35 is not touchable and 10 is the highest one left, then by keeping it at 10 doesn't create any higher density potential.

Could look at reducing some of the we could increase the density slightly for that option, for the higher lot size option.

Yeah. Well, if we're going to prune, I think we should prune and do it across the board. What was that?

And with that, we are also still looking at how the zoning is applied in the city. And we can apply rezones, kind of taking into account characteristics of the area.

Well, may have a few more questions here, but I really want to hear from customer Castamog. Again, as I look at this map, RS 6 and RS 4 is in District 1. There's no other place in the whole city that has higher density requirements except for them. And we got, you know, over half the city in yellow RS 10, you know, big chunk of it, RSA, and then RS 35 on the very outskirts. I don't see how that is fair and equitable across the city to maintain these big buffers when we we don't live in the pioneer days anymore.

You know, population is here in the city, and and yet we're putting caps on development in large parcel areas because we maintain high density or, I mean, these these big buffer density r s tens or whatever they are. So I I counsel, I hope we're taking a look at this and recognizing that we're not really opening doors for for infill by keeping it at RS 10. We really need to be dropping that down into at least eight. But I think it should be six, quite frankly, across the board. RS six across the city make it fair, all three districts.

And again, doesn't mean that every neighborhood's going to change. Right? Not every investor is going to go run-in District 2 And 3 and do that because some of them have HOAs. Some of them have wetland issues they can't do because they're next to a creek. So we don't want to take this baby in the bathwater and throw it out because now all of a sudden every neighborhood's going to be changed. There's still requirements need to happen. But it doesn't seem to be fair to have all the burden of density be located in District 1, but that's already mostly filled up. I mean, there's not too many lots left there. So in essence, we're fooling ourselves to to not lower the potential for density throughout the rest of our city because we want to preserve the character of neighborhoods when, quite frankly, no one has to do it. It's optional.

So there's my thoughts. I do want to hear from Councilman Casteman because I thought of this, and I thought of him. And I want to see what he thinks about it. Thank you.

Councilmember Castamer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some things clarified. And I need to give this some more thought, frankly. But the options that you put before us can you go back to that screen, please? Okay, two zones or three zones. What I heard the mayor say was that and correct me if I'm wrong, mayor but I believe that you said we should have an RS6 and combine RS8 and RS10. First of all, am I correct? Is that what you said?

I think that's my understanding My of the way this would

understanding is, then how does that proposal differ from the proposal that Councilmember Smokel gave, where she said she, too, wanted to limit the number of zones and just would say 10? Is that really saying combining eight and ten together?

That was part of my question, too.

It like a

roll in? Does that roll into the 10, like an option for eight, or no?

So let me jump in a little bit. I don't think we're talking about, if we have two zones, the combination of the eight and the 10 doesn't result in the same eight we've got now or the same 10 we've got now. We're going to blend the requirements for the two of them and come up with a hybrid. So it wouldn't be the same as the RS-ten today. It wouldn't be the same as the RS-eight today. Do I have that right?

That's correct. And I know it's confusing when we're talking about existing zones that we have today. And our intent, by framing it as two versus three was to keep it high level. We will evaluate. Our intent is to look at the map itself and look at rezones with the feedback that we received from you tonight as far as two versus three. We have to figure out what the differentiating factors are between the two zones and see what our recommendation would be for applying it on the map and changes to be made to the code itself.

My only comment would be if I was going to editorialize at all at this point, I don't think I'm completely prepared to do so. But I'm going to, nevertheless, give you kind of off the top of my head what I'm thinking here is that we have experienced a tremendous amount of mandates from the state. And I think that you can have a blunt approach or you can have a finer approach. And I would choose to take the finer approach for my community, and therefore more of a gradation. Be very frank if it was just me, but I would say just keep it the way it is, Okay?

Just saying. But if I was going to look for something that moved the dial, but yet wouldn't be a shock, as much of a shock, I would probably agree with the mayor that you go with six and combine eight and ten. And I believe this is what Smokel is requesting, too. Fight counts. Deputy Mayor Johnson is yet to be had on things in the valley. I'm saving my powder for that one. But I think that that would be a fairly moderate approach. So I hope that's clear.

That is. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think we need to get a little powder from Council Member Adler going here.

JULIE DELL:

Thank you. And thank you. I, too, represent D1. I think I'm on the same page with most of my colleagues, Kendall. There's nothing that my colleagues have any of my colleagues have said this evening that I have heartburn against.

I actually find myself in a similar situation as council member Castemma, where if it was just me, I probably wouldn't change anything because I I understand why this is before us, but I'm still trying to identify the problem statement. And that could be very ignorant of me, and I'll own that. But for the other proposals that other colleagues have mentioned on the dais tonight, I'm open to that. I just got to spend more time with it. So whether you all come back and incorporate some of those new ideas from the dais, and as well as two zones, which I think that I'm in favor of, that would be super helpful for me.

Otherwise, I just don't think I'm there yet to go deep into this. Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any more hands raised. Has everybody said their piece? I'll just wrap up then. It sounds like we have pretty good direction that we don't want three zones. I think the debate at this point is between two and one. So I trust that's the direction we're giving. And if it's not, then speak up. Okay, thank you for that presentation. This is a complicated issue, and it's hard to wrap our heads around it a little bit because there's more than a few moving pieces here. So, thank you, Rick.

Okay, so we're on to item 6A, first reading of an ordinance adopting the traffic impact fee study. And we've got city engineer Hans Unger back with us tonight.

JOSHUA Yes. Thank you, Mayor Hans Unger, city engineer. I'd like to also introduce our consultant, Daniel Dye, who will be on the screen there, he's done a lot of work on the transportation traffic impact fee program here in the study there. And he has a wealth of knowledge also from what other cities are doing since they've worked for a lot of other jurisdictions. So tonight, I'll keep it fairly short and go through the slides there.

But the ordinance this is the first reading of the ordinance and adopting some code changes there. And within that, we're looking to set a public hearing at the second reading for this so we can get some more so a public hearing for getting more input.

Hans, ANTONIO just as we move forward, my reading on this is that we've got a bunch of discrete issues that we need to provide GREEN: guidance on.

Correct.

JOSHUA And so as we go through this, I'd like to stop at each stopping point and address GREEN: that particular issue before we move on to the next one and

That'll discuss each one? Work just fine.

JOSHUA Great.

Okay.

Looking at the traffic impact fee, I'll just remind you of this slide that we have. These are one time use fees. And this slide kind of compares how we compare to other jurisdictions that are close by and puts it into perspective of what it costs for a single family house, which isn't a full traffic impact fee, but 0.93 of a traffic impact fee. And so currently, we're at $4,500 That's what we've been since 2007. So we've really got after hearing the last discussion and talking with the city manager, we boiled it down to really there's two options here that seem to get support from the council.

Option A is a catch up, where we had it at over five years. Now it's over three years. And we started in 2026 here at 6,500. And then over each year, we're increasing it to get to that ultimate rate, the maximum defense level rate of 8,762. That's what's set in the study as the maximum rate that could be set.

And then the option B is just go straight to the maximum defensible rate of 8,762. And these fees, just as it notes there, are independent of the index for inflation, which is another discussion slide that we'll have. So I can pause here.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. So the funds from these are going to go allotted to mention help me refresh my mind. Where do these funds go to?

So we have a project list within the study that are all projects that add capacity to our system. So whether that be for car traffic, truck traffic, or pedestrian traffic, we're adding new sidewalks, new trails, widening intersections, widening roadways. And so we've got a defined list of projects, and any of these fees have to go towards those projects.

JOSHUA Would that include traffic lights, traffic things like that to mitigate traffic on that, too?

JOSHUA Yes. So some of them are looking at interconnects between traffic if we're not replacing the traffic light. Or if we are replacing a traffic light, it's usually because we're widening out a new section, so we're replacing them.

Yeah. So I've touched on this the last time it was brought to us. I think it was last meeting. And growth should pay for growth. Our infrastructure is in place.

Those folks who built and bought houses have already paid into this traffic impact fee to provide the growth and infrastructure that allows us to get around and as increased development comes within some of these areas it would make sense that new growth new builders new buyers are going to pay into the system, because that's what we do. And so by we if let's just say that we go with option b, which just says, hey, let's not mess around. We can we can screw around and raise it a thousand bucks for the next four years. But the scope of things on a project, dollars 2,000 in the scope of things really isn't a big deal to the budget. And so I don't know why we would do that, except it makes us feel better.

But let's just say we maxed out at the maximum allowance of $8,700 what do we anticipate that funding could come into our city budget for these improvements in the course of a year? Is there like a million bucks additional? What are we looking at?

Well, because we'd almost be doubling the rate, if I use the average that we collect currently at $4500.1200000.0 dollars a year, we're looking at about another $1,200,000

So

tell me, with an extra million dollars of growth paying for growth, to to have us look at adding sidewalks for pedestrian safety, looking at some of the added trails for the park system, widening the roads or putting in lights, how much would that extra million give us for extra projects? Would we see a tangible difference? Or in the scope of things, the extra million bucks is not going to give us much benefit for our dollar in terms of increased projects from this extra money coming in?

From my opinion, it is a measurable thing. This gives us a lot more not just the value of the dollars, but it gives us more flexibility to take opportunities, such as grant opportunities where we need to have match dedicated for it, property acquisition opportunities, where there is a willing seller and we can get some of the property that we need for the project right now. So having that I'm the kind of with the city running, like trying to do a lot of different projects, I like to have a lot of pots cooking at the same time with different projects we're aware of. And when an opportunity comes up for a grant program that only is really tied to this type of project, well, we've already got the design work done on that one. We're ready to go on that one. Block.

And then can you go back to the slide that shows where we're currently at? We're down out of how many cities, 12 of them or whatever. How many we've got here? One, two, three. What do we got here?

JOSHUA About a dozen.

JOSHUA A dozen. We're at the bottom three. And we're supposed to be a vibrant city. I don't know why we would not get caught up. I mean, we should at least be you know, I know economic development in Edgewood is not happening, but they're still charging for it. So I really think that we should get up to speed, take pride in our study, let growth pay for growth, and then use these funds to actually truly build infrastructure rather than kind of increment it at a thousand bucks a year increase. I just and again, the good news is this is not a tax increase upon our residents. These are this is actually new construction where growth pays for growth at the time of construction. It's a one time fee, and it's over. Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah. So, this is this should be kind of a no brainer in terms of what it's gonna do for our department to be able to have these improvements. And, they're gonna pencil this in. So, because it's it's part of the cost doing business, developers are gonna pencil in and say, hey, listen, the extra $2,000 is that worth developing in in Puyallup. Yeah. It pencils out. I'll pay it. So I I think we we don't need to be shy about this. We need to get our city from the bottom three at least into the top three because we're a vibrant city that people are wanting to invest in. I don't know why we're holding back. So my my my thought is go go for the maximum allowance of 8,700. Let's not mess around. Growth pays for growth. Let's get our budget up. Let's have these improvements, these lights, these street widening, sidewalks.

Let's get it going because I always hear that we have we have no money for sidewalks. We have no money for this. It's like, well, of course, because we're charging at the bottom three of the region. And that's we're wondering why. There's my thoughts. Yeah. I'm passionate about it because I see the potential that benefits our city at a very minimal base of folks that are getting paying into it. But it's they're gonna let them pay for infrastructure that we've already paid. Those who have built houses in Peelope have already paid for it, and they they deserve to have new business come in and expand infrastructure to add to the intensity of modern day living. Thank you.

Councilmember Gilliam.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of things roll around in my head at this moment. One is affordability for housing. But the other thing that rolls around my head is the community meeting we had in District 1 a couple weeks ago, where we had a student get hit by a car speeding through the area.

And I was just wondering well, I would expect that sidewalks would have helped prevent this or the ability to plan better for our city with the infrastructure of our streets. Just think that Puyallup has fallen behind for however many years. We haven't been reaching our full potential for public safety just for our infrastructure for our streets and sidewalks. I'm inclined to agree with Deputy Mayor Johnson with, let's just get it over with, get us where we need to be so that we can start planning our infrastructure better, being more efficient with taking care of our residents. So that's where I land on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'll coincide with Councilmember Johnson and ripping the Band Aid off, so to speak. Just, I mean, something that was brought up was by producing more sidewalks, and you'll be producing better safety along school routes and things like that. Just as a curiosity, how much do we know and I don't know this answer did Furgrove Elementary pay with their project that they just put in place with the parking lot and redid their whole street frontage there.

Fruitland? What'd I say? Fruitland. That's what I meant. Fruitland, not Fergrove. Wrong part of the city. With the infrastructure that they put out there. What did that look like? And GREEN: how much did we receive for that?

Okay. I'm not totally sure of this, but I'm thinking since they didn't expand the building. This is really tied to new trips being generated. And so when the ITE manual looks at a school, they're looking at the capacity of that school. So if they're making things improved by arranging how pickup and drop off is done or parking or anything like that, that won't trigger a traffic impact fee. But if the school was expanding and they're adding more space for students, it would be on a square footage basis. That would trigger a traffic impact fee.

JOSHUA Interesting. Don't agree with it, but interesting. All right, thank you.

JOSHUA Councilmember Casteman. JOSHUA Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Normally, I would probably be somewhat attuned to more of a gradation of increasing fees as I would try to do with utilities or whatever the case may be. But I found an argument compelling last time.

And I can't remember whether it was Councilmember Gilliam or it was Deputy Mayor Johnson who gave this argument. And that is the maximum defensible rate is a rate because that is the actual cost that we determine at cost for that new resident in Puyallup. And from that, we make the derivation by 0.94, whatever it is, to $8,148 per resident. But that's based on actual facts. And the fact of the matter is that if we don't collect that, someone else is paying for that.

And the people who are paying for that are current residents in Puyallup. And I think that we are experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. In fact, I think last year may have been one of our best years ever when it came to permit fees, things of that sort. This community has built a place where people want to be, with eighteen, nineteen different parks, with excellent police force, with a downtown that's thriving. People want to be here.

But there are costs associated with that when people move here. And therefore, I think it would probably be fair to the residents of Puyallup at this point if we, in fact, brought it to that value of the maximum defensible rate at $8,762 and that we curtailed the subsidies of approximately $2,200 a year that go per resident. So I find myself agreeing with everyone who has spoken prior to this. And if someone puts forward such a resolution, I will certainly vote for that.

Okay. I'll weigh in at this point. I agree with everyone that's spoken. The one concern I have is I always hate to surprise people with upcharge if there's a project underway that has been penciled out at a particular rate. And now, of a sudden, numbers change.

As a financial officer, I never liked those kinds of surprises myself. So, hate to do it to others. But I agree 100% with my colleagues, and they've been pretty compelling. I'm ready, willing, and able to support the consensus here. And I'd like to hear from Councilmember Adler.

JULIE Thank you. I was just going to get in on the auction, as it were, and just voice my support for option B. I appreciate, in particular, Deputy Mayor Johnson's comments, as I do believe that growth should pay for growth, while recognizing, however, to Councilmember Gilliam's point, I am very sensitive and have been related to the price of housing and the end sale price for consumers, particularly first time homebuyers. But twenty years since 2007, the year I graduated high school, I think it's time, and I definitely am in alignment related to ripping off the Band Aid, so it were, with option B. Thank you.

JOSHUA Council Member Smallko.

JOSHUA Oh, boy. I was hoping that Council Member Kasten would go first, but here we are. So I also tend to agree with what everybody said, but just want to play devil's advocate a little bit because I have a couple questions. First, is it too late to do some sort of hybrid, a different model or different approach where we jump to 75% to 80% of the maximum and then over the following two years get to 100%? Or is it too late for, am I just too late to the party for that model?

JOSHUA I think that's really up to

your

colleagues. This is the two that we proposed.

So that's a really common one that a lot of jurisdictions will go with, from what I've read. And then I also am a little concerned maybe with and I'm not even sure what the lingo is or how the departments work, so maybe other people can help me. But I know to defend like, if all of a sudden we have this windfall of funds coming in, of revenue coming in, are we structured to be able to use that readily so that we can show our communities, look, we have all of this extra money, and we're doing something with it right now so that we can defend this sudden influx of extra funds. So that's not for you to answer right now. Just something I'm thinking about, can we defend it and say, look, we're actually doing things with it in a prompt manner to strengthen our infrastructure right away.

And I know that also courts and challengers tend to look more favorably on the incremental approach. And again, I do agree with my gut says, rip the Band Aid off. But I also want to make sure that I know there are things I don't know. So with regard to legality and courts defending it, making this huge jump, and then can we, politically with our constituents, say, yes, we've done the right thing and here's why, and look at how readily we're responding to that from within the staff, etcetera.

Okay. Council Member Castama.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, actually, I had a question based on your comment. And that is, I assume that the current developments that have already filed for permits are, in essence, vested. Am I correct?

JOSHUA No. You don't vest under traffic impact fees at the time of application. Towards the end of the presentation, when we talk about the flexibility of when it can be paid or deferred, we'll get into a little bit about what can happen for an existing development, the options that they would have right now.

I think that would be very important because I think that, as the mayor had commented, that there's people who have already penciled things out. And it would be, at least, I think, it would warrant an option that they could take advantage of that now or some type of structure. But let me ask you this. If we do an ordinance, does this require it's a first reading. So it would require a second reading. But when does it go into effect?

JOSHUA So right now, the way it was drafted was May 1 would be the time when this fee would go into effect. And I'd probably consult with the city manager. Tim and I had talked about this, about what a time period would be. We do need time to integrate it into our permit software so that that's all calculated correctly there. But beyond May 1, that's the date that we had come up with.

Okay, well, so the ordinance you have presented to us this evening does

not DELL: have the component or does have the component on methods of payment?

It does not right now. I think with that, we can work that into there's another section of code that deals with traffic impact fees. Now, we only have draft of one DELL: section of code dealing with

Only that dealing

with the amount.

Yeah. GREGORY Okay. However, that being the case then, under the status quo, what are the methods? In other words, if I put the fee in place without putting the methods of payment, then frankly, I would almost want to do it the other way around because I would want to give people that option. Because otherwise, I'll have a window in there where there will be no methods other than what is currently status quo.

I mentioned that. And it may be, in fact, something we want to deal with on second reading, just saying. And then let me only address this, I think the public is pretty hungry for projects. I appreciate Councilmember Schmoekel's observation that when you get the funds, people want to see apparent results from that. But I remind everyone that we are on a plan right now in Puyallup to put in sidewalks.

Just to give you everybody, in case no one has heard this, we have 200 miles of sidewalks that we have projected in Puyallup. And at our current rate, we're doing one mile a year. So unless some sort of longevity drug happens or whatever, none of us will be around to see all of the well, maybe Renee Gilliam or Lauren Adler or Schmoekel, I guess. You're all younger.

You didn't mention me.

I've got to watch myself there. Oh, Dennis, what am I saying, Dennis? You're the youngest of all.

No, I am actually the youngest. But don't forget.

Well, I'll end my discussion. I don't want to dig myself any deeper. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody? Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Yeah. Thank you, Mary. I think this has to come back to a second reading. I think there's a I pretty much heard almost unanimous I'd like to make a motion that we approve the maximum defensible rate of $88,762 And then if there's some concern that we want to adjust it, we can do that in a second reading. But let's just get this thing teed up and move forward to the next section. That's my motion. BERNANDEZ:

Councilmember Kasten. CHAIRMAN Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just have a question. Down below here, it says fees shown are independent of any index for inflation. Does first reading include indexing?

Yes, it does have that in there.

Okay, just so we're aware. Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'm thinking that do we want to have

a Second?

A city attorney Beck. We've got a multi section thing here. Do we want to have motions on each one? Or should we discuss each one and then have an overall motion?

I think it's fine to have a motion on each one. It's a little bit of a straw vote. But it provides us the direction we need a piece at a time to then choose the option in the ordinance. And then you can have an omnibus sort of motion at the end to adopt the various components that you've gone through already. Thank you.

Okay, so we've got a motion. Do I have a second?

JAMES Second.

JAMES We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

JAMES Aye. JAMES

Any opposed? Motion passes. Let's move on to the next component of this discussion.

These ones might go a little faster. This is just on the indexing inflation. So if we want to tie whatever we do adopt for the rate to the construction cost index, which is the same index we use for the rate study, so each year.

JOSHUA Based on our past discussion, I'm expecting that there'll be large support for this one as well. So I'm looking for a motion.

So moved. Second.

Any discussion? Councilman? No discussion? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Moving on.

Okay, this gets at the exemption of certain land uses. And exemption is maybe it's a little hard to grasp. But state law allows us to put up to an 80% reduction for very specific land uses, those being affordable housing units and also for early learning centers. We currently have an 80% reduction for ADUs that are added on. So that's our only exemption right now that we have there.

So with these two, if they are adopted by the city, they aren't required to backfill with other funds from some other source. As if you decided to exempt, say, non profits or something like that, that would have to be exempted or backfilled from.

JOSHUA So that's an important distinction here. If we do these kinds of exemptions for most purposes, then the city has to make up the difference. And the the RCW allows us to make exemptions, in this case, without the city having to make up the difference for very specific purposes here. And while I'm on it, support those exemptions. And we'll make the appropriate motion in this case to honor exempting those certain land uses.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm inclined to support. I do want some more questions. So I'm concerned about the early learning facilities I'm not too worried about.

I mean, I don't know how many we'll get, and so I don't think it's going to impact. But I do want some questions about the low income housing. What would happen if there was a developer who wanted to develop this multi 100 unit low income housing, and all the infrastructure and things needed to bring in, theoretically, 100 families in that area with no reimbursement for impact on the neighborhood, could that put us in talk about other ones paying for the bill for that? Is that a concern if that large capacity came in and we're missing out on the improvements needed for a larger facility? Shouldn't that be also eligible to pay into growth paying for growth?

Even though it's low income, you're still affecting the intensity of the infrastructure. It's concerning on that, for

sure. I would say is, yes, they would be only paying in 20% of the traffic impact fee for going to those projects that are identified. But there also still is SEPA requirements that have to be met. So if they blew up an intersection right close to them with their additional trips and stuff, that would be their required off-site mitigation to do. So there's a couple of different ways that you look at what mitigation is required for this development.

So if I understand correctly, then it may escape this particular traffic impact fees. But if it's a scale enough project, it may be picked up through another method because of the impact it's going to have on that street coming through a traffic. Is that fair?

Yes. Frontage improvements would still be required around the property there. Then they would be looking at the

it was significant. I'm Okay knowing that. I do want to just also because you perked my ears, it wasn't mentioned here. This wouldn't eliminate the 80% for ADUs. That would still be included. We're not eliminating the ADU 80%. Correct. Yes. So with that DELL:

confirmation, I would support it. So mayor, were you making a motion? I did make a motion.

I'll second it with that in mind.

GREGORY Councilmember Castamet.

GREGORY Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would caution people on this one. I think you have to look at the reading, the fine details here. This is going to mirror the requirements of the affordable housing units in the multi unit tax exemption that currently exists. Therefore, someone, a developer, can come along as we do currently give a multi unit tax exemption. And we are doing that with the Palindrome development, correct? But then think about that. It requires that multi unit tax exemption allows you to do it for eight, ten, or twelve years. Okay, that's it.

Okay, eight, ten, or twelve years. That's all they have to provide a percentage of the unit for low income housing. And for that, not only do they get to not pay the property tax to the state, which they don't have to do because of that exemption, but now you're exempting them from the impact fees locally, too. And then keep in mind that in eight, ten, or twelve years, which depending on what, I think, exemption they receive, it's all over with. They can go back to market rate.

And they have avoided paying the traffic impact fee for that place. I think that they're already getting a multiunit tax exemption from the state, I question and that's, again, for only 20% of the units. Am I correct?

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding this because if I had somebody come in with 20% of the units, my thought would be 20% of those units can get an 80% reduction in

their team. Not what this says, though.

It was probably my poor wording because what I was trying to mimic was, how do you define what is an affordable unit? And I was trying to use the same definition that we use for the multi use tax exemption so that we're not having two separate definitions of what a low income unit is. But my intention here wasn't for the entire building to be exempt. It would only be the units that are affordable. But that's something that I should have been clearer on.

Well, is that the way it is, or is that just your interpretation of it?

I'm going to turn to Daniel a little bit because he's more familiar with the state laws.

Yeah. So I'll say that there are, in some cases, developments that have partial low income housing and partial market rate, and we do assign them different impact fees. So I think that would follow the same way in Puyallup under this proposed. So you would charge a 100% for all of those market rate units, and you would charge 20% of the impact fee for the affordable units that are kind of set out in your GREEN: affordable housing definition.

And, Daniel, can I ask, is it up to an 80% reduction? GREENEZ: You could do less than an 80 Correct.

Percent.

The state all allows up to 80%, but you can set anything lower than that if you'd like.

JOSHUA Thank you.

So what does this do?

JOSHUA So right now, this would be 80% reduction for just the affordable units.

JOSHUA Just for the affordable units?

JOSHUA Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

City attorney. Yeah, I want

to clarify that the ordinance that's before you tonight only has language to raise the impact fee to the level that you choose. These other questions you're answering right now, we will bring back language that will implement

these items.

So it's whatever direction you give us is how it will be done. There is a suggestion that the 80 is in there because we can go to 80. But you could direct something less, and we'll bring back something less. Our intent was that again, as described, our intent was that whatever that reduction is would only apply to the low income portion of a development. And we would bring back language that would put that into effect. So I want to be clear, we're looking for direction to bring back

MEMBER additional language. J. Councilmember Castro.

CASTOR: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. However, Attorney Beck, we have now made a motion. I mean, a motion is an actual act of the council. And it's been seconded. So in other words, we're effectuating things before we have the details. But nevertheless, we are dealing with the macros. So we're not merely giving suggestions here. We're passing. And if that's correct, then would you not suggest that that motion be withdrawn? Or you could keep the motion. But if we do keep it, then we're actually GREEN: engaging in passing.

Yeah, it's first reading, first of all. And you're right. A motion made on this slide right as it sits right now, we would be bringing back an 80 deduction. So if you want something other than 80%, then you need an amending motion to do that. But the rest of it would come back as our understanding would be that was the intent of the motion, as we've described what we had presented. If that's not the intent of the motion, then we need clarification.

So I'd like to jump back in here for a moment. There is some concern on my part about the affordability going forward. And that topic has been brought up by my colleagues here. The idea that we give a break at the front end, and it may not perpetuate the affordability of the units in question, do you have any guidance for us in terms of whether this how do we define that affordability question and how it moves forward?

JOSHUA Well, I'm not the expert on this. So I'll just go with my thoughts on this is if we're thinking that the definition of what is an affordable unit is the same as the multi unit tax exemption, but we want a longer duration, that this is a one time fee for our roads. And we're not getting a portion of that. So we want to make sure I think right now, you've got the eight, ten, and the twelve year. But you said, that's not long enough. We could write something in there and bring that back of what we wanted that to be. I don't think we could put something in perpetuity, but I'd turn to our attorney to give guidance on that.

JOSHUA Just a thought of my own here. There are community land trusts that we could get involved in this. But that's beyond the context of this meeting tonight and the ability to address that issue. City Attorney Beck, do you have some questions? Yeah, I was going

to add to that. What's being proposed tonight and the intent of what Hans is proposing is that we would use the definition that we already have on the books for what is affordable. The length of affordability is up to counsel. So if you want to make it affordable forever, you can make it affordable. You can put that requirement on there.

I would not advise that, because buildings have a lifespan, and you don't want to lock it. You wouldn't want to have some sort of covenant on the property for all time. But a lengthy affordability period is perfectly reasonable for counsel to impose using the definitions that we have for affordability in our multi unit tax exemption code already. We use that definition and then in code for impact fees impose whatever length of time you want those units to be affordable in exchange for that break, bearing in mind that well, I'll just stop there. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Councilman Kastomer, for bringing that up with the city attorney. In terms of the motion, I wouldn't have a problem withdrawing my second, although I'm not sure that we would need to, because I heard language from our city attorney that said the intent of this was go forward and we'll bring back in the second some fine tuning. And I also am comfortable even with this 80% ratio. I still think there's some verbiage to city attorney because I don't think my motion was, is what's on the screen here, And it says up to. So I don't see it has to be 80%. I see up to. So isn't there a clause there that you could come back in a second reading and adjust that and give us some options without having to lock in 80? Because that's not what I was saying.

We can bring back whatever your intent is. We just need to know what your intent is.

Sure. Yeah. That's what I'm thinking. Counsel, if I'm missing something, I'm happy to withdraw. Otherwise, I think we can go forward with good intent and adjust any fine tuning on second reading just to keep this thing moving forward. But that's my thought, I kind of stand by the second. Unless I'm missing something, I'm happy to consider that. But I'm comfortable with hearing him say the intent. I'm comfortable with knowing that we have a second with more details and making some adjustments. And so that's kind of where I'm at.

Okay, any more discussion? Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay, proceed.

All right. So this gets into how, for an individual development, the traffic impact fees are calculated. It's based on new trips. But the standard practice is to allow some consideration for a past land use. So if a Safeway moves, as happened, and now somebody else moves in, you can consider, what were the trips from that past land use?

Because we're really focused on new trips. But then you want to set some boundaries on there because you don't want to necessarily consider something that's ten, fifteen years old that hasn't been contributing traffic for a while there. And then suddenly, they're trying to take credit. So what I tried to craft here was that the standard would be for land use that has been in operation within the last three years. So someone comes in, they apply for a development of that parcel, and they're considered a complete application by the city.

At that point, you can look back three years. But considering this isn't always cut and dry and stuff, I also put some flexibility in here to you could go up to five years if there was some extenuating circumstances with consideration from the city engineer or the development permitting services director.

Council Member Kastema. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Why would this be an issue?

GREGORY Well, traffic impact fees could be several $100,000. So if you, say, have a land use that you were expecting, like, well, that's a lot of money. Is there any way to reduce it? Part of the consideration is, what are you buying? Did it have a previous use that had some trips? You might be able to knock $100,000 off that $200,000

But if a business before you was a gas station, and it pays the traffic impact fee to go in, but then it closes. And it closes. The lot sits there for ten, fifteen years, whatever it is. Or let's say ten years. Then it opens up a gas station again. It already paid the price at that time. So the dollar amount itself that they paid when they first went in bought whatever it was, it adjusted by inflation. And so at this point, it's already paid for when they start the business again in ten years. It's already been paid for. They paid for it with older dollars.

They could buy a lot more then, too. But the point is, why would they pay again?

Well, one, right now you can consider land uses that didn't even pay a traffic impact fee because they predated any traffic impact fee charged by the city.

Well, it could be argued in that case that in one way or another, we all paid in this community. I mean, again, we've been paying, subsidizing all the developments now for, what, twenty years. We all have. Everybody, through whatever mechanism, we have been able to somehow keep up. And those taxes may been through our property taxes, may have been through many things.

I just don't see necessarily if just because someone they already pay it, and then they go out of business, And they sell it for the same use. I can understand someone coming in and changing the use and having more traffic. I understand that. But if they pay for the thing, it seems to be there's some vesting issue there that why can't and I guess you could do this. You could look into it.

Well, they did actually pay it because we do have them in effect. So they paid whatever the rate was. I don't know where I'm going to land on this, Okay, time wise. But I just I kind of see it as a gotcha. I think you are if I start a business and I pay for the traffic impact fees, I think that's it.

Now, if any business comes along, buys my location, and ups the level of traffic, you do a different assessment of whatever that type of business is, then they pay the difference. But to say that, well, if you've been not doing anything for three years, now all a sudden you've got to start over again, I don't see the logic in that. Help me out, colleagues.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Well, I'm not sure I can help you out, Councilor McCassel. But I do want to ask questions. Because I think when you came up with this, you had some scenarios in your mind that felt that it was probably not fair or perhaps biased or something. Maybe. Don't. Tell are there precedents that we should hear about in scenarios, just loose scenarios, that would cause us to address this? Because there's probably some reason. Give me a scenario, hypothetical, and why we should consider this.

Well, I think the one that sticks out in my mind the most is where we had a land use proposed on a parcel that was probably about thirty five years ago a gas station. And they wanted to take the credit for the trips for the gas station. But the gas station had not been even in existence. There was no building there for thirty five years there. So in that sense, we didn't have anything that necessarily gave us guidance to say that couldn't occur.

So that's what we're trying to put some sort of sideboards on how far to look back. And from my perspective, a lot changes in a city in thirty five years, not just with the need to increase road widths, but also the standards for roads change. One of my examples of, well, did they at one time contribute and that's enough made me think of we had the same discussion when we talked about frontage improvements, that a business comes in and they have to do frontage improvements and they put sidewalk around. In another thirty years from now, another business moves in there. And are they required to do some sidewalk repairs because things have changed there?

And my argument with master builders is, look, the sidewalk doesn't last forever. And that's just part of the things aging out and needing to be replaced. And I think of that the same way as when I'm talking about a road width or what safety requirements we require now for a road compared to what used to be thirty years ago. When I started with the county and that was in 1990 the policy was you didn't put sidewalks anywhere in the county. It was a county and stuff.

Now they put sidewalks in. So there's a standard that changed for them over time. And I think that's what we're really trying to account for here is the money that was maybe probably not even collected there, but they had ran a business and they paid taxes and stuff. It was paying for different things back then than what this current study looks specifically at those projects.

Just

jumping in here. I think about this. And if a project's been sitting idle for a period of time, it may have changed hands between ownership four or five times so that you're really kind of starting from scratch. There may not be a building there anymore. And the traffic in the surrounding areas has been adjusted.

We've built the roads to accommodate the level of traffic that we've got at that point in time. And now, all of a sudden, this business starts back up, and there may need to be some significant changes there. The other the other thing about it is, is you know, hate to see properties that that aren't contributing to our city. And so, if the gas station went away and the lot sits there idle, that's kind of a blight on our community. And I think this impact fee question actually provides some incentive to redevelop the projects within a reasonable time period.

And I think that three year time period with an extension of five to be under extenuating circumstances is a reasonable approach to that. So I would come down in favor of this provision. Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Yeah, thank you, mayor. Hans, because I'm listening to Councilmember Kasimov. I'm listening to you, mayor. Just, again, I'm trying to sound this out. In a hypothetical scenario I'm going use my own example. So we're using gas stations. Gas stations closed. Tanks were too expensive to repair. And we're going to lay fallow. Someone buys it and says, hey, we're going to put in a whatever it is, let's just say a car wash.

And if that was vacant for so many years and the car wash say, hey, I want to buy this land. I'm going to redevelop it, put a new structure up and everything. In this scenario, would they be exempt from paying impact fees? Or would they be required to pay impact fees in this scenario of what you have in front of us?

So if they redeveloped within three or five years, They're not exempt. They still have to calculate what the traffic impact fees are. But in that calculation, they also include a subtraction for the previous land uses PMP trips.

So this would actually lower What you're proposing here would actually lower their potential impact fees. Is that correct?

Correct, yes.

So you're counting a reduction, DELL: not a gain.

But only if it's within that time frame. So if they

come

in GREGORY DELL: after five years

GREGORY You're paying now, full

you don't get to consider those previous land use.

GREGORY Gotcha.

And these three to five years, I mean, we've tried to like pull some other jurisdictions. What do you use? Try to get that the consistency between different jurisdictions.

Last comment I'm sounding it out loud is I can see the rationale of saying, hey, they've already paid into it. But they really, in essence, haven't. I mean, the owner in this scenario, I feel like it's gone. They've done it. They've done their business. They've ran their business. They contribute to society, and they're selling it. So in essence, to me, it's a new owner, new use, therefore requires new impact fees. So for me, that thinking in mind, it doesn't impact fee should go with the land just because someone did it, you know, twenty, thirty years ago, and now it's a new owner, new new business, new development. They shouldn't be exempt to get credits for something that took place years ago. So I'm inclined with that thinking to think that this is reasonable. Thank you.

Councilmember Kastam, sorry.

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we have to think about the purpose of this. Focus on the purpose.

The purpose is not to entice people to do things with their piece of property that the city wants them to do. The sole purpose of this and the purity of it is and the reason we went to $8,735 whatever the amount is is because that's how much it cost at that time for us to pay for the traffic fee. It is purely for to pay impacts on our transportation system, nothing more. And that's the purity of it. And so you've put a person in double jeopardy. You say, Okay, you're

going

to pay this impact fee. And then if you do have a close if you close down, or if I take Deputy Mayor Johnson's logic to its logical extent, every time a new owner comes in because they didn't pay it Now, all of a sudden, they have an extra burden of an impact fee they have got to make because it's a different person. And I think that's absurd. I don't think we should say that if every time you sell a business, boy, you're now gonna start all over and you're going to pay the traffic impact fee an additional $8,735 whatever the case may be. Well, the same logic though applies for a person who says, I'm not going to do anything with the land.

I'm going to pay the in back fee. Business went out of business. Keep the building. And I retained that building for ten years. And then someone comes along, I'd like to have that same building. I don't see any difference in saying, I already paid because that's the purpose of it. It's not to make sure vacant lots are filled. The sole purpose of this is to pay for transportation infrastructure. And they paid for it at that time. They've already done it.

But now you're saying that these interim points, whether it be at the sale of a business, or whether it be three years, or five years, whatever the case is, and because of the changes of transportation quality, things of that sort, then all of a sudden they've to start all over. And a person who owns a business and operates doesn't have to start over. They're not with all the curbs and sidewalks being destroyed in front of them. We don't come along and say, hey, you know, that sidewalk that you paid for when you first came here with your impact fee, it's not doing well. Now we're going to make you pay the entire fee over.

I'm sorry. I will not give my perspective any longer because I don't think it's making an impact. But I feel, though, that that's double jeopardy. I think it's unwarranted. And I think once you pay it, you pay it.

I'm going to jump in again. I don't think there's anything in this that talks about an ownership change preempting the counting of the trips, correct? GREGORY D.

No, not that I'm aware. Just the time frame.

GREGORY So the ownership, that's not an issue. And in terms of the impact fee, if we put this in place today, three years from now, or five years from now, this property, let's say ten years from now, the impact fees that were paid yesterday are $4,500 And the impact fees, which we all recognize is way too low. So ten years from now, when that property is redeveloped, we're going to give credit at an increased rate. We should have been charging $8,500 but we only charged $4,500 up until May 1, if that's the date. So we're going to give a credit against the $700 based on a payment that was made at $4,500 Or potentially, if it was long enough ago, no impact fees whatsoever, right?

Yeah.

So we're giving a zero. We're crediting people 100% of their impact fees because never paid any impact fees in the first place. Or they paid at 50% of the rate that's in existence today that will go up 100% as of May 1. So the purity of it, to me, is we need to collect the impact fees. And I'm reluctant to you have a new owner and a new use and crediting back based on some historical value.

I think it's appropriate to give the historical benefit to that for a period of time, but not in perpetuity. And I think what Councilmember Kastema is suggesting is we should give a, in perpetuity, credit an impact fee that may never have been paid in the first place. So that's where I come down on that. Council Member King.

I believe Johnson was ahead of me. I would like Johnson to go first, please.

GREGORY which clog them up more. We've come up with an adjustment factor for only industrial land uses that their trips there would be adjusted up 50% to account for the trucks coming from industrial land uses. So it doesn't account for commercial. It doesn't account for residential there.

Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second? Second. Moved and second. Any discussion? The motion has been moved and seconded. Did you hear the motion second?

I did not. I was trying to figure out some things for logistics for tonight.

Yeah. The motion is to put a 50% premium on

DELL: DELL: truck trips. For industrial land uses.

Yeah. So it's been moved and seconded. All those in favor?

Aye. GREGORY

Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay,

reciprocal traffic impact fees. All I'm really looking for tonight is a nod that this is something we're interested in, and we'd like you to continue to work with the county and see what can be developed and then come back to us with some more details on this.

Do I hear a motion?

Do you need a motion? I thought you said head nod.

Head nod. Strompole.

Head nod.

GREGORY I think you've got a head nod.

GREGORY Okay. It probably won't be quick. The county has their own timeline for working through this with a larger transportation package. But we'll be coming back to you with more meat on the bones on this one. And the last one is something about the flexibility of payments.

So right now, usually you would pay your traffic impact fees at the time your permit is issued so that you can go and start construction for your building there. And you can the code currently allows you to ask for a deferral of up to either eighteen months or occupancy, whichever comes first. But it also specifically says that when you ask, the fee will be determined. When you ask for the referral, the fee at that point in time is what you're going to pay when you finally pay it after it's deferred. And so that's the current way that the code reads.

But I do think there's some nuances here that, well, we haven't been raising our fees. So now what happens when you're already in the pike and you've got a raise coming up here? So what could be a solution here is that if the fee is going to raise already in the pike and we already know what your traffic impact fee is, if you want to pay it now at the current rate when you pay it, you're paying for that at the current rate then you're Okay. But if you want to defer it, you can't defer it until you get to the permit issuance. And you're deferring whatever the fee was at the time your permit was issued.

I haven't thought I apologize. I haven't thought this out really well to articulate it. But what I'm trying to avoid is, well, the fee is going to go up. So everybody's going to ask for a deferral so that they can pay the fee currently but not pay it now, pay it later. So I think by putting this at, if you want to lock it in now, pay now. But if you want to defer it, you're going to be paying whatever it is at the time your permit is issued. And I hope I have worded that correctly, please.

Deputy Mayor Johnson.

Yeah, I've thought about this a little bit. And again, I'm not set in stone. I'm just going to state my thinking on it. Tonight, we've talked about purity. In other words, this is the cost for this project to go in to make it wash. We're zero. There's not a profit margin in here. So we're not like a retail place that says, Okay, We we bought it for this price. We're gonna charge you this price. We're making this profit.

If we've been running at a deficit and you're still in the pipeline, but you haven't finished yet, this is kind of that that's that's called what they call that increased with cost overruns. It's kind of a cost overrun. That's just the nature of it is. And the scope of things, it's not that big a deal. But for us, it matters because now we're going to be able to collect double in essence because we've been undercharging for twenty years.

That's just the nature of the timing. So I think that we should charge if the council makes a determination. That's what you pay, Whether you defer. Now, in terms of they want it now, I do agree with the deferral because most developers, they want to save cash because they're financing a lot of it. So I do think having that deferral in there at the full amount, whether they pay up front or the end doesn't matter.