Council debates renaming 15/90 fund to HEART and a targeted permit-fee deferral for affordable housing

City staff presented an ordinance to the Urban Experience Committee to rename the city’s local housing sales-tax fund (commonly called 15/90) to the HEART fund, to align the code with state law and to add a permanent permit-fee deferral program for qualifying housing projects. Who and what: A staff presenter described the proposed code changes as a realignment of the fund allocation and administrative process. “60% is the floor,” the presenter said about the minimum share to go to capital projects; the remainder would be available for services constrained by the revised code. The presenter also described a new pilot deferral that would allow qualifying housing projects to defer up to $150,000 in development-related fees — typically building permits or street-obstruction fees — until certificate of occupancy, secured by a municipal lien on the property. Council concerns and context: Multiple council members raised questions about removing the fund sunset, the breadth of allowable services, and whether expanding services would draw funds from capital investments that produce housing units. One council member urged a community conversation or advisory vote before removing the sunset; another asked for more specific categories of eligible services and for clarity about how the change would affect the fund’s original capital focus. How the deferral would work: Staff said the ordinance allows limiting participation based on city capacity and that the city would place a lien on properties that use the deferral to secure repayment. Staff presented the deferral as a narrowly targeted tool for projects that meet specific program criteria (for example, projects that receive 14.06 or 15/90 funding or other affordable-housing incentives), not a general permitting shortcut. Staff also said they would track capacity so the deferral program would not cause permit staff to reallocate resources from other applicants. Next steps: Council members asked staff for more concrete lists of eligible services, fiscal modeling tied to the 60/40 allocation, and a plan for public engagement before removing the fund sunset. The ordinance was presented for committee discussion; no final council vote was recorded in the meeting minutes. Ending: Council members signaled interest in a program that both preserves capital spend for housing construction and uses targeted services where they produce measurable outcomes; they asked staff for clearer implementation details, capacity limits and a public engagement plan.