Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All for seven.

Hold on. Yep. Right.

I would like to call the order of the infrastructure planning and sustainability committee meeting for 08/27/2025.

Oh, where? Will you please call the roll? Hi, mister Diaz.

Here.

I don't think you we have audio on you. We saw your

I can hear you.

Is that better? Here. Yeah.

Council member Hines?

Here. Also

Council member Sadalgay, absent. Council member Bushnell?

Present.

And chair Walker?

Here. Also, council member Diaz, you have an extra letter in your name. I'm not sure if that's intentional because it looks kinda cool. Yeah. Alright. We are officially all here and ready and audio working. We are gonna start with public comment. So moving on to public comment. Clerk, will you please read?

To request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in the front

of the room if you have not done so already.

If you are speaking virtually, please press the raise hand button at the bottom of your Zoom window or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of your phone number will be called out when it is scheduled speak.

Thank you. Anna, has anyone signed up to speak virtually or in person?

Nobody in person. I don't see any. It's.

Come on down. You you can just jump right in. We'll get your name later. It's fine. Come on. Yeah. You're all good. Two minutes. Yeah. You can sit it right right here at the table. And just make sure you state your name for the record, and then Anna will start the timer up there. And I don't think I have anything any other notes. And this Anna, there's nobody online, so this is

her only one last time.

K. Welcome. Go ahead whenever you're in.

Good evening, counsel. My name is Harvest. Last name is Davidson, and I'm here today as a concerned Tacoma resident, but also as a federal plaintiff in a case out here. Last year, I was injured at a hotel called the the Holiday Inn Express in Tacoma on South Osmer Street, a hotel that was allowed to operate under unsafe, noncompliant conditions for the last ten years. Despite operating an expired on a an expired permit for ADA noncompliance, this hotel continued to serve guests without proper oversight or accountability from the city.

In addition, this ongoing ADA violation that the hotel holds an expired permit for $500,000, upgrades that issued many years ago, this is an alarming flag. A permit that should have been, excuse me, a permit that should have been nipped in the butt a long time ago. There should be an audit here. Ten years, this city was allowed to operate this building for ten years, and it took one entry that was mine. During this whole time, I can't

Please feel free to speak and

I've got the top. You want me to

pause it just for a second? Feel free to speak, and then you can leave that with us if you want us to have the details. That's fine too. Go ahead.

During the last ten months, I've been advocating for myself by myself. I've reached out to the attorney general, was pushed to the insurance company, and was ghosted because of what I feel I believe. I'm just advocating for myself. And when I reached out to the city, asking for the city for the entire building records, their response was, no record exists for this property. How can that be so?

This property has been operating for forty years, and has sold this property in 2018 to the Hospitality Development Group LLC. When I tried to negotiate on my own, I was getting stall tactics, stall tactics, stall tactics, not only by the city, but by these entities. Is that fair for someone to advocate for themselves here? No. I'm only just one person. I've reached out to attorney after attorney after attorney. You know what they say? There's a conflict of interest. Why? Does no one wanna go against the city to tell the truth?

So thank you for your comments. Please leave that with the with the city clerk so we'll put it as part of the record so that we have the information. And then

Please. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments.

Anna, do we have anyone else scheduled to speak? And if you would put your name on the list before you leave, then we'll have our official record. Thanks. No. No other? Okay. Great. Then we'll go ahead and close public comment and move on to our briefing items. We have two very big important briefing items today, and I would like to start. We have the transportation impact fee update and the wastewater and storm water development charges system development charges. Intentionally, we put these together on one day, we could hear a lot of information at once. But we're very excited to have both of these and Jennifer Camerozal from Public Works this year, and I'll let you introduce anyone.

Thank you, chair Walker, and thank you council members for the opportunity to present to you today. As you mentioned, my name is Jennifer Camerzel. I'm the interim division manager for transportation and public works. And today, I'm joined by Kendra Braylen, our consultant with Farrand Peers. We also have several additional team members in the audience who are also available in the event you have additional questions, including Steve Victor, our city attorney, Jeff Jenkins, our Footwork Works director, Joe Franco, special assistant to the director, and then Rivera Chavez, still including you, who's our our mail services director starting the process with us.

So we're here before you today to present an update on the transportation impact fees, the updates that we've made since the last time we met in June on 06/11/2025, and then the work that staff and consultants are preparing to conduct a trial. So with that, we'll focus on the feedback received from partner stakeholders and community council and next step. Next slide. So today, it is an informational briefing. We are gonna be looking for any feedback or any additional questions that you may have.

We'll just do a really brief overview of background of impact fees, kind of hitting on some of the topics that we've heard some questions, additional questions about, and then providing some of those program updates based on our conversations with you and the community, and then, again, providing those next steps. So with regards to background, just wanna clarify that we're here to talk specifically about transportation impact fees being talked about. This is a fee that's imposed on new development for capacity projects just as reiteration. One of the reasons large reasons why we are pursuing impact fees is based on the premise that this is addressing growth and demand for services. And so as you may know, the Pugetown Regional Council has identified that the city needs to accommodate 60,000 new housing units and 94,000 new jobs by twenty fifth.

We are also committed by through the One To Come A Conference plan to become a fifteen minute city based to a to help accommodate that growth. We also recognize that impact fees also provide for that predictability of development and then also that fairness to mitigation based on those impacts. We've gone through, and we'll talk a little bit more about the actual capital projects, but we have identified that the impact fees would support development of 42 priority city capital projects that are still consistent while in the current capital facilities plan are consistent with the current transportation and mobility plan to provide those services. So since we've met the last time, I wanted to provide just some of the concerns or questions that we've had from that we've heard in general. And so a big piece of it as we're looking forward from the last presentation were to really think about how is this gonna impact affordable housing, and so wanting it to be crafted in a way that still supports affordable housing.

We've heard from folks wanting to see that a d ADA accessibility, connectivity, and then access to transit are big pieces of when we look through projects. How does that how are those served? Wanting to also consider other development fees and costs, and this is one day, by coordinating with, system development charges, water, trying to find out a little bit more about site development, impacts, fees as well. So we brought some of that forward, through our partners here with Environmental Services. And then also looking at what are other sources of funding that we would need to meet transportation needs.

And so we'll provide an overview of or we'll just be kind of high level on on what some of those different needs are, and then also ensuring that fees are not significantly different by district. And on the next few slides, you'll see how we've created that parity. And just as an overview, the graphic on the left, although small, is an excerpt from the transportation and mobility plan. The bar chart on the left is for twenty thirteen to 2018, just a snapshot of what our revenue is annually average annual has been. And then twenty nineteen to twenty four on the right hand side, shows a decrease, but a reliance on grants and then as well some of transportation benefit district streets initiative.

And so impact fees would help provide that lever provide that additional, source to then leverage those grants again. And so now I'll turn it over to Kendra Braylen to provide an overview of how we've modified the rates from our previous presentation. Great. Thanks, Jennifer. So, again, happy to be back, and we did get some very good guidance from IPS last time we were here.

So excited to share some of those updates. So as Jennifer mentioned, we modeled the eligibility of 42 capital projects in the program to identify TIF rates for each of the six districts. And big change from the last time we actually had over 50 projects, but some direction that we received from IPS is, hey. Can we think about ways to maybe modulate the program to have fewer differences in rates between districts? So one of the ways that we did that, we we sharpened our pencils and looking at the projects, and we took some off of the list.

This modeling, just in terms of coming up with these rates per district considered anticipated growth in Tacoma as well as in the region, the types of projects that we would be funding, and who would be using those projects. So it's important to understand who's traveling on those projects. Are they people coming from uses in Tacoma or going to uses in Tacoma? Are they coming from outside of the city? Because that certainly determines eligibility.

Based on this assessment, we developed rates for each district, which shown on this slide. The highest rates are in Southeast Tacoma, North Tacoma, and South Tacoma. The lowest rates are in Northeast Tacoma. I know kind of the reason for that is that we don't have any capital projects in Northeast or in Northeast Tacoma, but it's recognizing that development in that part of the city are using capital investments throughout the city. So we've carried that through in our modeling.

I say that the citywide average of 4,820 per PM per hour trip. I feel that that feels like kind of a weird number. It's hard to kinda think about how does that baseline across other cities around the state. One of the guidances that we got from IPS was that you wanted to be on the lower end. You guys didn't wanna be the most expensive place.

And I would say that, actually, in comparing this rate, to other jurisdictions throughout Western Washington, Tacoma would be in about the bottom 30 percentile. So bringing in a fairly affordable rate at the same time as generating a significant amount of revenue to build transportation projects that are important to providing safe mobility for all residents and people that are, you know, kind of in the Tacoma community. So pass on to the next slide. Wanted to I realized these cost per trip rates are a bit abstract, so we also wanted to assign that to actual independent development types that folks would be familiar with. So this slide, we talk about how that cost per trip translates to a single family dwelling unit.

And as you can see, rates in the city would range from 7,100 in Southeast Tacoma to 1,600 Northeast Tacoma. The citywide average is about 5,900. Again, that's consistent with the same kind of percentile. You'd be in kind of that bottom third of Western Washington in terms of impact fee rates. The next slide, I wanted to talk about four plexes.

We know that this is a a development type that's envisioned specifically in Houma and Tacoma. So we wanted to talk about know, what kind of impact fees would be generated, in each of your districts. Again, the rates that you're seeing on the screen, this is for four units, so it's not an individual unit. And what we've tried to show here is that, you know, their market rate units, you can see the rates in the dark blue on the slide, fair amount of revenue generated. But something that's important to recognize about impact fees, the state provides us with the ability to significantly reduce rates for, housing that meets certain affordability requirements.

So if we're talking about affordable units, that are affordable folks that are, making 80% or less of the area median income, we can reduce those rates by 80%. So you can see these impact fees for four units is not near as substantial. So important to kind of bring that up, how impact fees can be crafted to be very consistent with your affordability goals. The last slide that I think I'm gonna present before I pass it over to Jennifer, I just wanted to talk about reductions and exemptions. There's lots of ways that you can tailor these programs to make sure that while you're generating revenue to pay for capital projects that are much needed in the city, you can also make a number of choice policy choices, to ensure that these programs aren't getting in the way of affordable housing provision.

So first, a new state law that came out this year, to the extent that you're developing multifamily units that are eligible for the multifamily tax exemption, If they are near high frequency transit stops, you actually pro need to provide a 50% reduction in those impact fees. So that's an automatic reduction that those use types would get. Again, to the extent that you wanna provide that 80% reduction, like what I showed on the fourplex slide, or even for early learning facilities, you can provide that. You don't need to pay it back. It's just less revenue that would be generated by the city.

But, again, if the impact fee program wouldn't be getting in the way of that type of development. And then another kind of update in state law that's important to bring up, state law has actually set a mandatory 50% reduction on accessory dwelling units. So rather than charging them the full rate that a single family home would be paying, state law requires that you reduce that rate by 50%. So again, that's making that unit development type much more affordable. Last but not least, there's lots of development that occurs that does not generate trips.

Adding a pool, building a fence, making a remodel to your home, business upgrades that aren't adding additional trips. Again, those are those are things that people don't need to pay impact fees for, and you don't need to pay back for not not charging those uses. So with that, I'll pass it back to Jennifer. Yeah. Thank you for that.

And just to add on to this slide, this is where staff is proposing. We recognize the question specific, and I just wanna point out right through affordable housing is proposing that 80% reduction. There it's very scripted in state law, like, what that the criteria is, and so we would pro we can provide that, and that would be included as part of the code for references as well. So we were looking specifically at the reductions and exemptions that would not require a payback. This is where we would be, you know, seeking any counsel feedback if there are other priorities that you all would like to for us to pursue.

Right? Just knowing the caveat that if it does require a payback, we would have to identify a source of funding to pay into the impact fee program. So then finally, we've got the next step slides, and so we're here before we've conducted several stakeholder outreach engagement meetings, with Transportation Commission, permit advisory permit advisory group, the Climate and Sustainability Commission, as well. And the intent is as we get additional feedback from you all would be to continue, I believe, we've got a anticipation to meet with the ports in their next quarterly meeting and then working with, you know, some of our other stakeholders as well. The tribe as well, they're aware they're interested in, you know, interest how does it affect them as also.

So from here, our expectation is to get some of that feedback from you all. Looking forward towards a city council consideration in September, October. And then with that, if it looking at four that it passes, the ordinance would likely be in effect quarter one, probably more like quarter two of next year, and then we would be doing fairly robust education and outreach as we launch the program itself. And so with that, we are happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Great. Thank you. Just a quick question on the timeline before I open it up. Can we set a different effective date even if we take action, you know, say, in October? Could we set an effective date for June 1 for to allow for more education and outreach, or is it do we need to wait to pass it then?

I don't know. You You set the date anytime you

You could. Okay. Okay.

You can delay it for years. Okay.

Not not

any suggestion. Put it.

Not any there. Suggesting that.

It's not. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Appreciate that. Alright. I will open it up to my committee members to ask questions first. Councilmember Hines, jump right in. Oh, you're online first. Okay. Councilmember Bushnell or or vice chair Diaz, do you wanna jump in?

Sure. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you, one of the I had I've been hearing a lot of folks, talk about this out in out in the ether. And, some of the concerns they have is is obviously, I mean, fees in general and how it can impact development. One of the questions I had is, regarding, do we have other cities that have done similar models to this type of impact fee where it's kind of, based in the certain areas?

It's my it was my understanding, like, impact fees were supposed to be for adjacent properties specifically that that that's other folks' interpretation of it as well. Like, it so could you go kinda walk me through that a little bit?

Sure. I'd be happy to answer that. Thank you for the question. There are a variety of ways that, different jurisdictions set up their impact fees. In Washington state, it's many jurisdictions have a single district.

So city of Olympia, for example, has one fee citywide. However, as you get to larger cities that are more geographically diverse, and I think we recognize that's the case with Tacoma, it makes sense to kind of break up the city to make sure that you're assessing the impacts of development. I think we'd all agree that development that's occurring, for example, in Southeast Tacoma might have a different impact than development that's occurring in Northeast Tacoma. So we have individually modeled that. We're trying to create a fine line of not having rates that vary wildly all over the city and are difficult for developers to follow to understand what they are.

We're trying to keep the rates fairly simple, but at the same time reflect the diversity of Tacoma. So I would say many aspects of this program from the way that we're assessing fees, being on a person trip basis, funding multimodal projects, and doing it at the multidistrict level are all very typical, and you have many peers within Washington state.

And council member, this is Steve Victor. There's another layer to this, which is, as Kendra noted, single districts were the preference in Washington. But in 2024, a federal case, over traffic impact fees extended or reconfirmed, the principle of what's called nexus and proportionality being applicable to impact fees. And nexus and proportionality means that with regard to the specific property that is assessed, there is some nexus to the impacts of that property and that the fee is proportional to that impact. Now the federal court in that case said there's many ways to do this.

We're not prescribing how you do it, but that nexus and proportionality has to be accounted for. So this district approach is the modern way to meet that test. And so while some cities have kept a single district, those are subject to challenge. You know, if nobody challenges them, then they'll continue. But in, creating a new program, we wanted to take account also of that case, and so that plus logic and and real circumstances are driving the district approach.

Got it. Okay. Thank you for explaining that to me. And then the other question I had is with the when this this fee is implemented, does that, are developers still gonna have those off-site improvement requirements on top of this? Is this in is is in addition to?

Yes. So thank you for that clarification. So developments would still be required to do those frontage improvements that would, essentially be necessary for the operation of their for the development that they're creating. These would be so the impact fees would be tied to the capital projects where they'd be contributing to those those capital improvements. So there would still be yes.

Those offside side sidewalk did not exist. They would be building sidewalks. But what I'll add to that, though, is the improvements that they do make as part of frontage improvements can go towards a credit to that impact fee itself. So there's there is a lot on the back end with impact fees where there's opportunities, like Kendra mentioned, whether it's credits for the trips that are currently generated or improvements that they're already making that are consistent with with impact fees.

Okay. Thank you. And that that was kind of what I was thinking about because they are paying for potential frontage, like, even even up into including a road and infrastructure to service the their development specifically.

And and then, obviously, the that development has impacts in the area as well. And so that makes sense to to try and, like, kinda offset that in a way because they are actually physically improving the transportation in their immediate vicinity. But yeah.

Okay. Those are the two questions I have. I'm happy to end now, and maybe I'll have more questions later.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Thanks, council member Bushnell. Vice chair Diaz, do you have questions?

Not yet. I don't think.

Okay. Great. Council member Hines.

Thanks to me. No. Thank you very much. I I think makes a lot of sense, and thank you for answering all of our questions here so far. I think the the question I'm coming back to again and again, I think that's where I got to, but it's just I it is the the cost build. Right? And, you know, and the so what do I know? Every other city in Pierce County has these, including the county. I know that. Right? Almost every other city in the state state of Seattle has these. Right? I mean correct. So I I understand all those points. I think my concern, though, is, and what I I haven't seen yet, but I'd like to see at some point in time, is it an actual single family house that got built city of Tacoma on a corner?

How much should we call? Make them pay an off-site improvement cost. And then what would it look like to layer this on top of it? So I haven't yet seen that because I my and then I and I know we can't apples to apples comparisons don't work, but I think that's, in my mind, the question I keep coming back to is this is is this if I if I scroll in the end, which I shouldn't do, it looks like we're gonna add basically well, I guess before I get before I get

that point.

I'll wait. But so it it's just how much it's gonna add to the cost, though. And especially the time we want more housing and housing is, like, it's a housing crisis, a housing shortage, which I don't take lightly, but that's what they've tried to use, that that we're adding cost to build is a question I have. I do appreciate there's reductions for affordability. I think that's really good, but that helps with the people who actually building affordable housing. It doesn't help kinda maybe shape some of cost. Some people may be not be doing may not be doing that. I think my question was when I look at the four when I look at the single family home, the do I just multiply that by the number of units, or is it if

the number gets smaller as the units go up? Generally, it's just multiplied by the number of units. I will put a comment in there, though. Many developments come in, and it's not just a single family. It's maybe a mixture of single family, multifamily. Maybe there's some commercial mixed in there. And, you know, there will be a fee schedule that we could look, and we could say you've got 10 single family homes. Multiply that number. We've got that. However, to the extent that a developer can make the case to you that, hey. Because we're putting all these units as approximate, we're sending fewer trips off-site. The city can honor that and reduce the fees in that way.

That's good. Yeah.

I mean, I think that's just the the question I keep coming back to that someone's gonna make me answer is, so it's already very expensive to build here, and now you're adding $16,000 on top of that per unit, not per unit, but, like, roughly per unit. So, I mean, I guess my question would be, we start thinking about bigger things, 100 units. Am I looking at $700,000 impact fees for a 100 unit building by multiplying 7,000 times a 100?

That's math. Okay. I I would state that those funds don't just go into the city general fund. They go Yeah. Towards those projects that are, in theory, serving those folks that'll be living those homes.

Okay. No. Homeowner president. Yeah. And, again, let me just I'd be very clear. I this is a wonderful presentation. I think you all nailed it. I think when I talk to the when I talk to people in the city, one of the frustrations they express is when the new building comes in, because we don't have impact fees, all we can make and pay for is the direct impacts of this building through the process for the outside improvement purposes. I've also heard from developers who say that they are frustrated with the outside improvement process because I can't go and do pro form a ahead of time for the outside development costs that comes in later, but I can do a pro form a for my impact fees. So I guess my broader conversation is probably not about the impact fees.

It's fine. My broader conversation, which we're not having, is off-site improvement costs how and do we rate that in, or how do we make sure we balance those things Yeah. They're good. With the thing and with what's going on here. Because I I have no because I can easily you all can show me a chart to say, hey, council member. Here's how much we're charging for impact fees versus every other city. And that's great. It's really good to see that. And I appreciate it, but I have not yet seen, like, well, how much does University of Place charge for off-site improvements versus the city of Tacoma? Now we are also unique because we are a fully built out city.

So the impact fees are not paying for new roads into new neighborhoods. They're generating trips. They're helping us with some of our deficiencies that are caused by capacity. I reckon I I know where the line is on But when a developer builds in, say, unincorporated Pierce County, there aren't off-site improvement costs because they have to build the infrastructure to say you know, they're not they're not fixing broken infrastructure. They're not fixing preexisting things. They're just building it and then turning it over. So that's just I think that's always gonna that will be a question that I'm gonna continue to carry with me as we go through this. It's nothing about the impact fee conversation. I think we can get there on that. It's just the how are we balancing the overall cost to build offset improvements, impact fees, things like that.

And just super clear thanks for that and the opportunity to to comment as well, and that's something that environmental services and public works are working on and finding a it's a little bit challenging to find out off-site improvements vary. Mhmm. Right? It's very site specific, and I think that's the challenge we're finding where we can pull some examples, but it really is site specific. And then also then finding something that might be comparable to, you know, another city that has the impact fee. So we are working on that and trying to provide information that is more responsive without giving you, right, a lens that's maybe biased one way or the other. So Yep. We're trying to come up with what that might look like.

Yeah. I think it it might also just for our conversations. Right? So when I say out loud, so a 100 unit building is $700,000 impact fees, or a 200 unit building is $1,400,000 impact fees. I have yet some maybe some someone out there who's built something will call me and say, paid $4,000,000 to redo do all this other stuff, but I don't have a scope to tell what it would be great to know, because we probably have it, to show me a building that we have that was built, like, I don't know, somewhere downtown or in Procter or somewhere and say, much did they pay in off-site improvements that I can look at to get a rough estimate of what it looks like, how much they're actually already spent right now, that I can then ballpark against it.

So $1,400,000 sounds like a lot, but if it's a $60,000,000 project they did $22,500,000.0 in outside improvements, then it fits in the realm. It kinda starts staying in the realm. So I think there's just some law, large number of stuff that I it'll be great for some future information as we go back to council.

Yeah. That's great. And, yeah, we'll kind of also add to that conversation, that next in proportionality piece of it too. Mhmm. Yeah. Otherwise,

I mean, I I I agree that, it's interesting that the differences fees based on parts of the city, but I understand kind of why we landed there. Yeah. Otherwise, it seemed yeah. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, council member Hines. Just a couple things. I think echo my colleague's comment. Thank you for the super responsive presentation. I think the one thing that we all wanna see is and appreciate you talking about this would put us in the bottom 30%, but actually seeing what other that that comparison graph that has other I think it's still good to have that. And then is it the bottom 30% of transportation impact fees or overall cost? This

is specific to transportation impact fee. Yes. I was I was speaking to that. Yes.

Okay. Great. And then on the exemptions or the it's not called exemptions. That page that had the Reductions.

Like, exemption.

Reductions. Thank you. Do our agency partners qualify for any of those, you know, schools, parks, port?

That's fairly typical. Like, for example, park and ride facility, you can you can include on your fee schedule within reason. You know, if there's certain things, there's lots of jurisdictions that don't, for example, church for park and rides. So Mhmm. I think you can look at that. Schools are schools impact your system a fair amount. Mhmm. I you know, kinda there are different policy approaches that different cities have taken. Technically, letter of the law, they're generating trips. They should pay impact fees. Mhmm. I would say that the application in practice varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Okay. So these proposed four doesn't include anything for okay. Correct. No. This is

mostly residential focused here, and the bottom one was just kind of explaining that if you're putting out a development, it doesn't have trips. We're clearly not gonna charge you in that phase.

That that was a really helpful example because I was really trying to think of what didn't generate. So thank you. So we'd love to chat about that. I'm sure that's a question we're gonna be asked. So thinking about what's possible.

And I think to your point, recognizing that all these very good things that we really want to encourage in our community do generate trips. So how do we sort of balance that? And then I just had one very specific one that is probably we can talk about it later, Jennifer. But channeling council member Rumbaugh, I thought the Marine View Drive project is in Northeast that that would be an important capital project that's in the tip and the transportation master plan? It is in the trans but that's

a very clarification. It is in the transportation master plan. It is not actually in the six year transportation improvement pan plan or capital facilities plan.

Okay. That's great to know. And if it if we add it next year, then impact fees go up? We would have

to so if we adopt this year, we would have to amend the ordinance to include

So we're adopting these numbers, not as, an adjustable rate. Or when we adopt it. We're adopting these numbers for each

Based on the current capital facilities plan we

have now. Okay. Yeah. It doesn't automatically readjust. It does not. Okay. Okay. That's super helpful. Thank you for letting me go in the weeds to Yeah. You know, answer that larger question. That's all the questions I have now. I think you mentioned a couple things to add to the presentation to counsel. I think it's good reminder since we this is our second round. Some of those initial things like the Steve, you brought in are valuable to the larger conversation, but excited to get this in front of full council and have a bigger conversation.

Thank you. And we will we'll sort just stick around just in case there's

some additional questions that come up from the next presentation.

I think

council member had that's what we

No. Thought I made him save for the end. Unrelated, but we'll get

to it.

Okay. Yeah.

Oh, no. So

Can I do, like, one more quick question? Sure. It's just based on the building type, because and the trip generation type, there's different vehicle types. Say, for example, you had a building where it's built in a way that the primary focus is transit oriented development, the trip generation might be different because most people are either riding the bus or taking a bike or something like that as opposed to, say, like, a warehouse or, some some commercial property where there's a lot of semi trucks coming and going, does that change the calculations of the impact fee at all?

We have tried to account for that. I would say that this is a person trip based program. So from that standpoint, a trip is a trip is a trip. However, in our modeling, we did consider kind of the distance that trips were that development was was going, how many facilities it was impacted. So I would say, indirectly, yes.

One provision that is really important for all jurisdictions implementing impact fees, so you'll have a fee schedule that's that's established as a cost per trip rate. It's assigned to to different land use types. It's fairly generic in nature to the extent that a development comes in, and they say, hey. We're, you know, fronting on transit. We've got all these special characteristics that make us different.

Your code language and I think, you know, as we're working on the code language language, we're trying to draft in some provisions to allow for individualized impact fee assessments, in recognition that, you know, there are development types that may not look exactly like what fee schedule, says. And that's something that's required by state law just out of fairness. If you can justify that you're less impactful, you should pay fewer fees.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, councilmember Bushnell. Thank you all. Alright. Moving on to wastewater and stormwater system development charges, and I'd like to call on Haley Falk from environmental services. And you can I know if anyone else do that? Thank you so much.

Good evening. Now After five. Good evening, chair, vice chair, and committee members. I'm Haley Falk. I'm a business services manager with environmental services in the rates and budget team here along with Nathan Crane, business service analyst, here to talk to you about system development charges.

We also have director Chavez here to answer any questions you may have at the end. And as Jennifer said, to give you a little preview, the last slide is adding the TIF fees and the system development charges together just to to give you a teaser of what that will look like. And we were really deliberate with with coming here today. We wanted to acknowledge the fact that both of these fees will affect development in in their addressing similar problems, and so we wanna talk about them concurrently. With that, we'll go ahead and start the presentation.

So, just as the problem, our current rates for wastewater and stormwater are designed for our existing systems with our existing capacity. So it does not account for the infrastructure needed for population growth and density, growth as anticipated in Houma and Tacoma. So we need a different mechanism to pay for that increased capacity, and system development charges are the the method, that we are proposing to pay for this system growth. So just to give you a little context of what kind of, financial forecast we have for our two utilities, we are anticipating three major financial gaps or areas that we need to address in the near future. That first gap, number one, is to maintain the status quo.

So that's really addressing all the deferred maintenance, the aging infrastructure, increased capital to maintain our current service levels. And we're seeing rate increases to do so, and we need to look at different mechanisms to pay for our current infrastructure. That does not account for that increased capacity growth or any of the other things associated with home to coma, and that is gap number two. It's that we need to figure out a way to pay for that increased capacity. And then gap number three are the future regulatory requirements.

So we might need new assets. We might need to upgrade existing assets or have additional treatment or remediation for the regulatory requirements we know are coming. This is the most unknown, hardest to nail down as this is the dollar figure we're going to, but we know that risk is there. In all three of these cases, we're gonna get figure out a way to pay for it. It's not a one or two or three.

It's all of them will hit. And so we want to acknowledge that ratepayer dollars need to be distributed equitably. We wanna be conscious of those. And so, again, this is why system development charges are a mechanism to pay for that gap number two rather than increase and put the burden on all the rate payers maybe potentially inevitably. And with that, I'll hand it over to Nathan to talk a little bit more about system development charges.

Thank you, Haley. Thank you, chair, and thank you council members. I'll take you through kind of the definitional section of our presentation. If I

can get the quicker. There we go.

So assisted development charge is a onetime charge that's assessed for establishing a new connection or upsizing an existing connection to a wastewater, stormwater, or water utility specific to those three utility types. And the amount charged is proportional to how much additional capacity is being added by that new connection or set of connections with the intent to recover a proportionate fair share of the overall cost of system upgrades that are needed to handle additional loads due to densification growth and particularly, you know, looking at home in Tacoma, just that greater increase over the the standard population growth we tend to see here in Washington. And some benefits of this type of charge. So first of all, as with transportation impact fees, it's very common regionally. Pretty much every similar sized jurisdiction in the Puget Sound region charges system development charges for wastewater, stormwater, and or water.

Tacoma Water has system development charges in place and has happened since 1997. So they're familiar to developers in the area. They're currently in practice here in the city, not, however, in a wastewater or stormwater context. And as opposed to, for example, accounting for growth with a dedicated rate increase, which puts the burden on rate payers who are already funding the existing system status quo and and are looking at rate increases as well to cover the aging system concerns, deferred maintenance, and and replacing old pipe. System development charges can pay for growth in a way that's nicely pegged to the rate of growth that's actually going to occur in the city.

So there's obviously plenty of uncertainty with how much growth we'll see, how soon, and we'll depend on macroeconomic factors that are outside of anyone's control as well as larger regional factors and local factors. And with the rate increase, you're going to adopt that rate increase probably biennially. You'll make forecasts of what you think the rate of growth is gonna be. This would be educated guesses, more than guesses, but ultimately, there's some uncertainty there of how things will actually play out. With a system development charge, it's charged each time a new connection is established in proportion to the amount of capacity for that new connection.

So it's nicely pegged to the rate of growth that actually occurs and generates revenue in proportion to slower growth or faster growth. So it's it's a more measured approach to to paying for growth. And a quick aside into just how they're. So this is determined by relevant case law as well as the the RCW Washington code. You essentially develop a unit charge to determine what is the fair share of cost that should be paid for added capacity.

And looking at the slide here, if you look at the top of the fraction, you'll see system cost. So this would be the original cost of all assets that are currently in service in the system, and that would be the cost paid at the time they're required. So pipe that's in the ground from 1920, it would be the cost paid in 1920, not adjusted to current dollars. And you would subtract out anything that has been grant funded, anything that was donated by developers as part of development. So it's only the cost the city has paid for the assets that are currently in service.

And at the bottom of the fraction, you have system capacity. So for wastewater, that would be the permitted capacity for Central Treatment Plant and North End Treatment Plant combined. And for stormwater, would be the total impervious square footage citywide. You divide the two, and that yields, wastewater, dollars per gallons per day, stormwater dollars per impervious square foot, and that is your fair share unit charge for a given amount of capacity. You would then just multiply that by the amount of capacity that's being added for a new connection or new development set of connections to determine what the system development charge is for that development. So I will turn it back over to Haley unless there are any questions at that juncture.

Okay. So if we do that there. Thank you, Nathan. We take that equation, and we put it into how it would rank in Tacoma compared to some of those other jurisdictions that we mentioned that are pretty prevalent in the Puget Sound. You can see with the yellow arrow or the golden rod arrow to Tacoma in the proposed rate where we would rank amongst some of our peers.

So somewhat similar to the TIFF of being in the lower third quadrant of just, letting you know. Again, this this is how we interpret it. It's it's not an opportunity to charge more or less. It's simply the equation for the cost in at that time of what we paid. One thing to note is that we can evaluate this ten years down the line, twenty years down the line.

Right? If there if it ages more, we're paying more money into the infrastructure, we can look then at what the cost of the system is. But, really, we're trying to be equitable in our way and proportionate to what the cost of the system is for that upgrade. So, one of that again, the main reasons of why we are lower is because we just have an old system. We are older than a lot of our neighboring jurisdictions, and so, but it would pay for buying into that capacity. So if we take it outside of just comparison and we try to give you some figures that could be more realistic for, different jurisdictions, We attempted to show what the cost would be

for

a ADU, a four plex, and an eight plex. And just mind you, every case, much like in some the TIF fees and and off-site development and site development is so determined on that location. Right? So we're talking about square feet, impervious feet. Wastewater may be the easiest way to, talk about per unit of if we're saying how many meters are you adding.

So, essentially, the more toilets that you have, more units that you have, the more capacity you need. Right? Wastewater needs to flow somewhere so that capacity needs to increase. The same idea goes for impervious square feet of the more you build out of a land that is single family that is mostly yard and you put into a development of concrete, the surface water needs to flow somewhere. So we need to account for that in our capacity.

So if we take all of these fees and we add them together with the TIF fees, we get something along the lines of this. Again, these are averages. They're proposed. One thing to note is that the TIF fees as the nexus of development and has a geographic barrier or consideration, system development charges don't because we're talking about the whole system in the city. So you may realize or notice that the wastewater and stormwater numbers aren't the same, across the board, but we wanted to give you a frame of reference for what those could look like.

And, again, as Jennifer mentioned, that we are working with our other departments to come up with a more comprehensive bill for those off-site improvements or the site development fees, but we do not have those at this time. And it goes to next steps. We are attempting to mirror the TIF fee schedule, so can you continue these conversations with development and with council and community along the same lines because we we do recognize that it's similar conversation. So, again, we're going to that stake out stakeholder outreach this fall. Looking for feedback from you, today and continued conversation, with city council as a whole with an effective ordinance date effective in q one or q two.

Much like the TIF fee, if you decide that you don't want this effective in q two, we can have those conversations. But, as more development happens, the capacity needs to be increased. So the more we delay it, the more we're offsetting those costs to current ratepayers. And so that concludes our presentation and are open to any questions that you may have.

Great. Thank you. This is really helpful, and appreciate that last slide in tying them all together. One my one question is around the storm water. I think it's the previous slide here. So totally get the connection between the impervious surface. That makes a lot of sense in how you calculate this. Are there options, or have other cities done ways that you could kind of buy that down if you created, a stormwater pond? Or I you know, there's new technologies all the time for managing stormwater. Could you offset that?

So, thank you for your question. Mhmm. There are two main fees that go along with this development. I'm sure the on-site development, which you're gonna have to make mitigations for your stormwater on your location. And so that would be

how you already do that. Correct. Okay.

And so this would be paying into that overall capacity that goes on with

the city. Okay. So it's a yes and not an or. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Alright. Council member Bushnell or vice chair Diaz, do you want to jump in? Can't see you, so you can just start.

Okay. Thank you, chair, again, and thank you for the presentation. I think, you know, growth pace for growth makes a a whole lot of sense to me. One of the questions I had is in regards to the stormwater. Could these system development charges, pay for, like, regional stormwater facilities, and would that allow developers to not have to do those on-site those smaller stormwater retention areas if they can tie it to a regional stormwater facility to help lower their like, they'd be able to fully utilize the the developable land for, you know, housing or or whatever.

So that way because I know there's a lot of projects where they require smaller, like, stormwater retention areas. But if we had these regional facilities that people could tie into, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Thank you, Casimo, for your question. It would be yes with a bunch of caveats. So your system development charges can pay for a regional facility to to take that stormwater, but they need to exist in order for you to buy into them to offset those sites. So, theoretically, if these are in place and we, had enough cash on hand to get the capital in this location to then build, new sites can pay basically in lieu of. So they pay into that current system that exists, But, that system needs to exist in order to pay into it.

So it it would be, like, a future state that could be the case, but there has to be capacity in a regional system to buy into in order to buy into it rather than the mitigation on-site. Does that answer your question? Yes.

I'm I'm getting what you're saying. Do we currently have stormwater facilities? I I feel like we do in some areas. I I particularly, if the Hosmer holder holding basin, and then there's, like, other spots potentially. Are those, would that be a part of this?

So, again, great question. We we currently have a in lieu of program where if you're building development and there is a site adjacent that you can pay into and use that site and there's capacity, you can do that, and that would be the continuing practice. However, it they are mostly in the tideflots area. And so if you're making development other places or not close to water flows downhill, and we need to make sure that you're accommodating for that, in those areas. And, yes, you got to to answer that question. They exist, but we need more.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. I think we're gonna need we're definitely gonna need these when we with with the increased density that we're gonna have. So appreciate it.

Great. Thank you, council member Bushnell. Vice chair Diaz.

Thank you. You may have said this at the top, and I just missed it because I just missed it. But I'm wondering if the what are these called? The system development charges are only on residential or if they're also gonna be on commercial development.

Yes. I can

take that. Thank you, council member, for the question. Yeah. We do have commercial charges developed as well, and it's a similar rate to the single family rate for wastewater. It's slightly higher based on the data we have on commercial consumption versus residential consumption. It's based on historical consumption trends. And then for stormwater, it would just be the same rate for single family and multifamily currently, just based on the impervious square footage had no difference in the the race charge between commercial residential.

So maybe I didn't hear that correctly. We already have them on commercial. Is that what you said? Or they will be if we enact this, this will be applied to commercial in all the ways that you just stated?

Yes. Sorry. We have historical data on commercial consumption. And so we already have within our system development charge model in our proposed system development charges array for commercial, but we do not currently have commercial charges in place. They've not been adopted, but we do have we developed that within our fee schedule.

Okay. Let's see another slide in here. Let's just not Correct. Yes. Okay.

So when we vote on this, we'll also be voting on commercial. It's not separated. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that question, councilmember.

I was just yeah. It's a little quiet, I think, wherever the mic is near you on your end of the table. So, anyway, you're fine. I just been struggling here. And then my other question, knowing knowing that that's gonna be baked into a proposal, is there then, I can assume, some sort of a formulary in there for mixed use buildings. Right? So the stuff with commercial on the bottom and residential on top. Okay. And then it might be a silly question, but is there an exemption slide for this this fee similar to the the the last presentation we saw?

So, thank you, council member. As per so the state currently has funding set aside for affordability, specifically set aside for system development charges where, either cities and or developers can apply just for this purpose. So at this time, we are not proposing additional reductions on our end, but rather use the money available that the state has dedicated towards some development charges.

Okay. I just wasn't sure if there was gonna be anything built in for a world that I would love to live in, which is where the city improves some of our facilities. And so would we then be paying the system development charge to ourselves if we are able to build new libraries and fire stations and all the things?

To, Casper, to answer your question, yes. We the capacity would need to increase, and so the the burden of that capacity increase, should be paid for out of the that development, including ourselves.

Okay. Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at. I think you exactly answered it, which is because everyone is gonna be essentially flushing more toilets. We wanna create as few few exemptions to this policy as possible. And then just because I'm on it, the last question I have was around That. Is the formula are you using the toilet example because it's it's convenient, or is it literally toilets? Because would it also be showers and sinks? And and I ask that specifically because of commercial kitchen. So, like, just wondering how that factors in or gyms or, you know, things with showers.

Yeah. Thank you for that question

as well, council member. It it would not be based on the water fixtures, the individual fixtures. It would be based on the water meter size. And some some developments may have individual meters per multifamily unit. Others may have one larger main meter. And so we'll look at that and determine what the amount of flow is through the the main meter or the individual meters and assess the fees based on that. But, yeah, not not based on if you have three seats versus one.

Okay. Thank you for both giving us an example that is useful and clarifying that it's not literal. All my questions. Thanks.

Thank you, vice chair. Council member Hans.

Thank you, chair Walker. No. Thank you for presentation. I the question that I think they're all really good. When we look all the other comparisons, I guess I'm interested in just why it would be the storm water charge. Is that because they're covered someplace else? I mean, essentially, every city on there has a wastewater charge, which makes sense. But there's some stormwater. Is that just a choice that their policy body has made?

Pearson County?

It's the Pearson County.

Yeah. I You know something about that?

I I go back into my my previous Yeah. Was gonna

say someone here for, like,

some of the policy change. Okay. Yeah. Right. Considering there's there's already a stormwater b based on the previous service. Yeah. It was cost.

Okay. No. I think that makes, sense to me. I I asked this question with Ben and, our one on ones, so I'm gonna ask you here again just for the record sake. Right? Which is because our current stormwater manual says every new developer needs to maintain all their stormwater on-site. Like, you're supposed to be able to build and hold capacity on-site for storm water. So I the question just to really explain one more time why we're making a charge against system development charge for storm water whenever a new development is supposed to keep all that water on-site somehow. I mean, I guess some will spill off. Is that the thought? Or something will end up in our system.

Maybe I can I can address that? Is two elements as to how you manage the storm Can

you Sorry. Can you introduce yourself just because you're not quite on the camera?

Environmental safety director. It is there's the difference between retention and detention. Retention is where you infiltrate the water into the soil, and that is almost difficult to achieve across the city because the soil is less than adequate. And, also, we have restrictions as you consider on on on South Tacoma. Restrictions, the infiltration may not be allowed.

So the only option that we have is detention. And the detention is what it does on the size you detain the water, but you still send it to the system itself. So the detention is just it slow the time in which the water is released, but the water is gonna be released for the overall system. And this is going to capture the additional capacity.

I mean, that's always been my question because I think we talked last time. I understand adding four more toilets. Sorry, counselor Diaz. No. It's been adding four more toilets, four more showers. You are adding capacity to the system by just sharing adding more buildings and more users. So I understand there's a very clear nexus in my mind to the store to the wastewater fees. The stormwater one is the one that need a little help with. Thank you for answering the question. You know, I think the the it's good to see it all in kind of down below. I've laid out what the total fees are. I noticed there's not a the traffic impact fee conversation called out affordable housing specifically. Are we posing something for affordable housing for just development charges or no?

No. Okay. Because under the trafficking part fees, there's specific exact to the amounts for that Gotcha. Exception. In here, I mean, I believe the city council can exercise exceptions and reductions. But in the other on the flip side, we have to come up with additional money to mitigate for that subsidy.

Yeah. Oh, so we'd have to pay for it. Right. Gotcha. Okay. Well, I mean, that's a question I have. Right? This base what you're saying, you know, for every toilet and affordable housing project adds, they're gonna have to pay some development charges to pay for that, which I understand the system or the their helping expenses which required. Again, it's something I come back to, Through my experience, the YMCA board building, right, we're built for you, affordable housing complex for survivors of sick violence, you know, there's nothing for sewer or water, but water has the $70,000 system double charges. Water has system double charges, and that's $70,000 that our nonprofit had to go out and fundraise for to do that.

So there that's just the kind of an ongoing question I'm having here. I I I understand why we're we're doing this. I understand kind of the logic that growth is gonna impact our system, so we should make growth pay for it and not pass on to all of our residents. I think my broader question, though, is this is great in a city that's growing. But if we're a city that's not growing, our residents are gonna be on the hook for all this stuff anyways. Correct?

Well, sorry, Councilmember. To to answer your question, gap two wouldn't exist then. Okay. So that's part of the reason why we're we're proposing this mechanism because if there is no growth, theoretically, the capacity wouldn't need to grow. We would still have an aging infrastructure. We would still have pipes that we need to replace, but we could use the preexisting, rate increases to do so. So so that way, it it does allow us that flexibility.

Does that answer your question?

No. I mean, I

I think it it does.

I mean, this that's the I mean, one of the conversations I've I've been talking with neighbors who have been concerned about growth and about the sewer system being impacted. So, well, hey. Look. You know? There's 20 people. We're dividing up the cost of fixing the sewer between 20 versus 40. You wanna divide it up with 40 people, not 20 people, but the pipes that you get fixed at some point in time is a hundred years So I think that's again, again, just I I understand why, and I understand the reasoning behind it. So I think that makes a lot of sense. I know the gap. But, I mean, gap two is not there, but gap one and potentially gap three with the regulation is still there. Right. So this only so I guess that clear point is cisive melanchard only fixes a small slice of the ongoing problem we're looking at down the road.

Correct. Mhmm.

Which I think is

is good. There was one other question I had related to this one, which was oh, so I've asked a couple I've asked you've seen I've asked the transportation folks that, you know, though we don't have in traffic impact fees, we still make developers pay for off-site improvements. Is there a similar function when the wastewater, storm water mechanism? Right? So when a new building comes in, we do make them pay to hook into the sewer system or expand the sewer main. Correct?

Correct. And those would be your site development fees. So, again, that would be the the yes and component of it, of the site development fees already exist, and that's part of what we will, attempt to get to you next time. We come in front of you as examples of what some of those fees look like for off-site, on-site development, and then as well as the system development and the transportation of that piece.

Do do they get so just one question, then I'll I'll pause. I then I I'm done with my questions chair. But so if I'm building a a large so I'm thinking of a building that builds large project, and they were required to run a new sewer line back down the alley all the way down up into the main, and it was bigger than what was there before. So that's they're developing the system here. Right? So they're they're build they're paying for their impacts on there. Would they get credit to that towards this? Or is this base or is this basically you the system melters are paying for the wastewater treatment plant?

The the the the ladder. It's got capacity because they as you as you clearly stated Yeah. If I'm gonna use the same example you got a 100 units Mhmm. Were nonexistent before. Mhmm. If we only have eight inch shoreline, So that a 100 units may need a 24 inch. Mhmm. And they need to connect to the main line, but eventually, that capacity is Yeah. At the West Side. Okay.

No. I think those are all my questions, councilor Walker. I mean, I think I've I've I've made my point earlier about just I am I am very concerned, just about the impact of costs on development. And so that's just a way in my mind. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, council member Hines. I think the all the things that I have written down are have been answered. The one thing I know we're working on update to the storm water plan. Do we what's the timeline on that? Is that being finalized this year? Or

I don't think it's gonna be this year. Okay. Think it's gonna be Okay.

One question I had, and this is maybe kind of for both presentations on the stakeholder outreach. In the past, sometimes we get letters with very clear direction from, like, the permit task force or the transportation commission. Are those groups preparing anything, or have they sent anything to staff with specific comments?

And

I guess along with that, are we doing the outreach to those groups together as well, or is this the the first time we come together? I know you all talk all the time, but, like, in terms of presentation.

Thank you for that question. So we no.

So many at once. No. You're fine.

So to answer the first part of that, yes. I'd we in fact, these has been ahead of system development charges just because we've started since 2016. Yeah. We've had, quite a few of those touch points. And as we're as we've presented to you all, we've committed to even from the 2021 study with the permit advisory task force, we committed to going to them regularly and at the meeting I I generally attend.

And so we are ahead, but we've been kind of in sync moving forward now that we've kind of they wanted to present with you all first. So I presented a permit advisory task first last week and or two weeks ago, but they do intend to, both them, Climate and Sustainability Commission, and the Transportation Commission. All three of them do intend to provide a letter a common letter Okay. To IPS and full city council. Great. Thank you. And then as we move forward, the intent is to work is to kind of go side by side, with the rest of the commission.

Okay. Great. Well, I I know there's lots of people in the community that are tracking, especially transportation impact fees closely because we have been talking about it for so long. But always glad to hear from our volunteer commissions, their input on these two before we make final decisions. Do have another question? You Go ahead, council member.

It's probably for so, this is maybe for someone to chat me here. But so one of the so if we are charged traffic impact fees, it's a couple of charges, at which point we track the back fees, firstly. We're collecting the the money for impacts. Now we're paying for those already somehow. Right? Like, we're we're the tip is we're funding. We're trying to fix these projects kinda without it. So I guess my question would be, if any of those if this new money is coming on board, if it displaces other dollars, could we could where would the I guess, where would those go be utilized? Yeah. Right?

I guess it can't display that. I guess that'd be my question, right, which is we're now gonna have additional money available to kind of fix some of our deferred maintenance capacity issues. You know, what is the plan for, you know, how we would, like, use that in conjunction with already the funding we're committing to these projects, things like that?

That is if I if I there's that's a great question. So as you may know, the impact fees can only be spent on capacity improvements, so it would be new, adding capacity to project. For instance, missing link sidewalks, you're you're, you know, improving a signal. And so within the capital facilities plan, there's over $909,000,000 in improvements that are needed, and a lot of that so for instance, we'll take the example of South 12th Street. You know, that's a project where we recognize we need to repave it.

The repaving portion would not be eligible for impact fees. Upgrading if there's no curb ramps that exist, putting in new curb ramps would qualify, changing the signal would qualify, adding bike we're converting it, so that might not act the bike lanes piece may not qualify either. So we'd be still having we'd still have that need for the operation and maintenance side of it. It would right now, we usually typically use real estate excise tax for a lot of our our grants or capacity projects, so it essentially will supplement that. As we reduce the in order to create a parity amongst the different districts, we did remove some projects from that list.

And what that means then is the city is committing to paying for those projects like we do now, with with our own city funds.

I could

sorry. I could speak to the wastewater context as well. Looking at gap one versus gap two, we can use system development charges to pay for any capital expenses, and that would include in the collection system, so the piping. And so if we if we are looking at aged pipe that already needs to be replaced, but also we have an opportunity to upsize that pipe, we can be addressing an issue in gap two, the the system growth issue, while also addressing gap one, the age infrastructure that needs to be replaced. So there is the potential for some positive harmony between these these different funding gaps, which we're gonna try to leverage as much as possible.

That's one last question.

And maybe this is so 909 almost a billion dollars to the maintenance for TIP makes we're a long way away from this. But at some point in time, if we collect enough impact fees that we don't have enough projects to allocate it to, how does that work? Let's say I mean, because at some point, the physical balance of the city, we can't add many more toilets, We can't add many more streets or brand new stuff. So let's say we have all the sidewalk. I mean, that'd a great day.

That would be a great But

do you have to is there, like, a a you have to spend it a certain amount of time or else it's go back to developers?

Yes. Correct. It's a ten year time frame that we have to spend it. And then Forty eight or encumbered. Or encumbered. Yes. Perfect. More

flexible. Gotcha. Okay.

And the intent is every five or ten years, we would be looking to reevaluate the fee structure and then also, like, the projects that we'd be because we know we have projects will be added and then also come off as they get completed as well. So K. We'll have those opportunities.

Great. Thank you all for answering all those. Any final questions from councilmembers? Ramiro, do you have something to add? Yeah. Go ahead.

Just to add in terms of the conversation between proposal is So related capacity. Even when Jennifer presented on the topic, the body of all those projects, you know, only a portion can qualify for topic, but these because dealing with capacity, Similar system development charges just related to capacity. And Nathan explained correctly. We already have plans to replace an agent pipe. The system development charges only can be paid for going from 18 inch to 22 inch, the delta. But it provides an opportunity really to to really address the capacity and make the best out of the current resources that we have on both programs.

Any other questions from council members? All right. Well, this was really great. I think just a couple slides to add as we move to the next phase of this with the rest of our council colleagues. And I super appreciate this coming forward together.

I think that is the path forward. And I do know, especially with transportation, that the public has been asking for this for so long. So I know we're eager to get it passed, but I also wanna make sure we're doing that outreach piece right. So we'd love to kinda keep talking about the timeline and how we can, you know, move forward with some urgency, but maybe be a little overzealous with our education, I think, is is what I'm feeling is really important as we roll this out because it is big, big change. Alright. Well, thank you. We'll see you all in next month, maybe October at hall council. We're gonna move on to topics for upcoming meetings with Annalene.

In two weeks, deputy Adrian is gonna tell us about the transportation benefit district sales tax revenues with public safety. On September 17, we're having a special meeting on transfer neighborhood traffic program, and then our September 24 meeting is canceled.

Great. Thank you. And I just wanna make a very important clarification that that is about pedestrian safety, which is part of public safety. Oh. But that's okay. Because I wanted to get confused with other conversations we're having with other types of public safety at the full council. Thank you, Anna. To my colleagues, has anyone visited any committees, boards, or commissions, or have anything else they wanna share with the committee for the good of the order before we close? Alright. With that, I will entertain a final motion. Move to adjourn.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. We stand adjourned.