>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO CALL THIS APRIL 23rd 2025 MEETING OF THE PARKS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE IS COMING TO ORDER. IT IS 2:02 P.M.. >> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE ? >> PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS ? >> PRESENT. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE IS EXCUSE TODAY. ON THE AGENDA WE ARE SO EXCITED. BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT TOPICS .SPU IS GOING TO PRESENT A THREE-PART PACKAGE TO INCREASE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WHICH ARE ALSO KNOWN AS UTILITY FEES. THE PLAN IS TO USE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO A COST SHARE AND UTILITY PROJECT. THAT IS , THAT SOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND THE COMMITTEE WILL BE -- THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HEARING THESE -- I CANNOT READ TODAY, I APOLOGIZE. THE COMMITTEE WILL BE LISTENING TO THESE AND UP FOR CONSIDERATION AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY AND TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WELL. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE AGENDA. AND IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING AND SEEING NONE, THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. NOW, ON TO MY FAVORITE PART OF THE MEETINGS, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. CLERK, HOW MANY ITEMS OR HOW MANY SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE SIGNED UP TODAY? >> WE HAVE SEVEN IN-PERSON AND TWO REMOTE. >> AWESOME. EVERYONE WILL GET TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK AND THEN CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE MODERATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. I WILL:SPEAKERS BY NAME IN WHICH THE ORDER OF REGISTRATION. WE WILL START WITH THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST. IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO SPEAK BUT WOULD LIKE TO, YOU CAN SIGN UP BEFORE THE END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD BY GOING TO THE WEBSITE OR BY SIGNING UP ON THE SIGN-UP SHEET NEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT MICROPHONE. THE ONLINE LINK IS LISTED ON TODAY'S AGENDA. WHEN SPEAKING, PLEASE BEGIN BY STATING YOUR NAME AND THE ITEM YOU ARE ADDRESSING. SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME AT 10 SECONDS IS LEFT OF THE ALLOTTED TIME. IF SPEAKERS DO NOT AND THEIR COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE ALLOTTED TIME PROVIDED THE SPEAKERS MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE NEXT SPEAKER. >> AWESOME. AND WE WILL START WITH THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FIRST. AND THEN YOU SAID WE HAD ONLINE SPEAKERS AS WELL TOO? AWESOME. WE WILL START IN PERSON AND WE WILL GET THROUGH THE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TODAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING YOUR COMMENTS, AND THEN WE WILL JUMP TO THE ONLINE FOLKS. AND WE WILL CALL THE FIRST ONE UP. >> THE FIRST SPEAKER FOR IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT IS JOSHUA MORRIS . >> WELCOME, JOSHUA. GIVE US ONE SECOND. WE ARE GOING TO GET THE CLOCK STARTED AND THEN MAKE SURE YOU ARE SPEAKING -- IS THAT MICROPHONE ON? >> HELLO, TESTING, TESTING. >> LET'S GO, JOSHUA. >> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M JOSHUA MORRIS CONSERVATION DIRECTOR HERE ON BEHALF OF 1631 PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE PLAN TO BUILD MASSIVE OUTDOOR PICKLEBALL FACILITY ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE WETLAND HABITAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT FROM THE PETITIONERS. MY HOME IS IN THE LOW INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY WHERE MY NEIGHBORS INCLUDING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND OTHERS LIVE IN POVERTY. OUR COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER RATES OF HEALTH PROBLEMS AND DISABILITIES. ONE OF THE POSITIVE RESOURCES IN OUR LIVES IS ACCESS TO A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSAL TO BUILD UP TO 25 PICKLEBALL COURTS LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY FROM OUR HOMES AND FROM THE RESTORED WETLANDS IS WRONGLY CONCEIVED AND IGNORING POLLUTION SHOWING THE NEXT ORDINARY LACK OF CONCERN FOR US AND FOR THE RESTORED WETLANDS. WE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE INCLUDED ONLY TENNIS AND PICKLEBALL PLAYERS AND ADVOCATES. WE WERE NOT RECIPIENTS OF THE MAILER THAT ADVERTISED A MEETING TO REVIEW DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR THE OUTDOOR PICKLEBALL PROJECT. THESE OMISSIONS SUGGEST DISCRIMINATION. I HAVE REVIEWS THE DESIGN CONCEPTS AND I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT OF THE WETLANDS, AND THE MASTER PLAN. THE PROPOSAL STATES THAT 22,300 IMPACT STATEMENTS DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION WAS USED TO DEVELOP HIS PLAN. ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST ANY MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS PROJECT AND BASE ITS DECISIONS ON MORE RECENT RESEARCH WHICH DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING FACTORS. THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF NATURE TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE SCARCE LISTS DAMAGING IMPACTS OF LIGHT POLLUTION COME THE DAMAGING IMPACTS OF NOISE POLLUTION, THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN POVERTY, DISABILITY AND HEALTH PROBLEMS AND THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JOSHUA. YOU STILL HAD 10 SECONDS. ALL RIGHT, NO WORRIES. >> CAROL FOLLOWED BY MARTHA. >> WELCOME. >> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CAROL AND I AM A SAND POINT WAY MAGNUSON PARK RESIDENT. I AM ON THE MAGNUSON PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT PICKLEBALL. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO ULTIMATELY BUILD ABOUT 24 HIM ULTIMATELY BUILD ABOUT 24 PICKLEBALL COURTS IN MAGNUSON PARK ADJACENT TO THOSE AWARD-WINNING WETLANDS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IF WE TRULY WANT TO BUILD A FACILITY THAT WILL BE UTILIZED YEAR ROUND, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AN INDOOR FACILITY AT THE NORTH END OF THE PARK. PERHAPS EVEN ONE OF THE HANGERS ON THE NORTH END OF THE PARK. YES, IT IS LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE AND A LITTLE MORE MONEY AT THE OUTSET, BUT ALL THE MITIGATION WE ARE HEARING ABOUT REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH SOUND AND LIGHT FOR THE PRESENT PROJECT AS WELL AS MEETING REGULATION HEIGHTS FOR THE PROPOSED COVERS FOR THESE COURTS TO MAKE THEM MORE USABLE YEAR ROUND, AND THOSE COVERS HAVE TO BE 18 UP TO 20 FEET TALL. THEY ARE PRETTY INDUSTRIAL LOOKING, AND IMPOSING. WE DON'T THINK IT BELONGS IN THAT SPOT IN THE PARK. THE DESIGN WITH WALLS ON THREE FUNNELS THE SOUND TO THE SOUTH SIDE WHERE THERE IS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, RADFORD COURT, OR HUNDRED RESIDENTS OVER 550 KNOW, 400 -- FOR APARTMENTS, 550 RESIDENTS. ALSO WITHOUT OPEN AREA FACING RADFORD COURT, YOU CANNOT KEEP THE COURTS DRY IN THAT WEATHER ANYWAY. SO MY POINT IS THAT AN INDOOR FACILITY WOULD GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU KNOW WHAT COMMUNITY. FOR THE PLAYERS , THEY WOULD HAVE MORE BENEFITS THERE. AND THERE ARE TWO COMING UP, ONE IN FREMONT, AN INDOOR FACILITY IN FREMONT AND NEWARK -- >> NEXT IS MARTHA TAYLOR AND LAUREN WILSON. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS MARTHA TAYLOR AND I AM HERE TODAY TO URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT CHANGES TO THE MAGNUSON PARK MASTER PLAN THAT WOULD ALLOW 25 PICKLEBALL COURTS TO BE BUILT IN THE PARKING LOT. A PICKLEBALL FACILITY OF THIS SIZE SHOULD NOT BE BUILT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AN AWARD-WINNING WETLAND THAT THE CITY INVESTED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEVELOPING. IN ADDITION, THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING AND SECURING THIS FACILITY WILL STRETCH AN ALREADY INADEQUATE BUDGET AND THE CITY WILL LOSE $250,000 OF ANNUAL REVENUE FROM CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOR USING THE PARK. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO DIVERSE PEOPLE, I MEAN ON ADA ACCESSIBLE PATHS ON THE WETLANDS RECENTLY TO TELL THEM ABOUT THE PROPOSED COURTS ARE THE MOST COMMON CONCERNS I HAVE HEARD ARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF LIGHT AND ESPECIALLY NOISE POLLUTION ON THE WILDLIFE. THEY ARE THERE TO ENJOY URBAN NATURE, NOT THE SOUNDS OF 25 PICKLEBALL COURTS. PEOPLE I HAVE TALKED TO ARE ALSO APPALLED TO LEARN THAT SPR DISREGARDED ALL PARK USERS EXCEPT PICKLEBALL PLAYERS FOR OVER TWO YEARS AS THIS PLAN WAS DEVELOPED. AT AN APRIL NINTH MAGNUSON PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING A SPR EMPLOYEE SAID THAT HAVING THE COURTS WILL CUT DOWN ON CRIME AND VANDALISM IN THAT PARK. BY THAT LOGIC THE PARKING LOTS AT THE TENNIS CENTER AND ESPECIALLY THE BOAT LAUNCH AREA SHOULD ALL BE REDUCED IN SIZE AS WELL. AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST ALLOWING THIS COMPLEX IN THE D5 PARKING LOT. I'M NOT AGAINST PICKLEBALL. THE COURTS SHOULD BE ELSEWHERE IN THE PARK OR DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SEVERAL PARKS IN NORTHEAST SEATTLE, OR EVEN BETTER, BUILT AT AN INDOOR FACILITY. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING WETLANDS AND MAJOR AREAS THAT WILL -- THE WILDLIFE AND THE COUNTLESS PEOPLE WHO SEEK TIME IN URBAN NATURE. THANK YOU. >> LAUREN WILSON FOLLOWED BY AND PAUL. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LAUREN WILSON. I'M A RESIDENT OF WEST SEATTLE. AND A CONSTITUENT OF COUNCILMEMBER SOCCER. I AM A BIRDER AND A MEMBER OF THE CLIMATE ACTION GROUP. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THE CONCERN TO BUILD OUTDOOR PICKLEBALL COURTS NEXT TO THE WETLANDS WERE MY FRIENDS AND I LIKE TO GO BIRDING. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE BIRDS TAKEN AT THE WETLAND THAT MY FRIEND TOOK. THIS IS AT THE WETLANDS. THIS IS A MALLARD DUCKLING. AND THIS IS A CARDINAL WHICH IS A DRAGONFLY. SO WE REALLY VALUE THOSE WETLANDS. WE HAVE ALSO WATCHED THEM BUILD NESTS IN THE WATER LILIES AND THEN THE BIRDS HAVE HATCHED AND WE WATCHED HER WITH THOSE. IF THIS PICKLEBALL MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY YOU, THE RESULTING FACILITY COULD INTERFERE WITH THE NESTING, WETLAND BEHAVIOR OF THESE BIRDS AND DEGRADE THIS RESTORED HABITAT FOR 100 OTHER SPECIES THAT LIVE THERE. THE DAY ROUND NOISE AND LIGHTING AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE NOISE FROM THE COURTS COULD BE VERY HARMFUL TO MANY OF THE WETLAND SPECIES. THERE ARE SITES IN MAGNUSON PARK WHICH WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WETLAND THAT HAS BEEN RESTORED FOR SO MANY CREATURES AND URBAN NATURE LOVERS. WE ONLY HAVE THREE WETLANDS REMAINING OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE IN SEATTLE. AND THE STATE OF -- THAT CAME OUT THIS YEAR SAYS THAT THE BIRD POPULATIONS ARE DECLINING AROUND ALL HABITATS WITH THE ACCELERATION OF POPULATION LOSSES CAUSED BY CLIMATE -- >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND YOU CAN ALSO, THE COMMENTS, YOU CAN ALSO SEND THEM INTO COUNCIL AS WELL, THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU -- IF YOU ARE SHORT ON TIME. DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COMMITTEE -- COMPLETE COMMUNITY OF STAKEHOLDERS WHEN THEY FIRST BEGAN CITING NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS. THE FACT THAT THIS SITE WAS DISCUSSED IN ADVANCE FOR TWO YEARS USING ONLY A BASE OF IDEAS AND PREFERENCES OF PADDLE BALL AND TENNIS ENTHUSIASTS RATHER THAN THE BROADER COMMUNITY OF PARK USERS HAS RESULTED IN POLARIZATION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. PICKLEBALL IS FAMOUSLY NOISY. EVEN THE MOST LIMITED FOOTPRINT OF PICKLEBALL COURTS AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION WITHIN THE PARK WILL IMPACT THIS WETLAND, BOTH THE WILDLIFE THAT LIVE THERE AND THOSE OF US WHO SEEK TO HEAR AND SEE WILDLIFE. THERE ARE OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE PARK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PICKLEBALL FACILITY, WHICH I DO HOPE PARKS PURSUES. I HOPE THE COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT IN THE WETLAND AND ITS SUCCESS , AND THAT YOU WILL VOTE NO ON ANY AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN WITH REGARD TO THIS SITE. FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD BE USEFUL IF PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD PURSUE MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE PARK FOR A NEW PICKLEBALL -- >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT IS AND SHERWOOD FOLLOWED BY PATRICIA. >> I AM IN DISTRICT WATER NEAR THE MAGNUSON WETLANDS WHERE THE PICKLEBALL COURTS ARE SLATED TO BE INSTALLED. I'M A BIRD COLLISION AND AMPHIBIAN MONITOR AND GENERALLY DEVOTE MY FREE TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MITIGATE NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS. I'M SPEAKING FOR THE WILDLIFE THAT LIVE IN THE WETLANDS I WATCH THEM BUILD THEIR NESTS LEAF BY LEAF IN ONE OF THE PONDS. THEY CANNOT ADVOCATE FOR THEIR YOUNG SO I WILL TRY. PLEASE BUILD THE COURTS FURTHER AWAY FROM WHERE 100 SPECIES ARE JUST TRYING TO SURVIVE. WE HAVE TAKEN SO MUCH OF THEIR HABITAT ALREADY. OF COURSE, NOT JUST SPEAKING FOR THE BIRDS, BUT FOR MANY HUMANS WHO FIND PEACE AND QUIET IN THE WETLANDS, WHO FEEL IMMENSE COMFORT AND JOY KNOWING THAT THERE IS PROTECTED WILDLIFE OUT THERE, EVEN IN OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY. PLACING, PUBLICLY PLACING VALUE ON OUR FEW PLACES LIKE THE MAGNUSON WETLANDS SENDS A MESSAGE THAT WE CARE ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD. NOT JUST FOR OURSELVES TODAY, BUT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF HUMANS AND OTHER BEINGS ALIKE . THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. LIKE YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN, AND FOR ALL YOU DO TO HELP US COEXIST WITH AND BENEFIT FROM NATURE AND WILDLIFE. THANK YOU. >> LAST IS PATRICIA. >> THANK YOU , A 40 YEAR RESIDENT OF BRYANT. I LOVE MAGNUSON AND THE WETLANDS AND I'M A LAWYER AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE PROCESS. AS DECISION-MAKERS YOU KNOW THAT NOTHING IN OUR DEMOCRACY IS MORE BASIC THAN FAIRNESS WHICH INCLUDES DUE PROCESS. IT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. PLANNING FOR THE PICKLEBALL COURTS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME YET I HAVE NO NOTHING ABOUT IT, ABOUT THIS PLAN UNTIL LEARNING IT VERY RECENTLY. CONSEQUENTLY, MANY OF US HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF OUR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE. SEATTLE IS BETTER THAN THIS, MORE INCLUSIVE THAN THIS AND MORE FAIR THAN THIS. I HAVE STOOD BEFORE MANY JUDGES AND HONORED THEIR TIME, EFFORT AND PATIENCE AS THEY LISTEN, LEARN AND BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS. HERE YOU ARE THE JUDGES, AND I TRUST THAT YOU FEEL HOW WRONG IT IS FOR OTHER PARTIES TO HAVE BEEN SHUT OUT OF THIS PROCESS. SIMPLY, YOU ARE ASKED TO DECIDE THE FATE OF THE WETLANDS, ITS INHABITANTS AND ITS OTHER DEVOTEES WITHOUT BEING FULLY INFORMED OF THE FACTS. I HOPE YOU WILL HEAR OUR VOICES , STUDY THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDE, CONSIDER WHETHER SEATTLE CAN MEET THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF ALL PARTIES BY CITING THE COURTS WHERE THEY WILL DO GOOD WITHOUT DOING HARM. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE WHATEVER SECONDS I HAVE TO SAY WHY I CARE ABOUT THIS. UNTIL I WAS 23 I DID NOT KNOW THERE WERE ANY KIND OF BIRDS BESIDES ROBINS, CROWS AND BALD EAGLES AND THEN A FRIEND TOOK ME TO THE COAST AND SUDDENLY THE WORLD WAS FULL OF BIRDS. YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE TOO LITTLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT KIND OF REVELATION AND THEY NEED IT. BIRDWATCHING TEACHES US TO PAY ATTENTION. AND WE HAVE TROUBLE WITH ATTENTION RIGHT NOW. BIRDING REQUIRES -- HABITAT. IT IS A GATEWAY DRUG TO THE WORLD, TO OUR AWARENESS OF THE WORLD INTO BECOMING STEWARDS OF -- >> THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE TO ONLINE. I JUST LEARNED A NEW WORD, BIRDING. I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT. IT IS A NEW WORD THAT I LEARNED TODAY. BIRDING. IT IS A VERB, I'VE GOT YOU. AND WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR ONLINE FOLKS AND JUST PRESS *SIX ONCE YOU HEAR YOUR NAME IS CALLED . >> FIRST UP IS PATTY. >> YOU WILL PRESS *SIX TO UNMUTE YOURSELF, PATTY. CAN YOU HEAR US? HELLO? WE MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PERSON AND WE CAN COME BACK IF THEY ARE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. >> DAVID HAYNES? >> I KNOW YOU KNOW HOW TO PRESS , *SIX, DAVID. >> FROM HEARING ALL THE COMPLAINTS I THINK THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO CONSIDER NOISE ABATEMENT SOMEHOW AROUND THE PICKLEBALL COURTS OR JUST BE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. BUT I CALLED IN BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE DUMPSTER ROADWAYS FROM THE TRASH TRUCK SEEMS TO BANG AND CLANG TOO MUCH AND SOMETIMES THEY PICK UP TRASH MORE THAN TWICE A WEEK AND WE NEED TO GET A REPRIEVE FROM THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. HAYNES. PATTY, *SIX, WE SEE YOU ONLINE. CAN YOU HEAR US, PATTY? WE CAN SEE YOU -- >> IT IS UNCLEAR WHEN IT IS MY TURN. WILL SOMEBODY BE TELLING ME THAT? >> IT IS YOUR TURN. START WITH YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. PATTY, IT IS YOUR TURN. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M HERE, DO YOU HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU, GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> GREAT. SO I'M CALLING IN, MY ASK IS FOR COUNCIL TO REJECT THE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS PICKLEBALL COURTS IN MAGNUSON THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE WETLANDS. AND INSTEAD RELOCATE THE PICKLEBALL COURT , AS OTHERS HAVE SAID, PERHAPS TO THE NORTH END TO AN INDOOR FACILITY THAT IS NEAR THE TENNIS AREA . SO I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK BRIEFLY, AND IT IS ALL ABOUT AT THIS TIME OUR CLIMATE ISSUES , HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, FOR SCHOOL AGED KIDS TO HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO NATURE, AND THERE ARE VERY FEW WETLANDS IN THE SEATTLE AREA AND IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO LEARN ABOUT BIRDS NESTING, ABOUT THE ANIMALS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. WE CAN SEE COYOTES AND DEER. AND FOR THEIR CONNECTION AND APPRECIATION. AND WE NEED YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE THINKING ABOUT THEIR FUTURE. THE NOISE, THE LIGHTS AND THE IMPACT ON THE BIRDS AND WILDLIFE IS REALLY GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT ISSUE. IN THE MITIGATION SUGGESTED IS NOT ADEQUATE. MY LAST ASK IS, PLEASE, AS MENTIONED , IN THE FUTURE, INVOLVE OTHER PERSPECTIVES THAN JUST THOSE ADVOCATING FOR SOME ACTIVITY WHETHER IT IS A NATURE THING OR SOME OTHER AREA. WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THE FAIRNESS ASPECT AND HAVING A VOICE. THANK YOU FOR REVISITING THIS. >> THANK YOU. AND IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP? NOPE? WELL, THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TODAY. I KNOW I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY -- OH, Y'ALL ARE JUST LEAVING ME? I'M JUST PLAYING. BUT HAD A CHANCE, YOU CAN PUT THE PUBLIC, THE COMMENTS IN THAT CONTAINER. BUT WE HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH JOSHUA AND I KNOW I WILL BE WORKING WITH COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA IN MAGNUSON PARK . IT IS HER DISTRICT. AND SOME OF YOUR DISTRICTS AS WELL. AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO YOU KNOW, FINDING A SOLUTION TO THIS. AND I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT BIRDS ARE. IF YOU WANT TO HEAL A SICK BIRD YOU JUST GIVE IT A TWEET -MEANT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY COOL. OKAY, THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING TODAY. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD JOKE. COME ON. TOUGH CROWD. WE WILL BE HEARING ALL THE THREE ITEMS IN THE PRESENTATION. SO WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE THROUGH THREE IN THE RECORD? >> COUNCIL BILL 120966 THROUGH 120968. >>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES; REVISING, CONSOLIDATING, AND ENACTING PROVISIONS RELATED TO SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR WATER, SEWER, AND DRAINAGE AND THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER CEO OF SEATTLE UTILITIES TO DEVELOP MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT REIMBURSEMENT AREA AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 39.91 OF THE REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON AND THE ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 127156, WHICH ADOPTED THE 2025 BUDGET INCLUDING THE 2025 THROUGH 2030 CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION. PRESENTING TODAY IS THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ANDREW LEE, KERI BURCHARD-JUAREZ , LESLIE BRINSON , SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES. >> AWESOME. AND PLEASE, WE KNOW WHO YOU ALL ARE, BUT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU CAN JUMP INTO YOUR PRESENTATION. WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE AND ALSO, BRIAN GOOD NIGHT FROM CENTRAL STAFF. >> ANDREW LEE, CEO FOR SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES. >> KERI BURCHARD-JUAREZ , SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPUTY DIRECTOR. >> OPERATING OFFICER FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND FOR THE RECORD, I DID LOVE THAT JOKE. >> EXCELLENT. I WILL START OFF THE INTRODUCTION TODAY. I THINK THAT FOR MANY OF US AT THE TABLE OR AT THE DAIS, WE HAVE GOTTEN CALLS FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO DO DEVELOPMENT FOR DESPERATELY NEEDED HOUSING AND THEY FOUND THAT ONE OF THE IMPEDIMENTS WAS THE CHARGE FOR THEM TO CONNECT TO A WATER LINE OR OTHER UTILITIES. WHEN WE CAME INTO THE OFFICE WITH MAYOR HARRELL WE TALKED ABOUT OPTIONS FOR HOW TO MAKE THAT A BETTER PROCESS. THAT MAYBE THEY CAN GET US THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED AND KEEP THE UTILITY WHOLE. SPU CAME UP WITH A NOVEL PROGRAM. IN THE FORM OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. I DESCRIBE IT AS EVERYBODY PAYS A LITTLE SO THAT NOBODY PAYS A LOT. WE LOOK AT WAYS TO SPREAD THE COST ACROSS THE ENTIRE FAMILY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALL COMING OUT OF THE CITY ONLINE, AND THE SAME WATER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM INSTEAD OF JUST THE PROJECTS THAT HAPPEN TO BE IN UNFORTUNATE LOCATIONS NOT NEAR UTILITIES WOULD PAY A LOT TO CONNECT. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD OVERVIEW. I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR GREAT TEAM. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND THE IMPLANTATION OF METAL HOUSING FOR HOUSE BILL 1110, SPU HAS BEEN CONSIDERING FOR SEVERAL YEARS HOW TO ENSURE ADEQUATE WATER, WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE WHILE UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND OUR COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABILITY AND STAYING WITHIN THE CURRENT RATE PATH. WITH THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH DEVELOPERS, STAKEHOLDERS LIKE THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM AND STAFF TO DEVELOP AND IMPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR YOU, WHICH I THINK STRIKES A REALLY CRITICAL BALANCE. AND SO FIRST, IT MAKE SURE THAT SPU CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO MEET THE GROWING NEEDS OF THE CITY AND SECONDED MAKE SURE THAT THE COST OF THIS NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IS PREDICTABLE AND SPREAD ACROSS, LIKE MARCO MENTIONED, ALL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT OVERLY BURDENSOME ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR PROJECT OR PROJECT TYPE. THIRD, IT LEVERAGES THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY BUILD MAIN LINES WHERE THEY ARE MISSING AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN LASTLY, IT CREATES A PROPOSAL, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, THAT PAYS FOR ITSELF AND DOES NOT INCREASE UTILITY BILLS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL PASS IT ON TO KERI BURCHARD-JUAREZ WHO WILL PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS LEGISLATION. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT QUESTIONS BE HELD UNTIL THE END. >> THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS PROPOSAL TO YOU. SPU AND ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE CONSIDERED CHANGING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN THE PAST , HOWEVER, WE HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED USING THE FUNDS TO DIRECTLY PARTNER ON DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. SO THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS PROPOSAL DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS PROPOSALS. AND WE THINK IT IS A VERY TIMELY SOLUTION TO SOME OF THE FRUSTRATIONS THAT MARCO TALK ABOUT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT AS WELL, ABOUT THE COST OF THESE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. THIS IS THE BALANCE THAT ANDREW WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT. WE WANT TO MAKE HOUSING PROJECTS AFFORDABLE AND WE ALSO WANT RATES TO BE AFFORDABLE. AND SO WE BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL BALANCES THOSE TWO NEEDS IN A WAY THAT PREVIOUS PROPOSALS HAVE NOT ADDRESSED. SO THIS IS A THREE ORDINANCE PACKAGE. THE FIRST PIECE OF LEGISLATION AUTHORIZES THE REVISIONS TO THE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND ADDS NEW DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. THE SECOND PIECE AUTHORIZES US TO PARTICIPATE IN LATECOMER AGREEMENTS WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER. AND THEN THE THIRD PIECE AUTHORIZES THE BUDGET AND STAFFING TO IMPLEMENT. SO WHY ARE NEW MAINLINES NEEDED? IDEALLY, TO DISTRIBUTE CLEAN DRINKING WATER YOU WOULD HAVE A WATER DISTRIBUTION MAIN AND ALMOST EVERY STREET. PARTS OF SEATTLE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SO IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT TO SEE. THIS EXHIBIT HERE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS EXHIBIT WE HAVE EXISTING MAINLINES IN THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THIS FIGURE. THE DOTTED LINE SHOWS WHERE WE NEED A NEW VEIN. AND THOSE RED LINES OUR SERVICES. SO WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THERE IS THE HOMES THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO A MAIN WATER LINE IN THE STREET, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THAT DOTTED LINE AND THERE ACTUALLY CONNECT INTO THOSE EXISTING MAINS INSTEAD. SO THAT RESULTS IN A LONG SERVICE LINE AND THEY CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN AND REPLACE. AND SO THAT IS WHY IT IS BETTER TO HAVE THE LINE IN EVERY STREET, AND THIS PROPOSAL WILL HELP US GET THERE. SO THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE HERE. THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS EXHIBIT , UNDER THE CURRENT STATE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THE ENTIRE NEW MLE AS A MAIN LINE EXTENSION. A NEW MAINLINE. THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THE ENTIRE PROJECT TO CONNECT TO THE EXISTING LINE THAT IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, SPU WOULD REIMBURSE THAT PROJECT FOR THE PORTION IN FRONT OF THE VACANT PARCEL. SO THE DEVELOPER WOULD STILL DESIGN AND BUILD THE WATER MAIN, BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THE PORTION DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. SPU WOULD REIMBURSE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT . AND THAT WOULD ALLOW , IF THAT VACANT PARCEL DEVELOPS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD THEN CONNECT TO THAT NEW WATER MAIN AND PAY A FEE TO SPU TO REIMBURSE THE RATEPAYERS FOR SPU'S INVESTMENT IN THAT PROJECT. SO THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THE PROPOSAL. SO THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AS IT IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE CITY INCLUDING THE NEED FOR WATER MAIN LINE EXTENSIONS AS WELL AS A WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE LINE. SO SOME PARTS OF THE CITY HAVE A HIGHER NEED FOR WATER MAINS AND OTHER PARTS HAVE A HIGHER NEED FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVE'S. BUT THIS JUST SHOWS IN GENERAL WHAT PARTS OF THE CITY ARE LACKING INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOW THEY CAN METHOD FROM THIS PROGRAM. SO ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IS, UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, ABOUT 10% OF THE PROJECTS THAT COME TO SPU TO CONNECT TO OUR SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD SOME SORT OF MAIN LINE EXTENSION OR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. SO ABOUT 90% OF THE PROJECTS THAT COME TO US DO NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT. THEY HAVE A MAIN IN THE STREET THAT THEY CAN CONNECT TO, BUT THOSE 10% OF PROJECTS ARE SPENDING ON AVERAGE $16 MILLION PER YEAR ON THOSE PROJECTS. AND THAT REMAINING $5 MILLION IS COMING FROM OUR CURRENT WATER DEVELOPMENT CHARGE. SO ON AVERAGE OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS DEVELOPERS HAVE SPENT $21 MILLION PER YEAR ON UTILITY RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS. BUT 76% OF THAT HAS BEEN BORN BY 10% OF THE PROJECTS. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO SPREAD THAT RESPONSIBILITY OUT A BIT, SO LOOKING AT THAT SAME $21 MILLION , UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL , THE INCREASED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WOULD BRING IN ABOUT $18 MILLION, WHICH WE WOULD THEN USE TO COST SHARE ON THE LARGER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS , SUCH THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE SPENDING 3% I'M SORRY, $3 MILLION OR 14% OF THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT . SO THIS EXHIBIT IS SHOWING THE SORT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE DEVELOPER BUILT PROJECTS AND SPU'S CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS A WHOLE. SO SPU SPENDS ABOUT $240MILLION ON CIP OR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS EVERY YEAR. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, DEVELOPERS SPEND ABOUT $21 MILLION PER YEAR. SO DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS ARE A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF SPU'S CAPITOL INVESTMENT, BUT IT CAN STILL BE A HUGE BURDEN FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. AND SO WHAT WE ARE SHOWING HERE IS THE WAY THAT $21 MILLION INVESTMENT COULD BE SHIFTED FROM THE CURRENT STATE TO A FUTURE STATE WHERE IT IS MORE OF A SHARED COST ACROSS ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS RATHER THAN A BURDEN FOR JUST A FEW PROJECTS. SO, AS MARCO SAID, EVERYONE PAYS A LITTLE MORE SO THAT MORE PROJECTS BECOME FEASIBLE. THAT IS THE IDEA HERE. THIS ALSO HAS A BENEFIT OF MAKING THESE PROJECT COSTS MORE PREDICTABLE . THAT IS SOMETHING WE KNOW IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE CLARITY VERY EARLY AS TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND WHAT PORTION SPU WOULD REIMBURSE . IT ALSO REDUCES THOSE LONG SERVICE LINES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT CAN BE VERY EXPENSIVE FOR FUTURE HOMEOWNERS TO MAINTAIN. SO THEY WOULD BE CHARGED ON ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. WE TEND TO FOCUS ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, BUT THESE ARE CHARGED FOR ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A WATER STC, BUT IT IS VERY LOW COMPARED TO THE REGIONAL NEIGHBORS AND WE DO NOT HAVE A DRAINAGE OR WASTEWATER SDC. SO THIS IS TO INCREASE THE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOP IN CHARGE AND ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER. THE SDC, THE WAY WE CALCULATE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IS DEFINED IN STATE LAW BUT IT HAS FLEXIBILITY, AND SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE FROM ONE METHOD OF CALCULATING TO A DIFFERENT METHOD OF CALCULATING. WE BELIEVE THAT FOR WATER, DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER, IT WOULD GENERATE ABOUT $30 MILLION IN NEW REVENUE THAT WE COULD USE FOR THIS COST-SHARING. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO UPDATE THE SDC'S ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS WITH THE RATE STUDIES, SO THAT WOULD BE PER FUND STAGGERED ANNUALLY THE WAY WE DO IT NOW. SO THE CURRENT WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE IS $2400. THE NEW PROPOSED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE FOR WATER WOULD BE 6900. AND FOR WASTEWATER, 2600, AND FOR DRAINAGE, 1225. SO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SDC'S ARE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE METER. SO THIS IS WHAT THE SDC WOULD BE FOR A STANDARD THREE-QUARTER INCH METER, WHICH IS THE SMALLEST METER SIZE AND ALSO THE MOST COMMON. THE DRAINAGE SDC WOULD BE BASED ON AN INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER OR HARD SURFACE. AS ANDREW NOTED , THIS PROPOSAL IS RATE NEUTRAL. SO THIS IS SOME EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOW THEY WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. THESE ARE HYPOTHETICAL BECAUSE EVERY PROJECT IS UNIQUE , BUT THESE ARE THE PROJECT TYPES THAT WE TEND TO SEE A LOT OF, PARTICULARLY THESE TWO IN THE MIDDLE. SO ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS SHOWING A SINGLE FAMILY, A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT NEEDS A NEW THREE-QUARTER INCH METER. SO CURRENTLY IT IS PAYING $2400 FOR A WATER SDC UNDER THIS PROPOSAL. IT WOULD BE 12,800 . IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THOUGH THAT THIS IS FOR A LOT THAT IS NOT HAVE AN EXISTING SERVICE. SO A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT ARE BUILDING IN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR ADDING A BASEMENT APARTMENT , THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO USE THE EXISTING THREE-QUARTER INCH SERVICE. THEY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE WATER OR WASTEWATER SDC. IF THEY ARE ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE DRAINAGE SDC, BUT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY THAT LARGER SDC UNLESS THEY NEED A NEW WATER SERVICE. AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SHOWING HERE IN THIS NEXT EXAMPLE WHICH IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME . IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE PERHAPS THIS IS A THREE-STORY THAT NEEDS A SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SO IT NEEDS A LARGER METER THAN THE STANDARD THREE-QUARTER INCH. SO THIS PROJECT WOULD PAY 23,500 BASED ON THE 1 1/2 INCH METER AND THIS 12 PACK OF TOWNHOMES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT NEEDED A NEW TWO INCH MASTER METER, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE SEE QUITE A BIT, IT WOULD PAY $34,650. THIS HYPOTHETICAL 150 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING , IT MIGHT NEED A NEW FOUR INCH COMBO METER AND IT WOULD PAY 161,500 AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT 40,800. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT FOR THE PROJECTS THAT DO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE, THEY ARE NOT CHARGED THIS SDC. SO IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, IT IS NOT BOTH. SO THIS IS A BENCHMARKING EFFORT THAT WE WENT TO TO SHOW HOW OUR SDC CURRENTLY IN PROPOSED WOULD COMPARE TO OUR REGIONAL NEIGHBORS. SO WHAT YOU ARE SEEING THERE IN THE LEFT-HAND BAR AT THE VERY BOTTOM, THERE IS A VERY SMALL TURQUOISE LINE THAT YOU CAN BARELY SEE, BUT THAT IS THE CURRENT LGBTQ+. THE OTHER PARTS OF THAT ARE ARE SHOWING OTHER COSTS THAT DEVELOPERS PAY FOR VARIOUS PROJECT TYPES, AND THEN THE POTENTIAL IS SHOWING THE CHANGE AND SORT OF THE SCALE OF THAT AS IT COMPARES TO OTHER CHARGES. AND THEN ALSO COMPARED TO SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. IT IS CHALLENGING SOMETIMES TO MAKE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY AND CALLED DIFFERENT THINGS. SO THIS IS OUR BEST EFFORT AT SHOWING HOW WE COMPARE REGIONALLY. THIS IS FOR A TYPICAL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT HERE , AND THEN THIS NEXT SLIDE IS A SIMILAR ANALYSIS FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. AND AS A REMINDER, THIS WOULD BE FOR A NEW SERVICE, A NEW HOME WITH A NEW SERVICE. MOST LIKELY NOT FOR LIKE A NEW MODEL OR ADDING AND ADDING OR DATA YOU. SO OUR PROPOSAL IS TO USE THESE SDC FUNDS TO DIRECTLY PARTNER ON THESE DEVELOPMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS WHAT MAKES THE PROPOSAL DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF SDC'S. SO THE DEVELOPER WOULD BUILD THE MAIN AND PAY FOR IT UPFRONT AND THEN THEY WOULD BASED ON THE PORTION OF THEIR PROJECT THAT DOES NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT THEIR DEVELOPMENT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE PORTION DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEIR LOT. THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. SPU WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMAINDER. IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROGRAM PREDICTABLE WE ARE PROPOSING TO PAY $1500 PER LINEAR FOOT . THAT IS AN AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE TALKED WITH DEVELOPERS ABOUT EXTENSIVELY TO MAKE SURE IT IS REASONABLE. WE WOULD LIMIT OUR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE FIRST 750 FEET . THAT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DO NOT GET CAUGHT UP IN ANY STRANGE OUTLIERS THAT ARE EXTREMELY LONG. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE PROJECTS ARE LESS THAN 750 FEET. THE FUTURE BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROJECTS WOULD REPAY SPU RATEPAYERS AS PART OF THE LATECOMER AGREEMENT. SO IN THE EXAMPLE THAT WE LOOKED AT BEFORE, ANY VACANT LOTS THAT DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP OR NEED A LARGER SERVICE LINE WOULD HAVE THAT MAIN THERE TO CONNECT TO, WHICH IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO THEM. BUT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REIMBURSING THE RATEPAYERS FOR SOME PORTION OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO EVALUATE THIS PROGRAM ANNUALLY. TO SORT OF TRUE IT UP BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON HISTORICAL AND PROJECT . DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND WE KNOW THAT CAN BE UNPREDICTABLE. SO WE WOULD NEED TO WATCH IT CLOSELY OVER TIME AND SEE IF THE REVENUE RAISED AND THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE PROJECT DID. AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IF WE NEED TO. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE HERE. THIS LOT IN YELLOW IS A HYPOTHETICAL DEVELOPMENT . AND THERE IS NO MAIN IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL STREET. SO CURRENTLY, THAT DEVELOPER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THAT ENTIRE WATER MAIN LINE EXTENSION ON THE WAY UP TO THE EXISTING MAIN SHOWN AT THE TOP OF THE EXHIBIT. AND THERE IS CURRENTLY NO COST-SHARING IN PLACE, SO THAT DEVELOPER WOULD PAY THAT ENTIRE ESTIMATED 370 5K. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, SPU WOULD REIMBURSE THEM $281,000 OF THAT BASED ON THE COST OF THAT PROJECT THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THAT YELLOW LOT. AND IN THE FUTURE, THOSE GREEN LOTS AND THE PINK LOTS, IF AND WHEN THEY REDEVELOP AND CONNECT TO THAT NEW MAIN, WE WOULD HAVE A LATECOMER AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO REIMBURSE THAT MONEY BACK TO SPU THROUGH A LATECOMER AGREEMENT. AND THAT IS IF IT REDEVELOPS WITHIN 20 YEARS. SO AS WE ARE ROLLING THIS PROGRAM OUT, AND AS WE WERE CRUNCHING THESE NUMBERS, WE ARE ESTIMATING THE PROGRAM WILL HAVE A MINOR SHORTFALL AS WE ARE ROLLING IT OUT, AND SO OUR PROPOSAL IS TO SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH SOME CAPITOL FUNDS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ALLOCATED. THIS IS IN ORDER TO KEEP IT GREAT NEUTRAL. AND THIS IS -- THIS WOULD GO INTO OUR SORT OF REASSESSMENT OVER TIME AND THE MONITORING OF THE PROGRAM TO MAKE SURE IT IS BALANCING OUT. I WOULD NOTE THAT WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED ANY LATECOMER PAYMENTS . EVEN THOUGH WE WILL LIKELY GET LATECOMER PAYMENTS, BUT THEY ARE UNPREDICTABLE AND THEY CAN TAKE A LONG TIME, YEARS, 10, 15, 20 YEARS TO COME IN. WE ARE NOT COUNTING ON THOSE FUNDS TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM VIABLE. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD MONITOR GOING FORWARD. AND SO WE HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF HOW THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK . SO WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THIS. WE TALKED TO OUR CUSTOMERS A LOT ABOUT THEIR PROJECTS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR CHALLENGES ARE. SO WE GOT FEEDBACK FROM THIS BEFORE , DURING AND AFTER AS WE DEVELOPED THE PROGRAM. WE STAYED IN VERY CLOSE CONTACT WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND GOT A LOT OF GREAT FEET BACK, WHICH WE HAVE INCORPORATED. THESE PROJECTS WILL, SOME PROJECTS WILL BENEFIT DIRECTLY FROM THIS COST-SHARING. ALL PROJECTS WILL PAY THE HIGHER LGBTQ+, SO MOST OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL AND HOW IT HELPS THE CITY'S HOUSING GOALS , AND THEY ARE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE. THIS IS JUST A MORE DETAILED LISTING OUT OF WHAT THESE THREE ORDINANCES ACTUALLY DO. WE ARE PROPOSING TO START THE COST-SHARING ON JANUARY FIRST OF 2026. THERE ARE PROJECTS WE KNOW THAT ARE WAITING FOR THIS PROGRAM TO GO INTO EFFECT IF IT IS APPROVED AND SO THOSE PROJECTS WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. SINCE IT IS A REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM, THEY WOULD NEED TO BUILD THE PROJECT ANYWAY, SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS GOING TO SLOW ANY PROJECTS UP THAT MIGHT BE WAITING ON IT, FOR EXAMPLE. AS I TALKED ABOUT, WE HAVE STAYED IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH DEVELOPERS, SO THEY KNOW A PROPOSAL OF THIS TYPE IS COMING, AND THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS POINT. SO THEY ARE WATCHING THIS CLOSELY TOO TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT. >> AND WITH THAT, WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> BEFORE WE JUMP INTO QUESTIONS, I WOULD LOVE TO OFFER BRIAN, IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY TODAY. LIKE YOU, I JUST STARTED REVIEWING THE PROPOSAL AND WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES. BUT I WILL HAVE MORE AT A FUTURE MEETING. >> I WOULD LOVE, I KNOW I WANT TO RECOGNIZE COUNCIL. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND WALKING US THROUGH. I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA HAD HER HAND RAISED FOR QUESTION I THINK IT WAS BACK ON SLIDE 14 OR SOMETHING. BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU SPU FOR BEING HERE AND OUR TRUSTY CENTRAL STAFF. SO I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY. SO FIRST OFF ON SLIDE 14 , SO THIS COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CITIES, DOES THIS -- I'M ASSUMING IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT EXPANSIVE DEVELOPMENT -- I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS I ASSUME THE EXPENSE OF DEVELOPMENT IN EACH OF THESE CITIES IS NOT THE SAME. SO HOW DO YOU -- SO IT IS NOT REALLY -- IT IS KIND OF AN APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON VERSUS APPLES TO APPLES. BECAUSE SEATTLE, ALL ALL OF THESE IT SEEMS LIKE I ASSUME IT IS THE BIGGEST CITY, SO I ASSUME IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD HERE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES, SO HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR -- WHICH I JUST FIND THIS DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF COMPARISON BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE SAME. IS THERE A RESPONSE YOU HAVE TO THAT? >> WELL, THESE ARE SHOWING THE CITY COSTS, SO THESE ARE FEES THAT THEY WOULD PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE VERSUS TO THE CITY OF REDMOND, FOR EXAMPLE. SO YOU ARE RIGHT, IT IS NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER THINGS THAT IMPACT THE COST TO DEVELOP, RIGHT ? LIKE JUST CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND LABOR COSTS AND YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT. THE PRICE -- >> YES, THE PROPERTY COST, ABSOLUTELY. >> IT IS KIND OF A HARD COMPARISON. SO I GUESS THAT WAS BOTH A QUESTION AND A STATEMENT, AND THEN ON PAGE -- I GUESS PAGE 19, I'M WONDERING, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DID SOME OUTREACH, I AM WONDERING WHO YOU DID OUTREACH TWO. I CAN SEE THE LIST OF OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, BUT THE ORIGINAL OUTREACH PIECE IN APRIL OF 23, AND I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS WHO IS GOING TO BE UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS? AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW EXTENSIVE THAT OUTREACH WAS IN FOR TRANSPARENCY, I JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WHEN YOU CAME TO BRIEF ME. AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON THE DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT. SO YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? >> AND I WILL SAY FOR TRANSPARENCY, FOLKS WILL SAY YOU KNOW, I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. I DID NOT KNOW THAT OUTREACH WAS HAPPENING AND THEN WE DO THESE THINGS AND PEOPLE GET UPSET AND I'M A PROPONENT OF EARLY AND OFTEN OUTREACH TO MITIGATE FOR THAT AND ALSO BECAUSE IT HELPS US IDENTIFY PROBLEM AREAS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY SOLVE , SO WHEN YOU -- >> YES, SO OUR PRIMARY METHOD OF IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS WAS THROUGH OUR CUSTOMER BASE. SO ANYONE WHO HAS EVER CONNECTED TO A UTILITY OR ONE OF OUR UTILITIES IN SEATTLE IS IN OUR CUSTOMER DATABASE AND THEY, THAT IS WHO WE REACHED OUT TO PRIMARILY. THAT IS AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS. WE ALSO REACHED OUT TO THAT LIST THERE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CAPTURING EVERYBODY. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT MISSING ANY CUSTOMERS. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, THAT LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS, THEY WERE NOT BROUGHT IN LATER, THEY WERE BROUGHT IN INITIALLY FOR OUR REGIONAL MEETINGS WHERE WE INVITED ALL OF OUR EXISTING PREVIOUS -- ANYONE WHO HAS EVER DONE BUSINESS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OFFICE. WAS INVITED TO THESE MEETINGS, YEAH. AND IT WAS A SERIES OF MEETINGS, YEAH. >> WHAT DID THE OUTREACH LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? TO THE CUSTOMER BASE, WHAT DID THAT OUTREACH LOOK LIKE? >> YES, SO MOST OF OUR CUSTOMERS COMMUNICATE WITH US THROUGH EMAIL. AND SO THAT WAS OUR PRIMARY METHOD OF CONTACTING OUR ENTIRE CUSTOMER BASE. THEY HAVE AN EMAIL ADDRESS ON FILE WITH US THAT THEY USE , AND WE KEEP IT FAIRLY WELL-MAINTAINED AND CURRENT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN COMMUNICATE IMPORTANT INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR CUSTOMER BASE, AND SO THEY ARE USED TO GETTING EMAILS FROM US. AND AS FAR AS GETTING THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS I MEAN, WE CONTACTED THE LEADERS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND ARRANGED TO COME AND PRESENT TO THEM IN PERSON. >> I GUESS I'M MORE INTERESTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL FOLKS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE CONSTITUENTS I REPRESENT. SO YOU SEND EMAILS HIM A WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE? DID YOU HAVE THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS? HOW WELL ATTENDED WERE THEY? CAN YOU GIVE ME DETAILS ABOUT THAT? IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT NOW, THEN WE CAN FOLLOW UP LATER, BUT THAT IS WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING. >> OKAY, YEP. WE CAN DO THAT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT NOW. AND THEN AS TO WHO WILL BE UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS, CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT? >> YOU KNOW -- I THINK THAT DEVELOPERS ARE USED TO WORKING IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, RIGHT? AND SO SOME DEVELOPERS ARE VERY SAVVY ABOUT AVOIDING THESE EXPENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS. THEY DON'T PURCHASE VACANT LOTS ON STREETS THAT DO NOT HAVE WATER MAINS, FOR EXAMPLE. SO, IF YOU EXCLUSIVELY ONLY DEVELOP LOCKS THAT DO NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU ARE PAYING A HIGHER SDC, THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSAL. WHAT WE ARE THOUGH TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS REALLY TARGETED TOWARDS THESE LOTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK , AND MAYBE THE PERSON WHO OWNS THAT LOT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REDEVELOP IT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE IS NO MAIN ON THEIR STREET. IN ORDER TO GET A SERVICE THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE NEW MAINE AND IT IS $500,000 HYPOTHETICALLY, WHICH IS NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL, AND SO THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEIR LOT. THOSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO PICK A LOT TO BUY. THAT IS THEIR LOT THAT THEY LIVE ON AND OWN, RIGHT? THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS COST-SHARING PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT WILL UNLOCK THE VALUE OF THEIR LOT BECAUSE IT MAKES THOSE INVESTMENTS MORE FEASIBLE FOR THEM WITH THE COST-SHARING. >> SO YOU ARE SAYING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNER THAT RUNS TO REDEVELOP THEIR LOT OR MAYBE SPLIT IT BECAUSE IT IS GETTING EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF RETIREES ON FIXED INCOMES AND THEY WOULD BE -- THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD BE PAYING MORE , A LOT MORE THAN THEY WOULD BE PAYING NOW. >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON IF THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE ON A STREET THAT HAS A MAIN IN IT OR DOES NOT. IF THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE ON A STREET THAT HAS A WATER MAIN , A WASTE WATER MAIN AND A DRAINAGE MAINE, FOR THEM TO CONNECT TO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS. ALL THAT THEY ARE PAYING IS THE SDC, SO YES, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD PAY AROUND 13,000 INSTEAD OF AROUND 3000, RIGHT? SO THAT IS $10,000 MORE FOR THAT PERSON WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE ON THAT STREET THAT HAS ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IT NEEDS. IF YOU ARE THAT SAME HOMEOWNER ON A STREET THAT IS MISSING ONE OR MORE OF THOSE MAINS, WHICH WE SHOWED YOU ON THE EXHIBIT IS FAIRLY COMMON AROUND THE CITY. AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD SOME MAINS, YOU MIGHT THEN BE VERY PLEASED WITH THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT MIGHT ALLOW YOUR PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, WHEREAS BEFORE IT COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD, RIGHT? SO IT IS REALLY THE LUCK OF THE DRAW BASED ON WHERE YOUR LOT IS LOCATED AND WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE HAPPENS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO CONNECT TO OR NOT. >> SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE RED SPOTS IS WHERE THERE IS THE ISSUE OF THE NO MAIN. SO IN THESE ISSUES THEY ARE GOING TO WIND UP -- >>'S OF THESE AREAS ARE , YES. HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE MISSING EITHER A WATER MAIN, WATER MAIN OR DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURES THE PEOPLE IN THESE AREAS AND MAYBE ONE TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT AND SELL HALF OF IT, THEY MIGHT BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE LOT IS NOT VERY VALUABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A LARGE INVESTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAINTAIN. SO, THEY MIGHT BENEFIT DRAMATICALLY FROM THIS PROPOSAL. IF THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE ON A STREET THAT HAS ALL OF THAT, YES, THE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE WILL BE $10,000 MORE THAN IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE. >> EVEN THOUGH THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME MIGHT BE THE SAME, WHATEVER -- >> THAT IS RIGHT. >> AND THEN CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT EXISTING HOMES, SO YOU TALKED ABOUT IF THERE ISN'T, IF THEY WERE DOING A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY , WHAT ABOUT -- BECAUSE A LOT OF THE EXISTING HOMES, ESPECIALLY IN THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT, ARE JUST ADDING TO TRY TO HELP DIFFERENT , DEFRAY THE MORTGAGE COST BECAUSE THEY ARE LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME. WHAT -- HOW DOES THAT -- >> SO, IF THEY ARE ABLE TO USE THEIR EXISTING THREE-QUARTER INCH SERVICE , THEN THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE WATER OR WASTEWATER SDC. MOST OF THE TIME IF SOMEONE IS ADDING THE 80 YOU AND IT DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE SPRINKLERS, SO IF IT IS TWO STORIES OR LESS, MOST OF THE TIME THEY CAN CONTINUE TO USE THE EXISTING THREE-QUARTER INCH SERVICE. THEY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE WATER OR WASTEWATER SDC. IF THEY ARE ADDING ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACE, SO THEY MAY BE -- UNLESS THEY ARE REPLACING A GARAGE OR PUTTING IT OVER ANOTHER PAVED AREA, THEY MIGHT BE ADDING A HARD SERVICE SO THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE DRAINAGE SDC WHICH IS THE SMALLEST OF THE THREE, IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL $1200 OR SOMETHING IN THAT RANGE. >> AND IF THEY ARE DOING A THREE LEVEL TOWNHOUSE, FOR INSTANCE, THEN THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL LIPS >> MOST OF THE TIME THOSE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SPRINKLERS AND MOST OF THE TIME THAT REQUIRES A LARGER SERVICE THAN A THREE ORDER INCH. AND SO THAT HOMEOWNER, THEY MIGHT RETIRE THE THREE-QUARTER INCH SERVICE AND PURCHASE A ONE HALF INCH METER, FOR EXAMPLE. THEY WOULD GET A CREDIT FOR RETIRING THERE THREE-QUARTER INCH SERVICE BUT THEN THEY WOULD PAY MORE FOR THE SDC FOR THE ONE HALF INCH METER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> NO WORRIES. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON? >> I HAVE PROBABLY MORE THAN ONE QUESTION BUT FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS THE MAIN PROBLEM THIS PACKAGE SEEKS TO SOLVE? >> THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT SOMETIMES THESE WATER MAIN EXTENSION OR DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER EXTENSIONS CAN COST $1 MILLION, RIGHT? SO A PROJECT MIGHT BECOME UNFEASIBLE BECAUSE OF THAT. SO LET'S SAY A DEVELOPER IS WANTING TO PUT IN A FIVE STORY 30 UNIT PROJECT . THEY COME TO US AND WE SAY WELL, THERE IS NO DRAINAGE MAINE TO CONNECT THIS TO SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT AND HERE IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO BUILD. THEY MAY GO TO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT AND REALIZE THAT IT IS GOING TO COST THEM $1 MILLION TO BUILD THAT MAINE. THEY MAY NOT HAVE THAT PENCIL INTO THE CALCULATIONS TO MAKE THAT A PROFITABLE DEVELOPMENT, SO THEY MIGHT WALK AWAY FROM THAT OPPORTUNITY AND SO THE CITY THEN IS OUT 30 UNITS OF HOUSING THAT WE OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE HAD. AND WE DON'T GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BUILT. SO THIS PROPOSAL SHIFTS THAT SUCH THAT THEY ARE BUILDING THE MAIN, WHICH IS NEEDED. WE REIMBURSE THEM FOR SOME PORTION OF THAT, WHICH MAKES IT HOPEFULLY STILL AFFORDABLE FOR THEM. AND THE CITY GETS 30 UNITS OF HOUSING. SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AS SORT OF A WIN-WIN AND POTENTIALLY TIMELY IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE BILL 1110 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS ENCOURAGING THE ADDITION OF HOUSING. >> SO HOW MANY OF OUR -- HOW MUCH -- YOU CAN SAY IT AS A PERCENTAGE OF BLOCKS OR ROADS, HOW MANY STREETS -- HOW MANY STREETS DO NOT HAVE WATER MAINS? I MEAN, PERCENTAGEWISE? >> ABOUT 25%. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT DETAIL, YES. >> SO REALLY, THE VERY HIGH COST OF PUTTING IN THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD REALLY ONLY IMPACTED IF YOU ARE BUILDING A SMALL AMOUNT OR A QUARTER OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS THAT COULD SUPPORT THAT, RIGHT? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE, IT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COST IN THE CURRENT -- UNDER THE CURRENT -- WAY IT IS SET UP, SO I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE -- BUT IN THE FUTURE, THAT COST IS DECREASED AND I DO, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD THING, BUT THEN THE COST OF 75 -- OF YOU KNOW, THE PROJECTS TO BE BUILT IN 75% OF THE OTHER RIGHT OF WAY WOULD GO UP. >> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS HAPPENING IS THERE ARE CERTAIN PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE LOTS ARE NOT DEVELOPING AND THEY PROBABLY WON'T DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THESE MECHANICS, ESPECIALLY -- YOU MAY HAVE TO CORRECT ME ON THIS, BUT THERE ARE LONG LOCKS, 600 FOOT BLOCKS AND THAT EXTENSION WILL HAVE TO BE SIX OR 700 FEET, SO THAT IS $1 MILLION. AND IF IT IS A SEWER MAIN LINE, THE SLOPE HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, SO IT CANNOT JUST -- SO, EVEN IF WE WENT BACK TO THE ONE WITH A MAIN AT THE TOP AND THE BOTTOM, IF YOU ARE DOWN HERE AND YOU ARE ON A SLOPE, YOU HAVE TO BUILD ALL THE WAY TO THE ONE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SO YOU MIGHT BE REALLY CLOSE TO A MAIN, BUT YOU ARE FAR AWAY FROM OTHERS AND THOSE BLOCKS ARE NOT DEVELOPING. WE ARE SEEING THE ONES CLOSE TO THE MAINS DEVELOPING, BUT THESE OTHER PLACES ARE JUST UNDERDEVELOPED AND IN A LANDLOCKED CITY IN SORT OF -- YOU KNOW. IN A GROWING LANDLOCKED CITY PROMOTING GROWTH AND ALL OF OUR BLOCKS IS WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO. >> I'M TRYING TO THINK, I TOTALLY GET THAT AND -- AND -- THE GRAVITY ISSUE IN OUR TOWN MAKES US A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE I SUPPOSE. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF JUST THE -- SPREADING THE COST AND THEN WHAT WILL NOT GET REDEVELOPED, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEPLACE WHERE THERE ALREADY IS A WATER LINE BUT NOW THEY JUST HAVE -- NOW THEY HAVE TO PAY BECAUSE OF THE COST SHARING AND THAT IS JUST FOR THE MAIN LINE FOR THE WATER IN THE DRAINAGE AND THE WASTEWATER IS A BRAND-NEW COST. SO THAT ON TOP AND IT SEEMS LIKE -- AND THEN LOOKING AT THE SQUARE FOOT WITH THAT CHART ON PAGE 30 TEEN OR WHATEVER THAT WAS. IT SEEMS LIKE THE SMALL -- WELL, THE SMALLER THE ACTUAL PROJECT, THE MORE THESE COSTS PER SQUARE FOOT GOES UP WHICH IS THEN -- WHILE WE ARE TRYING TO INCREASE MIDDLE -- MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD HIT THAT CATEGORY THE MOST. GO AHEAD. >> IF I COULD JUMP IN FOR A SECOND. ANYMORE REALLY SENSITIVE TO THE COST OF HOUSING, THE COST AND CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT HAS BEEN A VOICE FOR MANY PEOPLE IN THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR AS WELL. IT IS NOT TAKEN LIGHTLY THAT THIS WOULD INCREASE THE POSSIBLE COST OF HOUSING. WHAT IS THE CONTRARY IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE PLACES WHERE WE DON'T -- AND THAT WAS REALLY THE FEAR IS THAT THERE ARE MANY LOTS THERE THAT ARE FRANKLY JUST SHUT OUT BECAUSE THE COST OF RUNNING THESE LINES WOULD BE TOO HIGH. THE OTHER THING WE THINK ABOUT IS THAT IN A UTILITY WE ALL HAVE SHARED RISK AND SHARED BENEFIT. AND YOU CAN BE A MEMBER IN THE CUSTOMER OF SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES ON A BLOCK THAT IS NOT FEASIBLE AND EVEN THOUGH YOU PAY FOR YOUR WATER AND DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU DO NOT GET THE BENEFIT THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT GET WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE ON A BLOCK WITH ALREADY AN EXISTING WATER MAIN. AND THIS I JUST BRINGS IT BACK TO WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER AND WE WILL ALL PAY A LITTLE BIT. >> YEAH, AND YOU AND I HAVE ALSO PROBABLY HEARD FROM THE SAME PEOPLE THAT DO TALK ABOUT , THAT GROUSE ABOUT THE CITY EXTERNALIZING THE COST OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE OR KEEPING UP THE SYSTEM, AND THEREFORE WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENT GOES IN THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT YOU KNOW, THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER COSTS. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS NOT THE DRIVING INTENTION. ON PAGE -- ONE LAST QUESTION, ON PAGE -- WHEN YOU ARE COMPARING THE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE PAYS, OTHER CITIES, I REALLY LOVE THOSE KINDS OF DIAGRAMS, BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES HELP. ON PAGE 14 THE HATCH MARK VERSUS THE UNHATCHED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ARE YOU MAKING THE POINT THAT BELLEVUE, KIRKLAND, REDMOND AND THOSE THREE CITIES, THAT THEY ONLY HAVE TO PAY THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE IF THEY ARE GETTING A BONUS OF GOING ABOVE A CERTAIN HEIGHT? >> CORRECT. IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEATTLE'S MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY AND ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT KURT YOU BELLEVUE AND REDMOND USE. >> SO IT COULD BE ARGUED THEY ARE GETTING MORE VALUE BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO PUT ON ANOTHER STORY, SO THEREFORE THEY COULD ABSORB THE COST A LITTLE BETTER BECAUSE IT IS AN INCENTIVE. IT IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE IT IS JUST DEVELOPMENT? >> CORRECT. AND I THINK THAT SEATTLE WENT THROUGH THE MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ZONE AS A WAY OF GETTING THAT HER LIPS >> I'M JUST MAKING THE COMPARISON, LIKE WHAT WOULD MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE IN ONE PLACE AND NOT ANOTHER AND WHY CAN THEY AIR ONE COST VERSUS ANOTHER? THANK YOU. >> AWESOME, THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON? >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HAS QUESTIONS ALREADY. SO I -- >> ALL RIGHT, AWESOME. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND THEN A COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED -- I'M WORRIED ABOUT FOLKS THAT THIS WILL IMPACT NEGATIVELY IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW, THEY JUST CANNOT AFFORD TO DO IT LIKE ARE RETIREES WHO ARE TRYING TO SPLIT THEIR LOTS OR STAY IN THEIR HOME. WHAT -- I MEAN, COULD THERE BE -- HAVE YOU CONSIDERED EXEMPTIONS FOR YOU KNOW , THESE FOLKS WHO -- I MEAN, ALL OF THESE -- I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THE, I UNDERSTAND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS AGING AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET CREATIVE ABOUT HOW TO BOTH UPGRADE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALSO DEVELOP MORE HOUSING BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE NEED HOUSING OF ALL TYPES ACROSS THE CITY. I AM ALSO MINDFUL THAT THE FOLKS WHO HAVE LIVED HERE A LONG TIME AND PARTICULARLY THOSE LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE HAVING TO PAY MORE AND MORE OF THEIR SHARE, THEIR FAIR SHARE. BUT SO I'M WONDERING WHAT , WHAT YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT OR HAVE YOU IN TERMS OF EXEMPTING SOME FOLKS SO THAT THEY ARE NOT YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ABLE TO, TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES AND NOT GET DISPLACED BECAUSE OF ALL OF THIS? YOU KNOW, MEANING STILL BEING ABLE TO SPLIT THEIR LOTS AND BUILD SOMETHING AND STAY IN THEIR HOME? I MEAN, I THINK THIS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THAT SUBSET. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL THERE ARE, BUT IT IS A CONCERN AND I SHARED THIS CONCERN EARLIER. I DID NOT GET A GOOD RESPONSE BACK, SO ROUND TWO ON HOW CAN YOU HELP YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS, HOW CAN WE HELP THIS SUBSECTION OF THE POPULATION, BECAUSE WHEN MR. LOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE ARE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT , BUT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FOLKS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO HOW DO WE MITIGATE? >> IF I COULD JUMP IN FIRST, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DON'T THINK THIS PROGRAM CURRENTLY HAS AN EXEMPTION FOR SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE IN FINANCIAL NEED. MOST OF THE INCENTIVES WE SEE AT THE UTILITIES THE DISCOUNT PROGRAM THAT IS SOMEBODY THAT CAN APPROVE OR PROVE THAT THEY CAN ASSIST AND IT COMES OFF OF THE RATE. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS REALLY IMPORTANT. A LOT OF THESE HOMES ARE NOT BUILT FOR AN INVESTMENT, THEY ARE BUILT FOR A LOVED ONE WHETHER THEY ARE OLDER OR YOUNGER OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK THAT THE TURNER CENTERS AT 26% COLLECT NO RENT AT ALL, WHICH TELLS YOU THERE IS SOMEBODY IN THERE THAT WE CANNOT PAY IT AND THAT IS A GOOD THING THAT THEY ARE BUILT. I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON IS AN OVERARCHING LOOK AT HOW WE DO THE 80 USE BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING INTO AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX SYSTEM FOR WHAT IS A SIMPLE HOUSE AND WE COULD LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE COULD -- DO, IS DOING THIS, THEY ARE LIFTING THEM UP SO IT IS NOT AN IMPERVIOUS SERVICE, SO A LOT OF THE DRAINAGE FEES GO AWAY. AND WE ARE STARTING TO SEE SCOPE CREEP SOMETIMES AND HOW WE ARE SIMPLE STRUWE ONS AT AGAIN, A INTRODUCE PREDESIGNED AS WE ALREADY HAVE, BUT MODULAR AS WELL? THOSE ARE WAYS THAT I THINK WE COULD DRIVE DOWN THE COST AND GET TO WHAT YOU ARE HOPING FOR. >> I THINK ALSO STATE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW US TO DO AN EXEMPTION FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. WE HAVE TO TREAT EVERYONE THE SAME WAY. BUT THEY DO ALLOW A LOW INCOME DEFERRAL, WHICH MEANS THAT SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT WE DO , SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT THE OFFICE OF HOUSING WOULD PREFER A PAYMENT UNTIL THE SALE OF A HOME, IF THEY WERE ENGAGING IN EMERGENCY HOME REPAIR, FOR EXAMPLE. SO , AND I THINK THAT YOU ARE URGING AND LOOKING AT RETIREES AND WE LOOK HARDER AT THE CODE AND WE FOUND THAT THE LOW INCOME THRESHOLD THAT IS ALLOWED CURRENTLY FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IS VERY LOW, IT IS 200% OF FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL WHICH IS 43,000 FOR A FAMILY OF TWO . SO TO PERCENT RETIREE COUPLE. WE CAN RAISE THAT TO 80% AREA MEDIAN INCOME AND ADJUST OTHER PIECES OF THE CODE, SO 80% OF MEDIAN INCOME IS ABOUT $100,000 FOR A HOUSEHOLD OF TWO. WE LOOKED INTO THE DATA ON OUR SENIORS AND ABOUT 50% OF OUR SENIORS ARE BELOW 80% OF AMI, SO THAT WOULD CAPTURE THOSE FOLKS. AND WE CAN ADJUST IT SO THAT LIKE -- TO APPLY IN A WAY THAT IT STAYS ON THE PROPERTY WHILE THEY LIVED THERE, AND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PAID TO SPU UNTIL LATER THEY DEFER IT UNTIL THE SALE, THE EVENTUAL SALE OF THE PROPERTY. WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK ON THAT IMPROVEMENT. AT COUNCILS INTEREST . >> IT IS. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME YOU KNOW, FOLKS FEEL A LITTLE BIT OF UNDUE STRESS WHEN WE SAY WE WILL DO THAT, BUT LET US DO THIS AND THEN WE ARE IN A SPOT WHERE IT IS JUST NOT -- I WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AS PART OF IT, NOT POST IT, SO THAT IS WHAT I WILL COME WITH THOSE MITIGATION EFFORTS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> THANK YOU , CHAIR , THE ONE AND ONLY CHAIR OF THE PARKS UTILITY COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE TODAY. THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN INFORMATIVE AND I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME OF THEM I KNOW THE ANSWERS TO AND SOME OF THEM AREN'T. IF WE COULD GO BACK TO SLIDE FOUR. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I GUESS I HAVE AN OLD VISITATION HERE. BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT VACANT PARCEL PRE-EXISTING HOME. CORRECT. I CAME TO THIS AWARENESS MANY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS WORKING WITH BOB HENNESSY ON A CONSTITUENT WORK CASE ISSUE. THANK YOU, BOB FOR EDUCATING ME ON THE PROBLEMS WE FACE SOMETIMES. THIS SPAGHETTI STRING IS THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE BOB WAS HELPING ME UNDERSTAND AND SO THE OFFICE HAD GOTTEN A CALL FROM SOMEBODY THAT WAS TRYING TO ADD THE 80 YOU TO THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY CANNOT BECAUSE THE VERY ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE SET UP . NOW. WHERE THEY WERE THEN -- THEY HAD DONE THE WHOLE BUDGET AND PINCHED EVERY SINGLE PENNY AND AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, RIGHT? WHEN THEY WERE GOING INTO THE FINAL MOMENTS, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE $750,000 WAS ADDED, WHICH DOUBLED THE PROJECT. IT WAS BECAUSE IN THIS CASE IT WAS WHERE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WAS, AND THERE WAS NO MAIN LINE, AND SO THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING THAT ENTIRE NEW MAINLINE. I HAVE HAD A LONG TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS. I AM IMPRESSED THAT WE HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS AND THAT WE REGULARLY HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT PLACES THAT ARE UNABLE TO BE BUILT BECAUSE IT BECOMES COST PROHIBITIVE. WHEN I LOOK AT -- I WILL ZOOM OUT TO TALK ABOUT ZONING. SORRY, THIS IS NOT THE ZONING COMMITTEE, BUT THE COMPETENCE OF CHAIR IS ALSO THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND SO YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT ZONING, I WILL USE 15th AVENUE NORTHWEST. THERE ARE STILL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. AND I WANT TO GO IN AND LOOK AT THE WATER MAPS. I DID HAVE THEM PULLED UP A MOMENT AGO. SOMETIMES THOSE PARCELS DO NOT GET DEVELOPED BECAUSE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T WANT TO SELL THEM AND SOMETIMES THE FINANCING DOES NOT WORK AND SOMETIMES FOR MANY REASONS. WHAT I'M BECOMING MORE AWARE OF THROUGH YOUR WORK HERE IS THAT THESE PARCELS ARE NOT ALWAYS DEVELOPED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE WATER OR WASTEWATER IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING. I WILL ADMIT, WHEN YOU PUT UP SLIDES AND YOU CAN JUST GO TO IT. THE NEXT SLIDE WOULD BE HIGH NEED, MEDIUM HIGH NEED. AND I THINK VERY HIGHLY OF DISTRICT 6. I AM VERY BIASED IN THAT WAY AND TO SEE THE ENTIRE DISTRICT IN RED, IT MADE ME THINK WELL, WE HAVE GOT MOSTLY SIDEWALK. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF SIDEWALKS IN THE ENTIRE CITY AND WE HAVE A STREET GRID THAT CONNECTS. HOW CAN THIS BE? CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR STREET GRID AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER GRID IS? >> YES, SO EVERY STREET , IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM HAVING A WATER MAIN IN MOST CASES. SO THE BEST WAY TO DELIVER CLEAN DRINKING WATER IS THROUGH A GRID SYSTEM. IT IS MORE RELIABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE HAVE TO OPERATE OR MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM IT PUTS FEWER PEOPLE OUT OF WATER. IF WE HAVE A GRID IN PLACE. UNFORTUNATELY, SEATTLE'S WATER SYSTEM JUST DID NOT DEVELOP THAT WAY MANY DECADES AGO. SO A NEIGHBORHOOD MAY HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE 1940S OR 50s, FOR EXAMPLE. THE PEOPLE DOING THAT WORK AT THAT TIME JUST CHOSE NOT TO PUT A WATER MAIN THERE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF THEY DID. BUT THEY DIDN'T. AND SO THAT IS SORT OF WHAT WE ARE RESPONDING TO AT THIS POINT. IS TRYING TO GO IN AND PUT WATER MAINS WHERE THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORIGINALLY. AND TO A LESSER EXTENT, WE HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH DRAINAGE , FOR EXAMPLE, FOR PARTS OF THE CITY THAT WE HAVE ANNEXED, THEY MAY HAVE INFORMAL DRAINAGE BUT THEY DO NOT MEET CURRENT STANDARDS, AND THEY DO NOT OPERATE AS WELL AS A FORMAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND SO IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH PREVIOUS SORT OF LACK OF STANDARDS AROUND HOW UTILITIES GROW AND DEVELOP OVER TIME. MANY CITIES HAVE THIS CHALLENGE. THIS IS NOT WEEK TO SEATTLE, BUT IT IS A LANDLOCKED CITY THAT NEEDS MORE HOUSING. SO WE, THAT MAKES US SOMEWHAT UNIQUE AND THE COMBINATION OF VERY OLD INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, LOOSER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS MANY DECADES AGO , BEING LANDLOCKED, AND HAVING A HIGH NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING. ALL OF THOSE THINGS WORKING TOGETHER. THAT PUT US IN SOMEWHAT OF A UNIQUE POSITION. IT MAKES US A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM OUR REGIONAL NEIGHBORS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND EVEN OTHER LARGE CITIES THAT WE TEND TO COMPARE OURSELVES TO. >> THANK YOU. I AM TEMPTED TO ASK TO SHARE SCREEN BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE RIGHT CHOICE TODAY, CHAIR. AS I'M LOOKING AT YOUR SDC WATER MAINS AND SERVICE MAP , I AM A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BECAUSE 80th NORTHWEST DOES NOT HAVE A MAINLINE AND 85th IS CHOPPY, SO IT IS NOT CONSISTENT AND THEN IN SOME PLACES IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE TWO MAIN LINES AND 83rd DOES NOT HAVE A MAINLINE. IT JUST -- I'M WONDERING IF, WHEN YOU COME BACK, IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH THE MAP A LITTLE BIT MORE. I'M GOING TO -- LET'S LET THE PROFESSIONALS DRIVE, RIGHT? I SAY THIS BECAUSE 65th DOES NOT HAVE A MAINLINE. 15th DOES NOT HAVE A MAINLINE, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT MAP . >> MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT LAYER OPEN. >> IT SAYS SPU WATER MAINS AND SERVICE. >> THAT IS RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. >> SO I GUESS, WHEN I FIRST CONFRONTED THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE STORY THAT I TOLD BOB HENNESSY HELPED ME WITH, IT WAS ON, MAYBE OFF THE BEATEN TRACK IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT. SO IT SEEMED OKAY, THIS SOUNDS STANDARD. WHEN I'M TAKING A LOOK AT THIS MAP, THERE ARE SO MANY PARCELS THAT ARE UNSERVED, THAT IT HAS GIVEN ME A LITTLE BIT MORE PAUSE TO REALIZE HOW MUCH LARGER THIS PROBLEM IS THAN I INITIALLY REALIZED. >> WE COULD DEFINITELY SIT DOWN WITH YOU EITHER IN THIS MEETING OR SEPARATELY AND JUST LOOK AT THE MAP TOGETHER. AND YOU KNOW, JUST MAYBE ANSWER SOME BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT LIKE FOR EXAMPLE WHY THERE MIGHT BE TWO WATER MAINS IN ONE STREET, WHY THAT MIGHT HAPPEN AND WHY WE HAVE THE MISSING AND WE COULD DEFINITELY DO THAT. >> THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE SLIDE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT. >> WHICH SLIDE NUMBER WAS THAT? >> THAT WAS SEVEN ON THE ONE YOU GAVE ME YESTERDAY. THERE WE ARE. JUST CONFIRMING IN BOTH OF THESE GRAPHS, THIS IS ALL PRIVATE MONEY. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RATEPAYER MONEY AT ALL. AND SO WHEN THE, WHEN COO BELOW SAYS THAT THIS PROPOSAL ALLOWS EVERYONE TO PAY A LITTLE SO FEWER PEOPLE PAY THE MOST, OR SOMETHING I THINK I PARAPHRASED HE SAID IT BETTER THAN I DID. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS SHOWING, IS THAT CORRECT? WHERE WE ARE CHARGING A HIGHER FEE TO EVERYONE SO THAT WE ARE CREATING ESSENTIALLY AN INSURANCE POOL THAT ALLOWS FOR THE PLACES THAT HAVE NO NEW -- THAT NEED THESE WATER MAINS, TO ALLOW THAT TO BE FUNDED NOT ON THE BACK OF ONE OR TWO PROPERTY OWNERS. AM I GETTING THIS RIGHT ? >> THAT IS CORRECT. AND YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPERS. THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS WHO ONCE IN THEIR LIFE WOULD LIKE TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT AND SELL PART OF IT AND THAT IS THE ONLY TIME THEY ARE EVER GOING TO BE A DEVELOPER, RIGHT? IT IS A ONE-TIME THING ALL THE WAY UP TO DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A REALLY LONG TIME AND BUILD LOTS OF HUGE PROJECTS A YEAR, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. RIGHT? AND ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS COST-SHARING , RIGHT? AND THEY WILL ALL PAY A SLIGHTLY HIGHER SDC. THE BIGGER PROJECTS ARE GOING TO NEED THE LARGER METERS. SO THEY ARE GOING TO PAY THE REALLY HIGH SDC'S WHICH WOULD BE OVER $100,000 IN THE 150 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WE SHOULD . AND THE PERSON WHO MAYBE ONCE TO YOU KNOW, HAVE THERE ONE TIME EVER SUBDIVIDING THEIR LOT AND SELLING IT. ASSUMING THAT WHOEVER BUYS IT NEEDS TO PUT IN A NEW WATER SERVICE . YOU KNOW, THAT IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE A $10,000 HIGHER COST THERE. BUT ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPERS THAT COME TO SPU ARE GOING TO BOTH BENEFIT FROM THIS AND PAY A HIGHER COST. WHAT LESLIE WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE DEFERRAL, IS AN ELEGANT SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THAT IN SOME WAY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO DO FOR THAT PAYMENT OR AT LEAST A PORTION OF THAT PAYMENT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY SELL THE PROPERTY. SO THAT IS A NICE POSSIBILITY THAT COULD ADDRESS AT LEAST PART OF THAT ISSUE. >> THANK YOU. IF WE COULD NOW MOVE TO WHERE OR WHY THE MAIN LINES ARE NEEDED THE SHOWING OF THE SPAGHETTI STRING. THIS I BELIEVE IS JUST, I WOULD ASSUME IS AN ANECDOTAL EXAMPLE? >> THIS IS A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE. DON'T ASK ME WHERE IT IS, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. >> I WON'T. JUST TO SAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE, THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT MAYBE TOO MUCH TIME THINKING AND TALKING ABOUT MAIN LINES AND SEWER LINES. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A LARGER SCALE TO SHOW THE BREADTH OF THE PROBLEM CITYWIDE. >> YES. >> I SAY THIS AGAIN BECAUSE AS I DRIVE ON 85th NORTHWEST WERE 15th NORTHWEST , THERE ARE SO MANY PARCELS THAT ARE IN HIGH ZONED AREAS, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL , 65 THROUGH 85 THAT ARE NOT BEING DEVELOPED. AND ARE SEEMINGLY UNDERUTILIZED. AND IT IS BECOMING MORE AWARE TO ME THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION THAT THE WATER MAINS MAY BE THE PROBLEM. SO AFTER THIS COMMITTEE I WILL SAY, ON UP HERE AND MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT MAP, BECAUSE IF I AM ON THE RIGHT MAP, THIS PROBLEM IS A LOT WORSE THAN I THOUGHT IT WAS. >> FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CHALLENGES -- CHALLENGING ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH AS A UTILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE LONG RED SERVICE LINES. SAY THE VACANT LOT THERE NEXT TO THE GREEN ONE. IF THAT SERVICE LINE NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, BUT INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THAT REPAIR, AND IT MAY GO INTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, LIKE IN THIS EXAMPLE, WHICH IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO EXCAVATE OR REPLACE A SERVICE LINE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. HE MIGHT HAVE PAVEMENT CARE REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CAN BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING FOR HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE IN THESE AREAS WITH NO WATER MAIN DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEM, BECAUSE NOT ONLY ARE THEY IMPACTED IF THEY EVER WANT TO SUBDIVIDE OR SELL, BUT THEY ARE IMPACTED BY HAVING THESE REALLY LONG SERVICE LINES. AND SO ONE OF THE ULTIMATE OUTCOMES OF THIS PROPOSAL, WE HOPE, IS THAT WE WILL HAVE FEWER STREETS THAT DO NOT HAVE A WATER MAIN. WE WILL HAVE FEWER HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS SITUATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M SURE WE WILL HAVE MORE RUSSIANS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MAP TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION. OH, I CAME UP WITH A COOL NICKNAME FOR COO LOW, YOU JUST CALL HIM COOL LOW. >> THAT HAS NEVER BEEN USED TOWARDS ME IN THE PAST. I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY TIME IT WILL EVER BE USED. >> IN SPANISH I WAS TOLD THAT IS NOT GOOD. SO WE WILL NOT SAY THAT. SO WE WILL JUST SAY COO LOW. >> IT IS A MOUTHFUL. >> BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. RIVEY SAID NO. THE OTHER, THE OTHER, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS, BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE COST AND YOU ALL WERE EXPLAINING ABOUT SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, LIKE $1 MILLION, 750,000, LIKE THAT IS A LOT. IS THERE AN OPTION WITH SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES EVERY COMPANY ALWAYS HAS A GOOD BETTER BEST. ARE WE GIVING, ARE WE SAYING YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE BEST BELLS AND WHISTLES OF A WATER MAIN EXTENSION OR IS THERE A GOOD LINE OR IS THERE YOU KNOW, A BETTER LINE? ARE THERE OPTIONS FOR FOLKS? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT HAVE LIKE A GOLD PLATED WATER SYSTEM FOR EXAMPLE, OR REQUIRING THE MINIMUM LINE SIZE THAT WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO SERVE THAT AREA. THESE PROJECTS ARE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF LABOR COSTS, MATERIAL COSTS, EXCAVATION COSTS. SO YOU KNOW, BUILDING A MAIN IS EXPENSIVE EVEN IF IT IS A SMALLER MAIN OR AN EXPENSIVE PIPE TYPE, JUST THE PROJECT ITSELF IS EXPENSIVE. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE THAT ARE INCREASING THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS NECESSARILY. THE PROJECT COST WOULD -- IS GOING TO BE WHAT IT IS, PROBABLY JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO EXCAVATE AND GO INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THAT MAKE SENSE. AND WHEN YOU ARE DEVELOPING YOUR TRYING TO GO, I DON'T WANT TO SAY AS FAST AS YOU CAN, BUT YOU ARE TRYING TO MOVE QUICK, BECAUSE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND I WAS TAUGHT THAT YOU U WANT IT TO BE GOOD AND FAST, IT IS GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE, IS NOT GOING TO BE CHEAP, AND SO OKAY. YEAH, THAT, THE PRESENTATION TODAY, JUST LIKE COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS SAID, IT WAS SUPER INFORMATIVE AND I KNOW THAT THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND -- IC COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAS A HAND UP AND I WILL FINISH MY COMMENT, BUT IT IS REALLY GOOD TO KNOW THAT HERE IS AN IDEA THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT, AND HOW CAN WE MAKE IT BETTER? WE ALL WANT HOUSING AND WE ALL WANT TO HELP YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO BUILD IN SEATTLE BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT LIKE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA SAID, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND MAKING SURE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO BUILD IN OUR CITY, ESPECIALLY AS WE ARE LOOKING AT HOUSE BILL 1110 AND AS PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CONTINUE TO STAY IN THEIR HOME AS THE COST OF LIVING CONTINUES TO INCREASE IN SEATTLE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, I SEE THAT YOUR HAND IS UP. >> I WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I RECOGNIZE THE CHAIR TRYING TO THREAD A VERY THIN NEEDLE, RIGHT? AND I DO SUPPORT THE PAY AS YOU GROW PRINCIPAL. I MEAN, NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ASSUME THE COST INSTEAD AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE ALSO TRYING TO KEEP, YOU ARE NOT TRYING -- YOUR TRYING NOT TO INCREASE THE RATES OF RATEPAYERS, AND SO I RECOGNIZE THAT. JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE TABLE. AND MY THINKING, MY QUESTIONS ARE MOTIVATED SIMPLY -- THAT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS SIMPLE BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE TOTALLY VACANT LOT IS FAIRLY RARE THAT MEANS YOU KNOW, A NEW WATER METER OR LINE. I'M ALSO THINKING ABOUT THE LOTS THAT WE ARE HOPING WILL BE REDEVELOPED WITH ADDITIONAL HOUSING RIGHT NOW AND FACILITATED BY THE COMP PLAN UPDATE SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN MY THINKING THAT WAS BEHIND MY QUESTIONS. SO, AND RECOGNIZING THAT EVERYTHING REQUIRES A BALANCE. SO THANKS. >> AND I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? >> AND THANK YOU. I JUST NOTICED A LITTLE WHILE -- EARLIER TODAY YOU SENT THAT EMAIL TELLING ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID TODAY, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE CAN MITIGATE THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF HB 1110. SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CLOSING COMMENTS? AT ALL? NO? OKAY. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE IN THE PRESENTATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK TOGETHER. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. AND WITH NO OTHER ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS FOR OUR MEETING. JUST INTERESTING FACT FOR THE RECORD FOR ALL THE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING, BECAUSE WE LOVE EVERYTHING THAT IS WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND YESTERDAY WAS EARTH DAY, WE ONLY DISCOVERED 5% OF THE OCEAN. WE HAVE ONLY EXPLORED 5% OF THE OCEAN. THERE IS MORE TO EXPLORE. AS WE SEE PEOPLE BLASTING INTO SPACE, THAT IS GREAT, BUT WE CAN DISCOVER MORE OF THE OCEAN. THIS CONCLUDES OUR APRIL 23rd MEETING OF THE PARKS, PUBLIC UTILITIES TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE. THE NEXT MEETING IS MAY 14th AT 2:00 P.M. HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, IT IS ADJOURNED AT 3:37 P.M. THANK YOU.