>>> 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.