I'd like to call to order the joint city council and Tacoma Public Utility Board Study Session of October 28th, 2025.

Clerk, will you please call the role?

Board Member Clos McGann.

Here.

Board Member Gallagher.

Here.

Board Member Hampton.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Here.

Chair Lachlan.

Councilmember Bushnell.

Present.

Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Here.

Councilmember Diaz.

Councilmember Hines.

Absent.

Councilmember Rumba.

Here.

Councilmember Zidalgay.

Here.

Councilmember Scott.

Absent.

Councilmember Walker.

Here.

Mayor Woodards, absent, the materials sent to you at 11.

Thank you.

All right, at this time I would like to welcome Public Utility Board Chair John O'Laughlin to provide opening remarks.

I have nothing in particular to add other than thank you for this opportunity to get together and hear some topics at the same time.

I thought you were gonna do a speech.

Okay.

It wasn't speech.

Profound.

And uh Madam Chair, may I during the state portion.

Do you have one?

Uh no, but I but I need to inform you during the state portion of the legislative update.

I will need to recuse myself and I'll come back for the federal stuff, remaining federal stuff.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you for bringing us right in.

Our first agenda agenda item is the 2026 legislative web update.

And for that, I would like to call on city manager's office, senior government affairs officer, Andrea Roper to begin the presentation.

Are you starting with are you doing both state and federal?

Um we're gonna start with federal, then we'll move into state.

Okay, so when can you take a pause between so that we can um do our recusing?

Yeah, absolutely.

And yes, it works.

Um thank you, Deputy Mayor, Chair, Council, and Board members.

We appreciate the opportunity to present the citywide 2026 legislative agenda with you today.

And joining me is Alex McBain, senior government affairs officer for the City of Tacoma, who leads our state legislative portfolio.

Logan Barr, Community and Government Relations Manager for Tacoma Public Utilities, and Lauren Adler, Federal Relations Manager for TPU.

For a quick overview of today's session, um, we're gonna start with the federal legislative agenda.

So both Lauren and I will present for general government and TPU, and then we'll kick it over to uh Logan and Alex to talk about the state agenda.

We'll make sure to pause so um folks can recuse themselves as needed.

And then um just for situational awareness, we hope to come back November 18th for final consideration of the citywide legislative agenda.

We want to be very cognizant of your busy schedule today, so we will try to be brief.

I apologize for talking quickly, but we want to make sure that we leave plenty of time at the end for any discussion items or questions you may have.

All right, so moving directly into our federal legislative agenda for the general government.

Today's discussion will focus on this short list of priorities, and we will orient you to the we know you have multiple different handouts, so we'll orient you as we go along with um the documents that we're going to be referencing.

Um the short list of federal priorities was built in collaboration with our conversations with council members, city department directors, and then our state and federal um policymakers, and they are really the key items that we anticipate we'll spend the bulk of our time on uh this upcoming legislature legislative session.

I know we shared in our October 14th uh study session that we anticipate a challenging 2026 session both at the state and federal levels.

Much of our work will center on defending and preserving key programs while continuing to advance the city's core priorities.

So with that, I'll get right into our short list of priorities.

Uh our first priority is preserving critical funding for residents.

We are asking Congress to maintain strong, stable funding for the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, both of which make affordable health care possible and keep local governments from shouldering the cost of uncompensated care.

Here in Tacoma, we know this is especially important.

Medicaid reimbursements help sustain Tacoma fires emergency medical and life support services, covering a major share of medical transportation costs.

Without this support, the cost of care could shift directly to the local level, straining our capacity to serve our community.

We're also calling on Congress to continue funding for SNAP and WIC.

Of course, this has been very prevalent in the news recently.

And we know that these programs do more than combat hunger.

They actually work to improve nutrition outcomes and strengthen family health across our community.

In the same vein, we're urging continued investment for social services block grants, which provide flexible support for local services like housing, elder care, and assistance for people with disabilities.

We know that if these federal programs are to be cut, that they don't, the need doesn't necessarily disappear.

It just shifts the responsibility on to local governments that are already stretched thin.

So we urge the federal government to continue to be a strong partner in these efforts.

Priority number two is in the realm of infrastructure.

I know that when we had our October 14th study session, we talked about surface transportation reauthorization coming up in Congress next year, and as Congress is having those conversations, our focus is ensuring that federal policies and investments align with the city's top priorities of safety, mobility, and resilience.

So we're asking for consistent long-term infrastructure funding that supports safety upgrades, things like traffic calming, pedestrian improvements, and technology that prevents crashes.

As part of this, we're also asking for continued investment in competitive grant programs like the Safe Streets and Roads for All program.

There's actually very few tools in our toolbox, so to speak, when it comes to federal funding for safety programs for safety infrastructure, and this is one of them.

The city has utilized this grant program before.

We were grateful to apply and receive this funding, and we'd like to continue to do so.

But this program is actually slated to expire at the end of 2026.

So, as part of any surface transportation reauthorization, we are encouraging Congress to both extend and strengthen it.

And of course, as it relates to infrastructure, our other focus is on freight mobility, which underpins Tacoma's economy.

Specifically, we're highlighting phase two of the fishing wars memorial bridge replacement as a top priority project.

This corridor is vital for freight movement, access to the port, emergency response.

We're grateful for the federal funding we've received to date, but we know that the scale of this project is so large that we will need continued federal investment, and we can we will continue to seek and apply for federal funds for this project.

Priority number three is in the realm of affordable housing and homeownership.

We know that housing affordability remains one of our region's most pressing issues, and it's one of our highest priorities at the federal level.

We've seen some really important progress through recent federal legislation, particularly with the expansion of the low-income housing tax credit and the additional redesignation of opportunity zones, both of which encourage investment in affordable housing in underserved neighborhoods.

But we know this isn't necessarily enough.

I know when we talked last time, we talked about how this alone could help finance an additional one million affordable units across the nation, but more needs to be done in order to close that affordability gap.

So building on this momentum, we urge Congress to increase funding for the home investment partnership program, and this serves as the crucial gap financing for a lot of those key projects, as well as sustain and expand the community development block grant program.

And these are some of our most flexible dollars that we have here at the city.

But we know it's not just about housing supply, it's also about trying to keep people in their homes.

So we urge Congress to continue support for housing vouchers and programs that prevent homelessness.

Federal partnership is essential to meeting our housing goals and it allows us to expand local capacity, accelerate production, and keep progress on track.

Priority number four is in the realm of community safety, and here at the city, we continue to prioritize a comprehensive approach to public safety.

And so, what we're asking for at the federal level is funding eligibility not just for our sworn law enforcement officers, but also for our non-sworn personnel, such as behavioral health co-responders and community service offer community service officers.

And a lot of our non-sworn personnel are currently not eligible for certain DOJ grant funding.

And so that's an ask that we continue to have at the federal level.

These professionals are essential in handling nonviolent incidents and connecting residents to support services, which actually free up our law enforcement officers to focus on high priority calls and on violent crime.

We also ask for advocating or we also advocate for sustained funding for community-based violence reduction and youth prevention programs, which are proven to build long term neighborhood safety.

And for our frontline workers, we are seeking additional federal investment to modernize equipment and upgrade facilities.

This was included in our legislative agenda last year, and as part of that advocacy, thanks to the leadership of Senator Cantwell and Representative Strickland, we were selected for community project funding for a fire engine.

If you're following Congress right now, that process has been delayed due to the shutdown and some uh disagreements, but we will continue to advocate for that funding next year.

But we know even with one fire truck, that's just a drop in the bucket to our need.

So we will continue to seek additional federal investment for our frontline workers.

And lastly, is in uh the realm of supporting human dignity and immigration reform.

So this was a priority that we added to the agenda earlier this year in response to some of the changing dynamics at the federal level.

We thought it was paramount to include a value statement here so we can be responsive to the different items that were coming up.

Um as our federal lobbyists has mentioned, there's been increasing talk about immigration reform.

Uh so as Congress is navigating some of these deep policy debates, we've added language for your consideration, urging Congress to advance comprehensive immigration reform that provides a clear and humane pathway to citizenship, keeps families together, and supports a stable local workforce.

So that concludes our short list of federal priorities.

And I just want to touch just briefly on the second document you have, and this is our longer form uh policy positions document, and it's broken down into a handful of different categories.

This is now the third year that you've seen this document.

It was built off of Tacoma 2025.

And as we look to our new 10-year strategic plan in the next year, Alex and I may present something different, but by and large, this is a document that is uh familiar with you all.

We did uh we made no major changes this year other than just language changes to make it better reflect 2026.

We took out outdated references to old bills.

Um we did include a flowchart for you to navigate some of those language changes should you wish to look at those more closely.

Um, but given time today, I'm not gonna walk through the 17-page document for you all.

Um, but Alex will touch on some of the um feedback that he received at last study session, how it's incorporated into this document.

So, with that, that concludes the general government federal legislative agenda, and I will turn it over to Lauren Adler.

Thanks, Andrea.

Are we going into uh state or are we doing TPU agenda now?

Okay.

Thank you, Andrea.

Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor Daniels, City Council members, Chair O'Lachlin, and utility board members, and again, Lauren Adler, the Federal Affairs Manager for Tacoma Public Utilities.

It is a pleasure to be before you this afternoon to introduce TPU's proposed 2026 federal legislative agenda.

The federal legislative agenda includes several proactive policy objectives, excuse me, aligned with TPU's legislative interests.

And I should pause and make sure that you all know which document that we will be referring to here, which is the draft agenda, which includes federal and state in one document.

Staff has been, and with your approval, plans to continue advocating for these objectives at the federal level.

The agenda addresses a wide range of positions, including support for infrastructure funding, expanded customer assistance programs, and additional key issues.

Please note that these items represent priority or expected policy objectives for staff, though they are not the only items that Tacoma Public Utilities will address at the federal level.

With that, the 20 the proposed 2026 federal legislative agenda seeks to focus on utility-wide infrastructure financing tools, specifically focusing on unlocking previously awarded grant funds, broadening tax credit eligibility, and ensuring federal staff maintain levels remain adequate to fulfill various agency goodness financing programs.

Low-income assistance support policies and additional funding for the low-income energy housing assistance program, advocate for full staffing of LIHEAP at uh HHS to ensure funds are ultimately dispersed.

Uh as the last biennium TPU provided assistance to over 4,000 households, which uh equates to a total of over $4 million dispersed.

Supply chain issues, support policies that adequately address supply chain issues and costs which directly affect customers and the utility.

Focusing on power, Bonneville Power Administration administration's competitiveness.

Continue to support proposals to protect, maintain, and improve BPA's cost competitiveness, and support strong staffing levels at Bonneville.

Carbon reduction, actively engage in and seek to support proposals that decarbonize the economy at reasonable costs, and support policies that recognize hydropower as a carbon-free generating resource.

Zero mission transportation infrastructure.

Support and seek additional funding for zero emission transportation infrastructure.

Maintain poll attachment authority, support legislation that ensures municipally owned utilities maintain their historic authority to safely manage attachments on utility polls.

Reform hydropower relicensing policies, support streamlining the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also known as FERC, hydropower relicensing policies and procedures, federal disaster relief funds and reform.

Support and engage in policies that would dramatically speed up the delivery of crucial disaster relief funds from FEMA to consumer-owned utilities devastated by natural disasters.

This includes reimbursement by FEMA for the interest COUs must pay on loans needed to perform emergency work while waiting for those relief funds.

Advocate for the remaining funding to complete the dam and the additional water storage project while ensuring current cost-sharing agreements are honored.

Water infrastructure finance and innovation act, also known as WIFIA, seek and support appropriations to fully fund this legislation.

Drinking water state fund support adequate appropriations for the fund.

PFOS liability, support legislation that exempts drinking water systems from the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act, also known as Circla, as it relates to PFOS liability.

Rail, explore infrastructure funding opportunities.

Funding opportunities for investments in locomotive auto modernization projects, track upgrades, and other improvements.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the proposed Tacoma Public Utilities 2026 federal agenda to you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon council and board members.

Alex McBain, Senior Government Relicens Analyst with the state city, to talk about our state legislative general government priorities.

Andrea kind of briefly went over the process that we use for identifying these and some of the underlying themes that we discussed in the previous uh study session around some of the challenges that will be uh with the upcoming state legislative session.

Um, because of the uncertainties and some of the anticipated state fiscal issues, um, we anticipate that much of the effort this year will be around defending um uh playing defense for state shared revenues and for programs that are impacting the city.

Um go to the next slide.

There we go.

Um in terms of the priorities, um guide you to this one document, uh one-page document that has identifies the general government priorities.

It's a short list for a short session.

Um the list is encouraging this the uh the state to preserve and sustain critical state programs uh in the face of federal reductions, uh specifically including backfilling uh key programs related to uh food assistance, Medicaid, and behavioral health treatment programs that are integral to the state's uh safety net.

I would give an example where we would be supporting a state uh backfill for anticipated loss of funding related to uh life support uh services provided by TFD that may be impacted by federal Medicaid program reductions.

The second item on the list is fiscal sustainability, which is similar to the issues that we talked about last session in the legislature.

There are really two components this year.

The first would be to encourage the state to refrain from reducing state revenues that are shared with locals, and that would be things like liquor tax, the municipal criminal justice assistance account, the public works trust account.

And then the second component would be to continue discussions that we've been having with the state around developing proposals for locals that would provide local governments with progressive and sustainable revenue tools and options.

This is an essential component for the plant's wastewater treatment process that allows the plant to reliably meet its wastewater discharge elimination system permit regulations.

Similar to last year, we've identified some issues of importance that we'll be working on significantly during the legislative session.

The first is uh seeking to engage the legislature on the wastewater treatment plant nutrient regulations that are being proposed by the Department of Ecology and looking for them to help provide some assistance on that issue.

We think that will be a big topic for this legislative session.

Um, the transfer of state obligations.

This is a follow-up from a budget proviso we were able to get into the budget last year that the Washington Transportation Commission has finished their study on route jurisdiction transfer, and we would be wanting we're working to ensure that the city's interests are included any bill that the legislature considers this year on that issue.

The sidewalk utility is also a follow-up issue from uh budget provisor we were able to get last year around a study for alternatives for local infrastructure funding, uh including the idea of a sidewalk utility.

The preliminary report will be out in December, and we'll be looking for opportunities if there are good recommendations that are coming in in the preliminary report or the notion of a pilot program that could be helpful that we might want to participate in.

So we'll be working with legislator legislators as that comes out.

And then finally, um continued advocacy for the transportation projects.

Um we've got um a number of issues that we'll be pushing for, increasing funding and local revenue options for maintenance and preservation and traffic safety issues that will all be priorities.

We'll also be continuing to advocate for state partnership on the fishing wars memorial bridge.

Um, and then I think we can move on to the next slide.

Um as Andrea mentioned, um, we've had a that longer policy positions document on the state side, it's about 20 pages.

We won't go into it, but there is, as she mentioned, a handout that identifies some of the changes and big issues that uh have been added or were asked to be prioritized by you.

Um if you have any questions, let us know about that.

I briefly do want to talk about two issues that came up uh in the last study session.

The first was on support for withdrawal or detox services.

Uh the updated document does include language supporting efforts to enhance treatment efficacy and patient outcomes by extending Medicaid uh coverage to at least 10 days for withdrawal management.

Um, and then the other issue that was raised was around um uh uh immigrants and support for immigrants, and um the updated document includes language supporting policies that allow Tacoma's immigrant population to feel safe, secure, and welcomed in the state.

And then finally, I'd like to there was a question that had come up since our last study session around toll revenues.

Um we do have some language in the document that talks about um supporting increasing funding and local revenue options for maintenance preservation of roads and bridges.

Uh, we could add at your discretion uh some an additional language that includes um toll, you know, toll revenues for those purposes as well.

Um, and with that, I will pass on to Logan Barr and be happy to answer any questions later.

Thank you, Alex.

Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor Daniels, Chair Lachlan, members of the council, members of the board.

My name's Logan Barr.

I'm the TPU community and government relations manager here today to walk you through TPU's proposed state agenda items.

First up, we have uh TPU-wide agenda item related to statewide low-income assistance.

We will support policies and programs that support our lowest income customers.

In addition to supporting existing funds that support these customers, we will engage in ongoing policy discussions about statewide programs for both power and water customers, which we expect to continue this session.

While we know this will be a challenging budget year, we believe it's valuable to keep the policy conversation going about additional support.

And there are always opportunities for policy improvements, even with a deficit.

From Tacoma Powers perspective, the first agenda item is related to carbon reduction.

We will advocate for enhancements to the state's carbon reduction policies.

We expect to be involved with conversations that focus on transmission issues, citing and permitting issues, and an increasing interest and an emerging issue related to resource adequacy.

Second, building decarbonization.

We will continue to support funds and policies to decarbonize the state's current and future building stock.

This includes supporting previously appropriated funds.

Uh for residential and commercial electrification and policies that further incentivize electrification.

And third, support for clean energy development, which we will support investments and policy improvements in our transmission systems, our distribution networks, and our generation assets.

There likely will not be much new capital to appropriate aside from CCA funds, but citing and permitting policy will likely continue to be on the table and likely continue to be very contentious.

From Tacoma Waters perspective, we will continue to advocate for funding for water systems across the state.

This includes supporting the public works trust fund, state revolving loan funds, grant funding, and other policy improvements.

And finally, Tacoma Rail, we will continue to support efforts to maintain and preserve investments in rail infrastructure.

This includes our continued efforts to advocate for passage of a refundable tax credit to incentivize class three railroad maintenance and preservation investments.

Next slide, please.

And with that, uh thank you for the opportunity to present, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thanks, Logan.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

Well, I'm gonna open it up to my colleagues to ask questions on any of the presentations we just had.

Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you all for the presentation.

Um I feel like this is a great overview.

Um, two questions.

One just timeline, and maybe you said this while I popped out of the room.

Um, what when are we voting on this?

The hope is November 18th, so we can have it prepared ahead of our December legislative delegation briefing.

Great, thank you.

So a lot is not happening at the federal government level, which is impacting so many things, both in our policy world and individuals' lives.

It hopefully the government's back open by November 18th, but it feels a little bit odd if it's not to not address that somewhere in here.

Maybe it's not totally appropriate because I get this is like a year-long or a session-long agenda.

Is there a way that we could um and maybe this is a resolution that we do next week that says we need to put some pressure on the federal government.

This I mean um the residents of Tacoma can't withstand this.

Where do we put that energy?

Uh thank you for the question, Councilmember.

That's a really good question.

So, part of the short list of priorities for our federal legislative agenda did try to acknowledge some of the big policy debates too around Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, WIC.

Um, so that's front and center on the legislative agenda.

I think we can get creative whether it's a resolution or something like that, or even just language that we can include in our policy positions document that maybe speaks to government shutdowns and the impact it can have on local municipalities.

I'd be happy to work with the council on something in that regard.

It's a good idea.

Okay, thank you.

And then um, I think we're getting back into doing the Friday um legislative briefings, which are specific to federal.

Is that true?

Yep, yeah.

They've uh they're uh occurring every two weeks, and the next one is this Friday.

Okay, great.

And that's something that the public can listen in on, right?

It depends on if there is a quorum or not.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, I think just for public awareness that we are meeting regularly about that because of the ever-changing nature of things right now.

So um thank you, and would love to see something at least in the intro to our federal agenda that references the federal or the shutdown specifically.

Thank you.

Happy to follow up.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bushnell.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

Um, along with our federal uh briefing updates, is the TV board invited to that?

I mean, uh, we we do they they contract with uh the same lobbyists that we do, or is it separate?

Separate okay.

Just I was just curious about that if there was like any kind of dovetailing there because uh I would love your guys' thoughts on certain things that are going on as well.

Um of the questions I had and it wasn't on this particular presentation, but uh it's a reoccurring theme as it comes to GPFC and some of the other um state uh on the state level.

Um and it's regarding uh franchise fees for telecoms.

And I know that there was like a uh a court decision, is my understanding that franchise fees couldn't be levied.

I couldn't recall if that was a state uh constitution issue or if it was a state law issue.

Um I think maybe even Jeff uh I don't know if he's here right now in the back somewhere might know, or maybe maybe uh our city attorney.

Um it's because the Auburn case you you recall um and we've been having a lot of um franchise fee uh requests for like uh broadband in like the right-of-way.

So I was curious uh or we couldn't we couldn't levy any fees on that, even though they're utilizing our right-of-way.

Uh so I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Busch.

Now as I understand the question, it is what restricts our authority to impose franchise fees on certain kinds of utility operators within the right-of-way.

Correct.

That is purely statutory.

Um there are also some limitations in federal law on amounts of franchise fees for cable operators, but the state statute was amended some time ago.

Um, I think in the late 90s, um the telecom companies were concerned about competition.

They were paying both franchise fees and uh uh utility taxes, and there was compromise legislation uh worked through with AWC that uh authorized the tax to continue, but the franchise fees went away.

So there are still franchise fees allowed for cable operators and for some limited utilities in the right-of-way, like oil pipelines.

Uh but not for telecommunications and not for power.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I think I might want to dive into that a little bit more later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Got it.

Any other comments, questions from our team or there you come.

So this is again because I still don't know very much.

Um this is related to states.

So um Logan Barr did mention the Climate Commitment Act dollars, and I'm just kind of wondering why.

It seems like the city and the utility can work together on Climate Commitment Act dollars because it crosses multiple fronts, but it's not really mentioned specifically.

So my question is why don't we mention it specifically?

That we want like Climate Commitment Act dollars to continue, and we also have specific projects in mind where those dollars could be used.

Like that question.

Uh thank you, board member, for the question.

Um, we traditionally have not uh commingled project requests.

We have not had very many related to CCA dollars, although we are very supportive of the CCA and have been consistently, and the flow of those dollars are very important.

Um but it's certainly something that you know we can definitely work on.

Did you move it?

I would agree completely, and we do have right we do reference CCA in several of our areas.

This is an issue that we do talk to members about.

Um we don't have projects um that are commingled, but we do uh we do talk with our partners to make sure that we're making sure that we're talking about other folks as projects that are important to the city.

So TPU might have a project that we would talk about um supporting as well.

So we do that with our other partners.

Councilmember Walker, did you want to add something?

Um yeah, thank you, Alex.

That's what I was gonna say is that in the the the long document, we do have a specific section, I think, but I know specific references to the CCA.

But do we have any specific projects, project asks this time around for general government?

Because I know we have had an ongoing list for the CCA in the past.

Yeah, for the CCA, we've gotten into good indications from some of the legislators that they would prefer to that we use the process that they set up for getting grants rather than the budget process.

We do, for example, we recently got for the police station headquarters a CCA grant for the decarbonization that was going on there that would has been on our priority list for the last few years.

So we don't have a CCA project that's on the list.

We have another project that is, but it's because of feedback we've gotten from legislators around preferring us to use the grant process for the CCA projects.

Great, thank you.

And I know you've told me that before, so thank you for the reminder.

Um I think maybe it would be valuable though, just um to your point, um, Dr.

Ellie, that we see that list together, our two entities because there's going to be so much crossover, and just so we always know what our list is for asks.

Thanks.

Thank you for those questions.

Councilmember Rumba.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, based on what what Dr.

Early had to say, um, I just want to say that I think like the conversation on CCA dollars also needs to be with Pierce County to make sure that we're aligned with them.

So are we gonna have an opportunity to look there?

Because I know that they're working on things with our sustainability commission.

I can't remember what they're called.

Ask a really don't ask me what that means.

But I go to these meetings, and I just want to make sure that we're jointly doing this because I think we'll be better together.

The other question I have is on um the building um dollars for um getting to you know safe, clean, or you know, like um updating buildings for um energy efficiency and everything.

I'm wondering if they're gonna be looking at changing those dates based on things that are happening.

And so um that's just a c I don't know how does that work that we that do people change bill dates if it says it's supposed to be 2032 that you meet a deadline by what happens with that uh thank you, counselor.

Uh very good question.

I think that um many of the states carbon reduction policies, electrification policies are um being looked at for their practical uh implications and whether those timelines are reasonable.

So um on the specific uh clean buildings law, I'm happy to go back and and look at those in detail and get back to you.

Um however, of all the policies that we've heard talked about in terms of um changing some of those statutes.

I haven't heard too much about that one, but that could always change.

So the clean building, as I recall, there's the part for our buildings as a city, but then there's also the requirement of like churches and other buildings that are a certain footprint size that they have to meet that requirement too.

And I feel like this is during this time that might be difficult.

That's why I'm asking about it.

Yeah, I there have been recent efforts by school districts to um seek some changes to those laws.

Um, but I'm happy to take that as a follow-up.

I'm definitely not an expert on it.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just I need a reminder on the status of LIHEAP.

We had some conversation.

I want to say over the summer when it was discovered that the LIHEAP office was empty because the staff had all been let go, but we were still anticipating dollars to come by the end of the federal fiscal year, I believe.

So I'm assuming that the staffing situation is what it is, and I'm just wondering if we anticipate that funding coming in.

And if not, what do we do?

Thank you, board member Gallagher.

Um, your memory is correct.

There has been a challenge with ensuring that there was enough staff to get the dollars committed out the door.

However, um there had been uh movement made to get the dollars out by the end of the fiscal year.

Um that commitment uh was fulfilled.

Uh but as we stand now, we're now paused once again.

So I would not characterize um the the progress as what it once was and what we generally expect, but it is better than the staff are gone, what we initially thought, right?

Worst case scenarios, staff are gone, the money is not flowing, um, but it is more difficult than years past, if that makes sense.

And I'm happy to follow up with you on more specifics about when those dollars move forward um since the allocation at the end of the fiscal year.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

All right, well, seeing none, thank you all for the presentation and all of the information.

We look forward to taking that uh vote on the eighth.

Okay.

Um, I will enter a motion to convene to an executive session, RCW for two point three zero one one zero one I I and I I to discuss potential impending litigation not to exceed thirty minutes.

So those in favor to convene to an executive session.

Signify by saying I.

All those opposed signify by saying nay.

The motion is declared adopted.

Once the executive executive session is complete, we will come back and resume the second agenda item.

Are the mics back on?

Sit down, sit back down.

All right.

Acceptable foods almost done.

All right.

Our executive session is complete and we will resume resume with the second agenda item.

Um this is weird.

Um, but seeing no further questions, unless board members do you have any questions anymore?

Okay.

Seeing no further questions, I would like to thank the public utility board members for their time today, um, and conclude this portion of the meeting and go into our actual second agenda item.

Thank you all for coming.

Okay.

For the second agenda item.

We have our transportation impact fees and are you guys ready?

Is it okay?

If you stop talking, while we're just trying to get this going, is that cool?

Okay.

All right, I would like to call on our public works director, Jeff Jenkins to begin the presentation on transportation impact fees and system development charges.

Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor.

Uh my name is Jeff Jenkins.

I'm with uh public works, and today we've got Ramiro Chavez with Jennifer Camazo.

We're gonna give you a joint presentation on system development charges and trust traffic impact fees.

We also have uh Brianna, our consultant here is also available to help us answer questions.

And with that, I'd like to begin.

Um Deputy Mayor, members of the council.

Uh again, uh Ramiro Chavez, director of environmental services here with the Portal Wars director, Jeff Jenkins.

And also with uh Jim Jennifer Comersall from public works and Nathan Crane, uh, from environmental services.

We are here this afternoon with a joint presentation, uh a product of a close collaboration between the two departments to provide the council with a unified perspective on how Tacoma can proactively prepare for future infrastructural demands associated with high density development.

As Tacoma moves forward with home and Tacoma, another key initiatives that supports a more connected and sustainable city, we must ensure transportation, wastewater, and stormwater system can expand equitably and responsibly.

Today's presentation outlines a coordinated funding strategy designed to keep Tacoma infrastructure on pace with development.

We will talk you through the two uh complementary strategies, the traffic impact fee and the system development charges, which work together to ensure the growth pace for growth, protect equity among red payers, and support critical capital investments consistent with one Tacoma Plan envision 35.

At this point, I will give the floor to Jennifer and Nathan to begin the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Chavez.

Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor Daniels and members of the city council.

Um, this first section of the presentation is going to focus on transportation impact fees.

As you know, impact fees are one-time charges on new developments that help to fund the infrastructure that's needed to support growth.

They're authorized by the Washington State Growth Management Act and other state statutes.

They are primarily used for transportation improvements, but also for schools, parks, and fire facilities.

And while the fees cannot be used for maintenance, or the fees cannot be used for maintenance, but they only but they are used to only address new growth needs as identified in the city's capital facilities plan.

While the city's been evaluating the possibility of the four available impact fees, we are here today to discuss and consider adoption of transportation impact fees only.

Tacoma has long recognized that transportation impact fees are one of the necessary financing tools to address future impacts.

It was adopted policy in the 2014 Transportation Master Plan and then affirmed as supportive policies in the South Downtown, North Downtown Hilltop Subarea plans and subsequent comprehensive planning documents, including the most recent Home and Tacoma Environmental Impact Statement and also the proposed hide flat sub-area plan that you'll be conducting a public hearing on tonight.

Throughout the review and development process of impact fees, we have heard the concerns and challenges with developing in Tacoma.

While impact fees will be new to Tacoma, they are not new to the region, which is apparent by the many jurisdictions neighboring Tacoma that have adopted transportation impact fees.

We believe that impact fees can offset or address the concerns about development and growth.

For example, predictability and a smooth timely process is important to protect for project timelines and financing.

We also intend to provide a predictable fee schedule, essentially outlining how much it will cost to develop using national standards to determine those trip generation fees.

We recognize that mitigation improvements can vary widely based on the size of development, location, and surrounding transportation facilities that serve a new development.

Also, without a proportionate share mechanism, development costs are less predictable and may result in disproportionately burdening some and underassessing others, which may feel unfair.

Mitigation may also not advance identified priority projects in the city's one Tacoma comprehensive plan.

Impact fees are directly tied to an identified project list that implements the city's transportation plan.

And for capacity and project improvements, the city has historically had very good success in obtaining grant funds.

However, there is still a significant gap between the funds which are available and the funds which would be needed to keep up with growth.

It's important to note that while some projects, particularly the largest projects, will still require analysis of the area near the project by planning for the network level impacts.

Impact fees can reduce the level of effort for developers to prepare for those traffic studies.

As part of evaluating and developing a transportation impact fee program, framework and rate study, the project team began with identifying the transportation need and working to address the concerns we heard through stakeholder outreach.

We'd heard that supporting affordable housing and prioritizing access for all users was most important.

We understood that certain parity among creating priority amongst the districts was important so that so as to not leave any neighborhood either underdeveloped or overdeveloped, and that it was important to remain competitive amongst neighboring jurisdictions and overall development costs.

Therefore, the project team reviewed the 236 projects in the city's current capital six-year program, and we identified 42 projects that were strong candidates and would be most appropriate and applicable for transportation impact fees in terms of growth accommodation and other eligibility requirements.

We estimated the cost of the projects, which amounted to approximately 459 million dollars in capital costs.

And to help facilitate a tight nexus between development impacts and projects, six districts were developed based on land use zoning as well as natural and man-made barriers.

These districts also help to support transparency in annual reporting.

Impact fees cannot wholly pay for a capital improvement, which is why they are one tool to finance transportation improvements.

We anticipate leveraging these fees with grants, real estate and gas tax, and future streets initiatives.

This slide provides an overview of how the impact fee rates were calculated.

So for each of the 42 projects on the impact fee list, project costs were discounted based on existing deficient deficiencies.

For example, the South Orchard Lakewood Drive between 56 and 76 Street project improvement.

We recognize that there are basic needs like repaving that need to occur and shouldn't be passed on to impact fees.

As such, we've conservatively assigned a 75% deficiency to all vehicle projects.

And for pedestrian projects, such as the 38th and Cedar Street pedestrian crossing improvement, we've assigned a 27% existing deficiency.

And this is because our pedestrian system is currently 63% complete.

Once we stripped out those existing deficiencies from eligible project costs, we use the city's traffic model and other tools to estimate the share of each facility's users that come from Tacoma versus outside the city.

For vehicle projects, we use the city's travel model to make this assessment.

For a walk bike transit trips, we estimated this, recognizing that most trips, walk trips are less than a mile, and bike trips are no typically no longer than three miles.

This analysis also considers how many trips are coming from within a district versus other districts in the city.

As part of the impact fee program, state statute allows cities to identify reductions in exemptions of impact fees.

We are proposing to codify the following reductions to support the city's affordable housing and transportation for all priorities.

A 50% reduction in fees would apply for multifamily tax exempt units near high frequency transit.

An 80% reduction is proposed for qualifying low-income housing and early learning facilities.

A 50% reduction would apply for accessory dwelling units, and a full exemption would apply for developments that do not generate new trips.

You'll note that we are proposing reductions that do not require payback per state statute.

Cities can increase reductions or employ other reductions.

However, state statute requires agencies to pay back that fee.

So for example, if council chose to reduce the fee for ADOs, EDUs to 100%, the city would be required to pay that 50% difference from a dedicated funding source, such as the general fund.

At this time, staff is not proposing reductions or exemptions that require payback because of the limited dedicated funding available.

This next slide provides an overview of the proposed rates by district per person trip.

The chart on the left shows the costs for the 42 identified projects minus deficiencies and non-Tacoma trips.

The chart on the right shows the results of that evaluation.

Staff have worked to create parity amongst districts.

However, you'll notice that Northeast Tacoma is much lower due to the limited number of capacity projects identified in the six-year program and proposed growth productions.

Later in this presentation, Nathan and I will share examples of transportation impact fees and system development charges compared to neighboring jurisdictions as a fee stacking component.

But specific to transportation impact fees, I wanted to share what the 80% affordable housing reduction would look like for a qualifying multifamily development.

The rate shown in this just is per district, and we applied for multifamily units.

You can see that this provides a substantial reduction and provides a good incentive to develop qualifying low-income housing.

Now I will turn it over to Nathan from Environmental Services.

Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you, Deputy Mayor Danels and members of council for the opportunity to present to you on proposed system development charges for environmental environmental services, wastewater, and stormwater utilities.

I'm Nathan Crane, an analyst in the environmental services rates and budget group.

So I'd just like to start by giving you a sense of where system development charges, or you'll also hear them referred to as SDCs fit into environmental services overall financial picture.

So we're actually looking in the near to medium term at three distinct funding gaps stacked on top of one another that we need to develop some tools and approaches to address to fill these gaps.

So the first gap, gap number one on the slide on your screen, is just funding that we need to maintain our existing systems at their current level of capacity, maintain our existing status quo.

And the reason we have a funding gap here is we have a lot of aging infrastructure as well as a lot of old infrastructure that was installed in specific waves of development installed all around the same time that is now aging out, hitting the end of its useful service life all around the same time.

And so we're looking at an increased annual repair and replacement cost burden just to keep our existing system operating in good working order.

And so we're going to look at proposing incremental rate increases over upcoming biennia to fill that gap.

Gap number two, which is the topic we're here to discuss today, is funding to upgrade our facilities and build out our infrastructure to accommodate growth and increase population density, particularly following the passage of home and Tacoma.

And we are proposing system development charges as a tool to address that funding gap.

We know that we're going to see increased density.

Where there's currently a single family home, we may see a four-plex, an eightplex constructed, and so more individuals living on that parcel as well as more impervious surface rainwater runoff generating hard surface on that parcel, which will result in greater capacity burdens on our wastewater and stormwater systems.

And briefly, gap number three on uh on this chart is a topic you're going to hear more about in November, and that I know there's already been substantial discussion about.

There are some upcoming proposed regulatory changes, particularly on the wastewater front with regard to the nutrient content of our wastewater effluent that if if they move forward would have pretty severe impacts on both technical and financial impacts on our central wastewater treatment plants in particular.

So we're in dialogue with the Department of Ecology, as are other utilities, the discharge into Puget Sound, and more to come on that front.

So returning to gap number two, funding to accommodate growth in Tacoma.

During our wastewater comprehensive planning process in 2022, we asked the community, we performed a survey of over 500 individuals across all council districts across a broad demographic and socioeconomic spectrum, and we heard pretty resoundingly that respondents felt that the burden of paying for new growth in our in our sewer infrastructure, the burden of accommodating increased population density should fall on new development.

78% of respondents said developers should help cover the cost of new infrastructure in our sewer system.

30% said new customers.

And so that signaled to us that system development charges would be an appropriate approach to consider, as it is a non-rate-based form of revenue.

And we've also done the work to quantify the impacts of home and Tacoma on our utility systems.

So one example on the wastewater side is that we have performed engineering studies and we're finding that our current solid separation and treatment process at central treatment plant is going to be inadequate for the forecasted increase in wastewater flows coming through the plant.

So we're going to need to perform some facility upgrades, and because real estate is quite limited at central treatment plant, this is going to create sort of a musical chairs or domino effect of facility relocations in that footprint.

So we're looking at additional secondary clarifiers in the bottom of your screen there.

We're looking at moving our digesters from their current location to where the Tagro facilities are currently located, Tagro, moving to a location to be determined.

And all of this will likely need to occur around or by 2040.

And so that is going to be very capital and logistics intensive and is an example of an area where we know we're going to need to grow our systems to accommodate growth in Tacoma.

And on the stormwater side as well, we've done engineering studies and modeling to examine the effects of increased impervious surface area as parcels are built out with these denser development types.

And we're seeing a three-fold increase in a major storm event in the number of manholes flooding.

This particular map is looking at the Diafoss waterway drainage basin.

And it represents really a much more systemic failure to convey stormwater down to the outfalls, and is something that we're going to need to install new infrastructure and upgraded infrastructure to address.

And this slide will be a bit of review for council members who have seen this presentation in other contexts and committees.

So I appreciate you going through it with me again.

This is this is the definition of a system development charge, similar to a transportation impact fee.

It's a one-time charge.

In the case of an SDC, it is for receiving a new or upsized connection to a wastewater, stormwater, or water utility.

And the amount that's charged is proportional to how much additional capacity that new connection or set of connections or development requires from those utility types.

And the intent is really to recover a fair share of the overall cost of the utility system from the new development in order to fund projects that help us grow and just keep pace with densification and population growth in Tacoma.

And similar also to impact fees, this revenue that is generated via SDCs needs to be spent on capital projects, not on operating costs.

So we're considering this type of revenue mechanism for a number of reasons.

For one thing, Tacoma is an outlier in not currently charging SDCs for wastewater and or stormwater.

Essentially every medium to large size jurisdiction in the Puget Sound region does currently charge SDCs for wastewater, stormwater, or both.

And so we believe that it's a well-recognized best practice in terms of accommodating growth in this part of the world, which of course is seeing population growth across the board.

We do have SDCs in place for our water utility.

Tacoma Water has had SDCs in place since 1997.

So the code language exists, and we have some of the sort of pathways for developing that language and enacting it in a stormwater and wastewater context.

So we're not starting from scratch.

So we want to be responsive to that and look for a non-rate payer-based revenue source.

And in particular, system development charges, because they're assessed at the time a new connection is established, they are responsive to the rate of growth that occurs.

With the ebb and flow of the economy, we may see periods of faster growth, periods of slower growth, and correspondingly greater or lesser needs to upgrade systems.

Because system development charges are paid for each time a new connection is established, we're generating revenue more slowly during periods of slow growth, more quickly during periods of fast growth, so that we can perform projects at a pace that is matched to the speed of growth.

And we calculate SDCs in in the following manner.

Similar to transportation impact fees, the manner for calculating system development charges is set by statute and by case law, resulting in this formula you see on your screen.

And to assess this, it's really about determining what is a fair share of the overall cost of the utility system for a given amount of new capacity.

So you start by quantifying your system cost for the utility, which would be the original cost of all your existing active assets in the system.

So if we have pipe in the ground from 1920, we incorporate the cost paid for that pipe to purchase it and install it in 1920.

2020 pipe, same thing, we look at the 2020 cost.

Subtract out anything that's been funded by grants, subtract out anything that has been donated by developers, so that we're only considering costs paid by the city for its utility system.

You would divide that then by the total system capacity for wastewater.

That would be the combined permitted capacity of central and north end treatment plants in millions of gallons a day of wastewater.

And for our stormwater system, that would just be the total amount of impervious square footage, that is rainwater runoff generating hard surface citywide.

You divide the one by the other, and that gives you a unit cost of dollars per gallons a day for wastewater, dollars per impervious square foot for stormwater, and that represents the fair share cost of the overall utility for a given chunk of capacity.

You then multiply that by the amount of capacity that's being added by a new development.

So for wastewater, the increase in wastewater flow is expected for that development.

For stormwater, the added amount of impervious surface area that's being added for that development to determine what the system development charge for it is.

And to make that a little bit more concrete, this chart shows you for a single residential unit in a multifamily development where our proposed system development charges for wastewater and stormwater stack up against other jurisdictions regionally and uh and in the state.

And this would be for a single residential unit.

Um, so for an eightplex, multiply this cost by eight, for a fourplex, multiply this cost by four.

There are always uncertainties with exactly how much impervious surface area will follow a new development.

So the stormwater charge varies according to that change, but this is what we see on average.

And you can see that Tacoma comes in uh third from the bottom here when compared to other jurisdictions regionally.

That is uh largely because we have a lower cost basis for both of our uh systems.

Uh we have a lot of old infrastructure as mentioned earlier in the presentation, and because we're looking at the cost paid in 1920, for example, for a run of 1920 piping and incorporating that in those older infrastructure costs are simply lower, and that reduces what the overall fair share of our uh utility system is.

And at this point, I'm going to bring Jennifer back in and we're going to look at some fee stacking to kind of show the overall impact of proposed system development charges and impact fees.

Thank you, Nathan.

So, in response to committee requests, we are providing two examples of how transportation impact fees and system development charges would compare to other jurisdictions.

Uh we recognize that housing affordability and impacts have been the highest concern.

So we're providing a comparison for a construction of a new accessory dwelling unit.

As a note, just as with comparisons, this chart does show um the citywide average for transportation impact fees because we do have, as you recall, six districts.

So for um example purposes, we just provided the average here.

Um, unlike SDCs, they are not limited, they are limited, not limited by geographic area, whereas they're looking at the full system capacity.

We've heard from council that remaining competitive with our neighboring jurisdictions is important.

We know that many of these agencies are evaluating and updating their free programs to help be consistent with state law and with inflation.

Um I'd also like to note that you'll see several of these agencies also have school or park impact fees, which is not what we're proposing today.

Um these fees would have to be vetted and adopted by city council though, prior to any implementation.

But as you note on this slide here, Tacoma does rank um amongst the lower of the jurisdictions that we did evaluate.

For this next example, we again are using a citywide average for impact fees, and this is for an eight-plex.

So with this example, Tacoma drops to the lowest of stacked fees, and that's primarily due to the decrease in person trips generated with a multifamily eight-plex.

Um, and so specifically for the impact fee portion of it.

Um and then as a reminder, we're only showing residential uses, but the fees would apply to all new developments, including commercial, office, and industrial.

Uh these comparisons do not include site development or frontage improvement fees, um, but it's important to note that all five jurisdictions do have general requirements that mandate some degree of off-site or frontage improvements.

Um required improvements always apply to all abutting street frontages of a property, and then typically beyond the curb, the extent of the improvement area really varies widely amongst jurisdictions because of just different design standards, city policies, and then also city priorities.

And so today's presentation is a culmination of many years of work on impact fees and system development charges.

It's important to note that while this may seem like this is an expedited process, both initiatives have been presented to various commissions, committees, and councils recently and in the past.

The most recent phase of evaluating both fees included presentations and discussions with the Transportation Commission, Climate and Sustainability Commission, Tacoma permit advisory task advisory group, bicycle pedestrian technical advisory group, Fiallop Tribe of Indians, Port of Tacoma, and the Chamber of Commerce.

Based on that outreach, staff have developed programs and codes that we are proposing to bring forward for adoption on December 2nd of this year.

At this time, we are proposing an effective date in quarter two of 2026.

And do you plan to include a robust education as part of that launch?

This concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All right, thank you all for the presentation.

I'm gonna start with my colleagues.

Council Member Rembaugh, you're up first.

Thank you.

Um, I appreciate that, Deputy Mayor.

Um, could we go to the wastewater projections for a new secondary um facility and just talk a little bit about where a tertiary facility is as part of this, or is that not part of this uh you're talking about the tertiary treatment for nutrients?

Yeah, that is not part of that.

And that what you see on the graph that Nathan explain uh the beginning of the presentation of the system development charges, there's two three gaps, one, two, and three.

The three, the largest is the unknown gap.

And that is the upcoming regulation.

Okay, so um I really appreciate this, and I would love to know what the cost would be if that was part of this.

Um, and I understand it wouldn't be paid, probably maybe the same way.

But I'm wondering, is there gonna be like a bond then to do this or so uh what we already have a schedule to uh dive uh deeper on the on the nutrients issue uh mid-November.

Okay.

And we'll bring all that conversation to you in terms of uh if the permit uh if the regulation passes, what are they what is the investment?

Okay, the city will be required, and perhaps how that could be funded.

Okay.

Uh in but yeah, yeah.

I appreciate this conversation.

I just I I'm hoping that we're more holistic as all.

So I think this particular uh proposal does not include upcoming regulation.

Okay, great.

So we'll get some more information though.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, council members dogging.

Oh hey, thank you.

Uh I have a few questions.

I uh for the public um listening in.

I just want to confirm these are all new fees, these are not existing fees in any way, correct?

Uh new fee new fees.

These are all new, both the system development and transportation.

Yeah.

Uh on slide four, proportional to need, I just want to confirm.

Um to the court case, uh proportional to need is also proportional geographically to the development, correct?

Yes, you're talking about an excess and proportionality.

Yeah.

And and and that is included on the proposal that you will be seeing.

So that's why on on slide six, we have these one, two, three, four, five, six geographic areas.

And what we're saying is the transportation impact fees uh collected from developments in those six areas would go towards capital improvements in those areas.

Within Jennifer can answer that question.

Thank you for that.

So they would be for projects within those areas, but we do recognize that there are trips that cross some of those boundaries.

So some of those fees, and we've by creating those districts, we've created that calculation of how much a trip or how much a fee may be.

So if you're on the border of a district, you might benefit.

Okay.

And so that explains slide nine and why you have those six or seven uh areas, and then the district per fee rate.

Um can you explain to me how you came up with those numbers?

Yes, it is based on um slide seven, which where we take a look at the cost of all eligible projects, and so it's the capital costs for all those projects and the capital costs.

And then we remove the deficiencies or what wouldn't be eligible for that.

So, for instance, like an example would be if we've got a uh vision zero or complete streets project.

We anticipate that there's some maintenance with regards to like either paving or maybe there are curb ramps that may need to be just upgraded, but those would not be considered capital costs, and so those costs would be removed from that.

Um, and then essentially we start looking then, and that's for vehicles, pets, people biking as well.

Um, and then we take a look at what's expect what the expected growth is for those districts.

Um, and it's essentially a formula.

I'm happy to provide more detail on how that gets broken down for each of those districts.

So it's based on the need, um the eligible need, the eligible need, correct, the eligible capital need for those districts, and then what's expected.

What we think is going to be the number of of trips generated.

And that actually brings me to the point on trips generated.

Um, you know, I I don't need the formula, but I just want to know color around trip generated.

Would it be less if it's a development that has fewer parking spots?

Like how is that really determined?

Is it just based on how many other units are there?

Because you know, the states going through we have policy changes to reduce the number of parking spots.

Uh invariably that at some point will reduce in fewer fewer cars and trips.

Is that taken into account in our analysis?

Um we'll provide a little bit more information about how those trips are identified or the rates are identified because it is based on national standards, so the type of land use that is being developed, whether it's a um multifamily you know apartment versus a you know retail mom and pop store.

Um there are specific I guess specific allocations of what based on his you know research of what those generate.

There's a number that says this is how many person trips would be generated based on that use.

Regardless of if there's parking and other uses.

Um perhaps uh maybe answering your question is the exemptions that you're looking for.

And um, in in the particular example that you stated, if that particular development is close to a high frequency transit, then there will be the ability to accept some of the fees reducing by 50 percent.

Um but um but think about in terms of assessing the the trips on a single development every time will be extremely cumbersome and difficult.

That's why we go with the national standards as to how much a development, how many trips a development will generate uh 10 trips per day in a single family home, and then we have done a reduction even from there just to make it more affordable.

Um I will we'll just talk offline in a little more detail, not in this context on all that, because I think that leads to one of the questions I had on slide 21.

Um you said in this comparison on our costs, one of the reasons why Tacoma is lower is it's a multifamily.

Are we comparing an eight plex in Tacoma to eight single families in federal way or PLUP?

Is that what's happening over here?

No, it was uh eight flex across all jurisdictions.

So we tried to take the similar sorry about that.

Um we used an Aplex as an example from each of the other jurisdictions as well.

So it'd be an A Plex in Tacoma with the same number of trip generations and all that stuff.

Correct.

Okay.

Um and then the question I had in when I looked at here, I'm trying to guess, or maybe you can tell me.

That orange bar on Tacoma, that should be related to on slide nine, something around uh trip fee rates.

So I'm seeing trip fee rates of about I'm gonna say 45 to 5,000 on an eight plex.

You'd think it's at least eight times that, but apparently it's not eight times that.

Nope, you're correct.

So that's part of the national standards is we recognize that a single family home actually generates more trips per day than uh multifamily homes.

And so that's where it might be 10, whereas another one might be less than that.

Got it.

Uh last question before I get to comment.

Um slide eight, the exemptions.

Are we adding these or are these for us to consider adding to an ordinance?

Is that in the draft ordinance, or we haven't decided yet?

We are proposing to include those in the ordinance.

I am supportive of that.

Um so the last thing is you know, generally my concern around these types of fees is um we need housing really bad.

So the I lied.

I have the last question.

This applies to both commercial and residential, or just residential or just commercial.

All of the all all land use.

All development, all land use, no okay.

Um so that gives me some something more to noodle on, because my initial thought around all this is um fees like this are effectively tariffs, they will be passed on to some end user, whether it's a renter, a a homeowner, or someone who's going to rent out commercial space or buy commercial space, right?

So it's gonna be passed on in some way.

And in that world, um, the considerations I had was uh around equity, right?

Because of the uh uh court case, the question becomes well, if it becomes more expensive in areas that have been historically under resource, like the areas I represent, then it's a disincentive to build where we need them to build, right?

Because we want those updates.

So those are some of the questions I have in my head.

Uh the last, I guess, uh, and we can do this uh offline too.

I do want to understand how this interacts with other requirements we have, such as off-site improvements, because we do ask for offside improvements.

Do other jurisdictions ask for them?

Is it the same amount uh or not?

Because that is a type of fee that needs to be considered in the total development of any development.

Because at the end of the day, let's remember that we are required by the GMA to allow for growth in our in the borders of our city.

That's really important to us.

And so we should be cheaper than everyone else, and I want to make sure we are.

Okay.

Um that's it.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry, you had maybe uh as a follow-up to to your to your comment.

Um yes, we we have tried to make an assessment as to the offside improvements the other jurisdictions will have that became extremely complex because it depends on in the specific um uh developments.

Now today we submitted uh a memorandum uh to use.

I think it's your inbox.

And on the last page of that memorandum gives you a perspective of of the many different uh fees comparison to the other jurisdictions, and we have added the city of Tacoma offside improvements for you to have a perspective in relation to uh the other jurisdictions, keeping in mind the other jurisdictions in that table does not include offside improvements.

specific um uh developments now uh today we submitted a memorandum uh to you so I think it's your inbox and on the last page of that memorandum gives you a perspective of of the many different uh fees comparison to the other jurisdictions and we have added the City of Tacoma offsite improvements for you to have a perspective in relation to uh the other jurisdictions keeping in mind the other jurisdictions in that table does not include offside improvements but um my apologies that we submitted this memo today um uh to you but the amendment can maybe member on the can give you more uh information related to your question specifically great thank you thank you council member sedogge council member heinz uh thank you uh thank you madam deputy mayor uh this is how many times have I seen this now IPS too multiple times um so uh just a couple questions and then I guess a few comments here uh so for my understanding for transfer traffic impact fees we can't use it to fix broken infrastructure already pre exists the project correct so it has to be for capacity expansion of some kind can you just clarify that so somebody says the road in front of my projects all busts it up I we can't take traffic impact fees and fix that or can we do a fix that what does it need to how does it apply uh so traffic impact fees are specific to capacity building so it would have to be adding capacity so if a roadways there might be slightly in disrepair it's still functioning as a roadway and it's so we would not be it would not typically be eligible.

So yeah however I think the traffic impact fees provide an opportunity to partner with other funding sources that if we if if we have a capacity project and we have a uh uh uh infrastructure need even in in in stormwater that brings other funding sources we can maximize that investment when we go out there that was just a good question that was one question that's been kicking around in my mind the second one would be when we talk about traffic impact fees does it have to be for physically car trips right because I think about one of these things where if you're if if the the mechanism by which we are tracking the impact fee is the number of car trips generated but then we don't have parking required or we require bike parking or all these other pieces are we able to do bike trips do pedestrian trips count in that number two or it's just traffic or is traffic broadly like anything that moves.

Yeah thank you for that question so we are looking at it as person trips since they're the projects that would could be eligible would include pedestrian bicycle trips as well gotcha so if I wanted sidewalks to be repaired we'd have to match it to the number of person trips generated like of walking or could we because I think that's a question the public is going to come in their minds like well if you're saying there's all these extra car trips and then the money is using to be paid for sidewalks what's the nexus there so do we have to like look at multiple components of it to understand how it breaks apart or is it is it more flexible than that.

That's a great question.

So how we identify the trips or the fee for trips is actually based on person trips.

And so we do take into consideration the vehicle trips there's a formula to convert those two person trips um and that's why we are looking at that multimodal approach to increasing um capacity for people walking and biking as well.

Okay perfect um my second question probably the map if we get slide six back up on the screen by chance Alice um so what I'm my question would be the project we can use this for have to be on the six year transportation improvement plan correct correct and so you're telling me that after if this passes I want to get every one of my projects on the six year transportation improvement plan as fast as possible after this goes over through um so what we would look at correct is that it would be uh the project's list has to be on your capital facilities plan which is a six year program by state law um in order but typically will happen is we're scheduling to look reevaluate the project list and also the needs probably about five to seven years is when we start to to reevaluate I know that we've and that's where we've always kind of struggled with the timing as far as either you know a sub-area plans coming for adoption should we wait and kind of how do we add these in so our proposal is to come back take another look at it in five to seven years when we've added um some additional projects okay um so when I look at this map right and I'm gonna I'll use my council district as an example right so North Tacoma so if I put something in Proctor I don't see any capital project identified on that map anywhere near that so is there a nexus by you know so a new building goes into the Proctor Westgate business district and then the nearest capital project is so far away is the how what's the how do we generate the nexus between the two right like how much of that allocate do we calculate it how we allocate to it I guess my question would be if something's built in North Tacoma and and people aren't going to get anywhere near where the capital projects are how do we how do we how do we connect the two so we've used our that's where our traffic model um really comes from and that's why we've created these districts because it is based on the land use and the transportation system then also boundaries we recognize that within these districts based on where some of those you know essential services or um commercial or you know trans facility transit facilities might be that those trips are happening within those districts um and that's kind of where to council's um you know asking about the sheets in county versus eldorado cases that's where we'd come up with this so we've done that analysis is um within each of those districts to identify

We recognize that within these districts, based on where some of those, you know, essential services or um commercial or you know, trans facility transit facilities might be that those trips are happening within those districts.

Um and that's kind of where to Council Member Stalges um, you know, asking about the Sheets and County versus El Dorado cases, that's why we'd come up with this.

So we've done that analysis is um within each of those districts to identify for certain areas how much of the that project will distribute those trips within that district itself.

Yeah, okay.

No, I think that was just a question I've had, which is you know, I look at I live on Sixth Avenue nearby, and it looks like that's on the list, right?

But if a project's built in Point Rustin, those traffic impact fees roll down to my area, though I won't ever see an impact, or maybe I will see, I'll see some impact of like increased traffic, but um a little bit farther away.

Um I think those are kind of most of my questions around that part.

I I mean again, what I would I I think my I've voiced this every time we've had this conversation, which is I I our capital needs are great, our roads are in disrepair, we need to add capacity.

I just get very hesitant around increasing the cost to build housing here in the city.

It's coma.

And you know, I'm not surprised that the average person's like, I'd like development to pay for the impacts because I think there's also a lot of people that think the city is the right size right now and they're not interested in further growth, right?

Um, but that just kind of continues in my mind, and I look at other cities, we're we're definitely under the cost that's associated with it.

Um something I would love to see at some point in time is just how much are we capturing through offsite improvement costs versus our peers?

Because I I would have while I don't know if this is true or not, I would imagine that we because I've seen it through some of our large projects in the CEPA process by which we've used CEPA to in order to try to mitigate the costs and impacts on the neighborhood or the area apps and impact fees.

So I'd love to be able to look if we could side by side, like a project in Lakewood or Pierce County, and how much they're charging for off-site improvement costs versus the city of Tacoma and layer that if we can on top of the impact fees.

Because I just want to know how we're stacking those costs on top of each other, um, to understand how much of a barrier it is to housing or not.

And and what everybody will say, I'm sure I'll hear it, is every other city in Pierce County and every other city in the state of Washington minus the city of Seattle has impact fees.

And so I understand that they work and the housing gets built in other places.

The question is just at what point do we does it impact the market, or maybe we see a margin on the margin less housing being built?

So that that's a question I'd love to see for the sewer impact fees.

I I understand adding more toilets means we have to add more capacity to our sewer system.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

At the last IPS meeting, I did have a question, and Romero will answer this question, I'm sure, right now, but as part of our stormwater manual update, we're saying that new development needs to try to contain all the stormwater on property as part of any new development, and yet we're also charging stormwater uh system development charges.

So could you explain to me because you've done it, you've explained it to me, but just for the public, if we're saying every new development has to keep all the stormwater on site, and then we're also then charging them for their impact stormwater system, there seems to be then actually is the new development having impact on the stormwater system, and you've kind of answered that question for me.

I'd let me do it here again.

Um there is um and you're correct.

And um, and we're asking to manage the the stormwater on site.

Um, and there's there is two approaches to that.

What we call detention and retention.

Let's begin with the retention, is the retention is which retain the water and infiltrate into the ground.

Right.

But even that facility needs to have an overflow.

And that overflow needs to be connected with the city system.

On the detention, you don't infiltrate into the ground and you have to connect to the city system.

What we when we decide the stormwater facilities, we design for the high storms.

So both the uh the detention facilities and the retention facilities on the site most likely operate on their overflow.

So an infiltration facility will not have the time to reimend the facility to infiltrate it to the ground, so it has to go into the city system.

So either way, we we the the the city system will have to address that debt capacity.

Yeah.

Great.

That was I I'd asked that at IPS, and I thought you did a good job answering that question was something I had thought of.

Um, no, I it makes a lot of again.

I appreciate this cost and this discussion.

We have infrastructure needs we have to pay for, it's what we've been talking about for a long time.

Um but it just my in my mind I'm coming back to how do we strike the balance between the growth we need the state says we need to have and the impacts on the infrastructure and what does that look like is kind of a something I'm working through in my mind.

Is it's the state done any limits on impact fees?

I feel like this is something the state's gonna weigh in on us at some point in time to say anything, or are they just hands off on impact fees completely?

State legislature.

Um so I I don't know that they've limited, but they have right in the most recent um legislative actions have provided those exemption options, so increase allowing for that 50% uh affordable housing, um, near high high transit facilities.

They've also done that with the ADU.

So um I'd say that they are active and trying to address you know what's in the Growth Management Act as well, and and allowing cities to do that.

And I think that's the key is not requiring the payback is helpful for for cities as well, and so maybe that's how they're looking to help support cities.

Uh my last question, Mayor and then I'll be done here is I I would love what is the review cycle on our impact fees both sides, like what at what point do we come back and look at this?

Is there is a review cycle or is this is it every year we just I guess what's the review cycle?

Is it just once it's in, we just increase it every year, like utility fees.

Do we come back and look at it again, whether it's meeting our housing goals?

Is there any review cycle?

So there is an annual reporting requirement for impact fees.

Um so one thing to note too is that if the fees or funds aren't spent within 10 years, they're given back to the developer, you know, with interest, and so we'll be tracking that really closely.

Also with the projects that we are um we'll be using these to fund as well, because I'd mentioned before you can't wholly pay for a capital improvement project with impact fees, and so we'll have that tracking mechanism to report back.

And then the intent is to come back every somewhere between five and seven years because it's rerunning the models um for our trips and then also growth, and then also reevaluating that what is the current, what is the need for capacity improvements at that time as well.

So then reevaluating in six year or you know, our reevaluating our six-year plan to see what's that that project cost.

Yeah, I think that's just something in my mind for my colleagues for us to be thinking about is the need is the need is the need, right?

So if housing doesn't show up, we still have to pay for it, irrespective of impact fees.

So I think one of the ongoing conversations I'd like to see is like year over year, are we seeing continued housing billing built?

Are we is it meeting our goals around it and to be having honest conversation about the costs we associate with building if we're not meeting our housing targets.

So that's thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Heinz.

Uh Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, and I think um I obviously have also had an opportunity to see this a number of times.

I want to thank you, Jennifer, and staff for spending a lot of time um both at the IPS committee and also I know other CBCs, but also all the one-on-ones and two-on-ones.

I know everyone has spent a time on this, and I think it's really important.

Um I wanted to, I just had a couple comments.

I think everything's really been covered today, but um I did want to clarify because a couple of people asked about this.

I thought so on slide 21 on the the fee stacking for the eightplex.

Um I thought you made a comment that all of these jurisdictions do still require the on-site improvements in addition to these fees.

But I just wanted to reconcile that with what you said, Ramira, that there's a memo that's coming to us with those fees.

So can maybe we just start with that.

Yeah, great.

Thank you for that clarification.

So as part of yeah, it's part of the presentation.

Um we will provide some additional information about the offsite improvements as Councilmember Sidalgay had asked about our consultants did look at each of these jurisdictions and identified in their codes and in their design manuals about um requirements for off-site improvements.

Uh so all of them do have a mechanism and do impose them.

Um how they may review them or what they actually require of developments varies depending on location, geography, land use as well, and then some actually do have other um kind of in lieu of programs where you can pay into it, and then so very similar to like an additional impact fee as well.

So each of these do have them, um, and we've we've summarize that a little bit more into or not their fees, but we've summarized our city of Tacoma off site improvements.

Um it's just difficult to pick an eight unit maybe in Tacoma and then one in you know, Pierce County or Piola, because it will vary depending on the location and and some of their zoning requirements too.

So we've done a comparison um more on the Tacoma side.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I know we all asked a version of that question, but that's what I needed to kind of clarify that.

Um so thank you.

And I think that that for me is one of the really important things is is how we stack up to the our neighboring jurisdiction.

So just generally want to thank you all for being so responsive and to the discussions that we had at IPS and one-on-one discussions.

I know there were concerns um when we first well, let me start off by saying I know you've been we've all been working on this for years and years and years, and I know the public has been waiting for us to um get to work on it.

So I'm excited for it to come forward, and I um back to what I was trying to say, just uh thank you for readjusting based on that conversation.

I think where we landed is really a balanced approach that also gets at what investments we need in um different parts of the city, because I think that's the the flip side of this is we're going to with these fees, we're going to invest more in the places we have historically disinvested in, and that's what's really important to me is to get those projects built and make it safe to get around.

Um, but we all obviously have to balance those those housing pieces as all all of my colleagues have said.

Um we certainly aren't trying to implement something that's gonna stop all housing growth.

But I think as we compare to other um neighboring jurisdictions, we see that that's not gonna be the reality.

Um so really appreciate all that work in addition to this new memo that that we're gonna read about.

Um I also just wanted to give a quick shout out to all of our commissions that sent letters to the IPS committee, um, the um climate and sustainability commission, the transportation commission, and the permit advisory task force all sent letters um that helped us as we were working through this.

So thank you to all of the volunteer commissioners on those groups that um work through this with us, and then also wanted to reiterate what I know a number of colleagues have said, but thank you for the thoughtful interpretation of the state law.

I I am absolutely in agreement on the um the exemptions and reductions um that you presented on slide eight, and that we stick to those that we don't have to pay back.

I I think it overcomplicates things if we add some of those other exemptions.

So I think these make sense.

Um I also I I don't see transportation impact fees or um system development charges.

I was like that I couldn't remember what the S is the system development charges is something that's gonna sense it, but I do think that it would be good in as we draft the ordinance to put in that re-evaluation piece.

I hear you say that the five to seven year mark for the project list, that makes sense to me.

But where do we um reevaluate the impact of it?

I think putting that in and maybe at the same time, maybe it is a five-year um reevaluation point.

Um, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Um, just as good practice for us to reevaluate how a policy is uh impacting our city.

So um again, thank you all for the the work on this and looking forward to um getting that ordinance drafted.

I see the timeline on here.

Um is staff working on drafting the ordinance or are is council drafting the ordinance?

Both both, okay.

We will obviously the council will review any proposal legislation before it comes to you.

But are we gonna work on it together before December 2nd, or is that something that your office is drafting?

Yeah, that was that that is the plan that we're and we're gonna be working with legal council leading to the December 2nd proposal.

Okay, um, I would be happy to help on that and would love to be part of it if I can.

Um, I think it uh you know, save ourselves some amendments if we work on it together.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Walker.

Councilmember Bushnell.

Uh thank you, Deputy Baron, and I appreciate the great presentation and uh just ditto a lot of uh councilmember walker on the appreciation from the commission's uh city staff and everybody that's been working on this for a significant amount of years.

Um I know a lot of thoughts went on in into it.

Um and uh similar to some of my colleagues, I do have some um pause around the offsite improvement requirements.

Um that tends to be a pretty significant cost for uh folks when they're trying to build something out, and uh a frustration I commonly hear is that there's kind of a cascade effect of triggering of things.

So it's like okay, you're gonna do the sidewalks here, then all of a sudden uh down the block you have to do the intersection here, and and so I'm I'm kind of curious of like would uh offsite improvement requirements change a little bit based on the availability of an impact fee to uh for capacity, for example, uh the because of those cascading effects.

Uh and and what I've been hearing is like, well, we'll have to do this, but then all of a sudden it triggers that, and then that triggers that, and then it becomes like a whole much larger thing.

But if we're addressing capacity issues, especially with the traffic impact fees, uh, would that address some of those uh those kind of triggering off-site improvement requirements that we're we're hearing about?

Um so the I guess thanks for that.

In short, it it does depend.

So there might be opportunities where if there is an off-site improvement and it is something that's located on the um project list or as part of the capital sleeves plan, there could be there are credits available or they could take advantage of their rate, they're paying that their improvement, their mitigation essentially through those impact fees.

So there's that.

Um and the off-site improvements are again at the at the core is red development, it's providing those essential needs, and so for us transportation needs, and and it is those that sidewalk um requirement.

And then I know that's something that we we're gonna be looking at is what does that mean for um site development?

We know that that's what we've heard from the you know, development community is those cascading impacts as far as um site development with regressive sidewalks, stormwater, trees, utilities, uh, things like that.

So that's probably the next conversation.

Okay.

Yeah, I I think there's um offer opportunity, especially with the traffic impact fees coming in and looking at the the system uh kind of like the system development charges.

We're looking at the um the system and the traffic protection improvement plan uh and how that operates and fits within the actual building itself, and then what the off-site improvement requirements are.

Obviously, we want to make sure that sidewalks are being put in, ADA ramps and things of that nature, but then like how like in in some cases there's like a crosswalk that's required that might be further down the street that's not necessarily adjacent to the property.

Um and so there's like, well, if we have to do the sidewalk or have to do this crosswalk, then all of a sudden it triggers something else.

And so that's what that's what I'm kind of kind of getting at.

And so how we kind of further refine what those off-site requirements are uh and try to keep them uh and make them uh help them like dovetail with the larger uh traffic impact fees and how we can mitigate some of those off-site requirements because it's gonna be uh uh the impact fees are gonna help pay for some of the capacity uh up and down the corridor that that building may sit on, as opposed to it being the specific development creating that crosswalk or which might not necessarily be completely adjacent to a property.

Um so and just something I think that might be missing from the conversation, um, and this is just kind of comment a little bit, um, is that I think that there's uh as you had mentioned, there's a lot of other jurisdictions up and down the Puget Sound region that have done this and have done it for a significant amount of years.

And I think for the city of Tacoma specifically, um I think about the opportunity costs that we as a city have been losing year over year over year with the degradation of our infrastructure and the lack of capacity building over time.

Um and it kind of creates a situation where is development gonna come here because the infrastructure's good and the the quality of life is great, and um and the and the roads are what we would expect for people coming in and wanting to build and develop here, and what opportunities have we lost because it's not up to uh a you know a company standards?

It's like we're we don't want to we don't want to build here because of the lack of infrastructure and capacity because it hasn't kept up with what uh what we'd expect in a modern city.

Um and so I I think that's the other side of the the equation.

I would want to oppose to folks that are really concerned about this um is like what have we lost over time by not having implemented these years ago and the degradation and lack of capacity in our infrastructure as we stand today?

Um and so I think this is timely, especially considering home and Tacoma coming in, uh, as you had mentioned, and I really think that um this is an opportunity to make sure that our infrastructure is is quality and people uh uh that are looking to to develop and build in Tacoma uh will see those cost savings in time because the infrastructure is not nearly as bad, the capacity is not nearly as uh as little as it as it is right now, then where it should be, especially considering our growth and where we need to be as a city.

Um so that's comment on that.

Um the uh system development charges, um the re uh could you maybe talk about uh potential for regional stormwater facilities?

Because I think that there's um uh the requirement for retention or um the other word that you're using.

Uh yeah, on on on-site, right?

Is there is there an opportunity to do kind of like a fee in lieu of like in to go towards like a larger pot for a stormwater?

I know their logistics is probably a big concern because water's got to flow in certain ways.

Um, but is has that been a conversation in this?

No, uh certainly.

And um just to give you a broad perspective, um the council may be considering approval of the mid mod recommendations this afternoon, I believe.

And in that it was a request for a million dollars from environmental services to really have a stormwater analysis system-wide, and they will include um the uh the regional facilities.

As you know, real estate in the city is prime.

How we can pro facilitate that regional facilities will be the key.

So we're gonna have to hire a consultant to guide us through that, but that is part of the plan that if we there's an opportunity to have regional facilities, certainly, and that will be an opportunity as to how so the system development charges can fund those regional facilities in avoiding you know uh individual developers to deal with though the higher cost of on-site requirements.

Yeah, thank you for that.

I think that's I again I think that's also very timely.

I think it's really important uh considering the how built out we are as a city that we find ways to uh maximize the buildable land.

Uh and you know the stormwater facilities obviously very important, uh, but requiring it for every single site, it it does constrain a lot of uh what could be done uh for maximum best use for each parcel.

Um and so having these stormwater regional facilities, I think would be beneficial because it would um tie into a larger system that could uh support you know maximizing the individual parcels as opposed to having like a smaller or medium-sized stormwater facility on site for every single development.

So thank you for that.

And that's all the questions I have there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie Mayor.

Got it.

Okay, council member Diaz.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I have also seen this presentation a couple times, and I wanted to really appreciate the um the graphs that y'all have been able to add where we're sta doing the fee stacking comparison.

So I know that was a request several times about how do we get some of these fees on top of each other so we can see what closer to what the total bill might look like for folks.

With that in mind, um I am not a developer, I don't know a lot of them, other than I think Deputy Mayor Daniels.

So I'm just wondering how do people pay for this?

Like what where does it show up for a developer?

Is it where they how do we receive this money?

Is it over time?

Is it one time at the beginning?

I know the TIFF is at the beginning.

What does that bill look like?

It it will be the same as the traffic impact fees.

It would be at the uh the application process.

So at the permit application, is that yeah.

Oh, okay.

So it's before shovels even hit the ground.

I believe before issuing the build-up permit.

Oh, okay.

Um questions sort of in that realm was I'm wondering if any of these fees are set aside to also help the permitting department, like how this is gonna impact their work, or is that just baked into their database that they use?

Sorry about that.

Um so they would there's a portion of the fees by state law are allowed to be used for administration of it um and processing.

So PDS would be the mechanism.

We've already started talking about what does that system look like and it would be part of the SLA permitting process.

So um applicants would know the information to populate, and then it would generate the fee, and then that would be incorporated as part of the uh building permit issuance.

Great.

So that's not it's already baked into some degree where it's not a thing we're gonna have to consider later on in future bienniums.

But how do we how do we pay for this these fees that we've now started assessing?

But just to add to what Jennifer stated, um related to the traffic impact fees and and the system development charges, because we have to track all those fees on the individual developments because there is a timeline of 10 years that if we don't utilize those funds, we'll have to return those funds to the developer with interest.

So it it requires um really uh uh a more uh comprehensive management of those fees to make sure that we track, we put in the right projects, we show the expenditures, uh Jennifer uh talked about the INER report, all that, but uh so they will be require additional administrative costs with the with the fees.

Okay, so we will need to make sure we're thinking about this in future bienniums, but the infrastructure in the billing system or it's not a cellula is baked in already.

Right, the the how we track the data is in there, but the maybe the administrative costs might come in later as additional.

Okay.

Um and then um you said this is on anything to do with land use, and so I was just wondering if that includes other government minus the exemptions on one of the slides.

Does that include other governments?

So whatever the port is doing down in the port um since it's commercial um it do we pay ourselves for like the new fire station what how does that work thank you for that question.

So we um those partner agencies or urban agencies even ourselves would be um required I can think of required to pay those fees as well um if it was seen as either a reduction or exemption that state law where you'd have to pay it back would still come into play then so then we would just have to find another dedicated source of funding to pay what we might have reduced or exempted for those other agencies.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think those are all my questions.

All right thank you council member Diaz um I just have a couple of questions I really um thankful that you all have I feel like you have done a great job of assessing uh the need here and I appreciate uh being able to see like what it would take for us to have a full capacity a full infrastructure um city so I think that is important to council member bushness point of just being a world class city and what what does it look like to have all of the things that to have high quality everything I think what I'm struggling with is the the who's who pays for it and whose sole decision or whose sole responsibility that is particularly because we haven't had the sole responsibility for so many years that it feels not only does it not feel it I know that it's going to have impacts on the the new person right it there's I'm having I'm troubled by this survey that asks rate payers so existing customers ask people that have a vested interest in keeping their rates the same and only them who should pay for this and if I was the ratepayer why would I not why would I say anybody but other why would I say myself I would always say that the next person can pay for it and then it says the developers there is no developer.

The developer is the end user that is your neighbor pays for that the next homeowner pays for that the next renter pays for that and when they pay for it they might have a house but they have one that costs three times what it cost to build a couple of years ago in the city of Tacoma and it's important to me that we understand that and that we are all talking about it when we are we're all talking about it in the same way.

So the question that I have for you and really for us to think about is by 2050 we need 6000 units in the city of Tacoma to be able to address the capacity this that's stormwater that's all of these things the streets and everything like that and we are building about a quarter of what we need to build.

I don't even know if we're building a quarter of what we need we're I think we need to build almost 2500 units a year to be able to get at that's not just affordable that's of all of it to be able to get to that number and we are severely underbuilt I'm curious how does this support our also goals our one to coma goals of getting to that number how does this support us getting there and if not I won't even say if not how does it support us in getting to those goals maybe um answering your question uh deputy mayor uh the rate of development you know whether it's going to be able to achieve the 6000 units by 2050 that's the goal and um and this is the model that we have percentage but if that goal doesn't materialize for the whatever reasons uh the fees will be based on the rate of development that occurs every year so this fee is not global globalizing meaning that if it doesn't occur uh we're gonna be charging more to those who actually develop in the city is if us the rate of development will be also tied to the fees they were proposing so there will not be a uh um a goal the 60 000 and then we backtrack the fees that we need to uh address that hopefully I answer your question I think I was asking a different question and I think I was just trying to help us understand or help me understand how adding to the cost of housing significantly $5,000 a unit I think is on I think that's the cost $5,000 a unit in addition to the $5,000 a unit it is typically to get a permit in addition to the other could be 10 tip depending on your site 15 20 thousand dollars per unit of offsite improvements that you have to do we're about 60 grand in and we haven't even touched the ground we haven't broken we haven't done anything that people actually live in right and so I would it it's I just feel like it's incumbent upon us to really add these numbers up and really understand the cost to build in the city of Tacoma so that when we put these things together we know I appreciate that these this is stacked this way because I really feel like it tells half of the story well it tells a good portion of

We're about 60 grand in, and we haven't even touched the ground.

We haven't broken, we haven't done anything that people actually live in, right?

And so I would it it's I just feel like it's incumbent upon us to really add these numbers up and really understand the cost to build in the city of Tacoma so that when we put these things together, we know I appreciate that.

This is stacked this way because I really feel like it tells half of the story.

Well, it tells a good portion of the fee story, but the fees are really these off-site improvements, and we really continue to hear that there is no predictability in what those are, and those can add another $50,000, $100,000 onto each site, and what does that look like with these together in addition to our permitting fees, in addition to the cost that it takes to engineer all of what we're asking folks to do, all of that coming down to the end user, which is why we don't have homeownership opportunities that are affordable in the city of Tacoma.

This is why, not this is why, but the the siloed or like the way that we approach who is to pay for it.

New growth is going to pay for it.

New growth is going to be expensive and inaccessible, and that's going to be our reality, I believe, if we don't get a handle on how we approach the capacity needs and the infrastructure needs of our whole city.

And again, I believe that we need to do these things.

It's just a matter of who pays for them and how we pay for them and how we approach them.

Um and if we're gonna do these, then that means we need to really rethink about off-site altogether, um, because I think this is asking a lot of each new homeowner or each new renter.

Um, but that's so that's what I would say.

Um again, I appreciate the presentation.

I really appreciate the thoughtful questions from my colleagues about um how we get there.

I don't think I have any questions other than you earlier.

You did bring up um the reductions and exemptions option.

I think it was Jennifer, I think you were saying if you can prove that you've paid for something with an impact fee.

I wanted I don't remember what you were saying, but there was an option for like do you remember what you were doing?

Yeah, absolutely.

So there's definitely um opportunities when development comes in, and if they're doing off-site improvements that are on the project list or included as part of that impact fee project list, then they'd receive we would look at that valuation, and there could be a reduction in the actual impact fee because they're doing that improvement.

Oh, I see.

So we would also look at that as far as um person trips generated as well.

There might be some different nuances where um the trips for that land use type or then development may be reduced based on um either something nearby or something that we haven't codified yet.

That makes sense, and I think that's great.

I think that really is helpful, particularly if the development is like right in front of wherever the new thing is.

I think it's a little it's gonna be hard to access that because the the typically the offsite improvements have to more to do with maintenance, and they're just repair all of this, make all this new ADA, ADA, this, that, and the other, which is great, which we absolutely need, but it is less likely that that would be one of these capacity projects, and so um, yeah, I don't I but I do love that when there is a connection of like if I'm putting into this thing, like how do we offset one or the other?

Um, I think again, I think that this is understandable.

I just think we should really all have the understanding of the cost to build in the city of Tacoma, we should be really clear on that, and potentially have a study of what it costs to build here as opposed to our neighbors.

Um, and I think increasing fees like this should be at the rate of which we are building and meeting our other housing goals.

I think that they should be connected in some way so that we are meeting all of our goals.

Um yeah, thank you so much for the presentation today.

I appreciate hearing and um I learn more every time.

Okay, if there's no other comments or questions from our colleagues, I think that's all we have for study sessions.

So thank you.

All right, um, are there any other items of interest?

No, seeing none.

Uh gender review and city managers weekly report.

We would like to call on interim city manager Kim to begin the presentation.

You have one.

Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor.

Um, council tonight.

We have three ceremonials on the agenda.

First, proclaiming Tuesday, November 11th as Veterans Veterans Appreciation Day.

Uh, we also have November 12th uh proclaiming proclaimed as Tacomos.

I'm gonna try to pronounce this right.

Um, I do want to preface English is my second language, but sesquat centenenal.

I I've been practicing, but sesquentennial.

I bring it out.

Sorry about that.

Um so that is November 12th.

We also have a proclamation uh proclaiming November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month.

Um we have one walk-on uh ordinance for tonight's agenda for modification.

It's a walk on ordinance related to a 10-year telecommunications franchise agreement that we are walking on tonight.

Um and then for council uh and the public, there are four opportunities for public comment this evening.

Uh the first being public comment, second being a public hearing related to our ad valore and levies for emergency medical services as well as our general general property tax for 2026, uh, along with a uh additional public hearing on the proposed Tide Flats sub area plan as recommended by the Tide Flats Steering Committee and related amendments to the one Tacoma plan, Tacoma Municipal Code as recommended by the planning commission.

And then Deputy Mayor Council, we have a final opportunity tonight for public comment under our community forum regarding items which over the city council has jurisdiction and uh for your review uh attached to the study session is my weekly report.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, well, that is the last item on our study session today.

So with that, I will take the final motion.

Move to adjourn.

All those of thank you.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, all those opposed signify by saying nay.

All right, the motion is declared adopted.

We stand adjourned.

I'll see you guys back at five.