Tacoma staff outline transportation impact fee framework; committee asks for more analysis and outreach

City of Tacoma public‑works staff and consultants presented a draft framework for transportation impact fees to the Infrastructure Planning and Sustainability (IPS) Committee on June 11, describing the legal basis, candidate projects, districting and sample fee calculations and asking for committee feedback before returning with additional study and community outreach.

Presentation and findings: Assistant Director Jeff Jenkins introduced the presentation and turned the briefing over to Jennifer Kamrizzel (Public Works interim division manager) and consultant Kendra Bridal of Fehr & Peers (consultant name recorded in the transcript as "Fair and Piers"). Staff said state law and the Growth Management Act authorize impact fees for public streets and multimodal facilities (bicycle and pedestrian), and noted that previous feasibility work in Tacoma began in 2018. Staff reviewed the process: identify eligible projects from the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), discount project costs for existing deficiencies, allocate eligible costs to districts based on trip origins/destinations and calculate a per‑trip fee tied to land‑use growth assumptions.

Staff reported that they screened the city’s six‑year CIP and identified 52 candidate projects that may be strong candidates for impact‑fee funding. Staff said costs and eligibility assessments were performed for projects intended to add network capacity (as distinct from on‑site or frontage work developers perform). Staff described six draft fee districts that were drawn around land‑use patterns, barriers such as highways and topography, and growth assumptions; those districts are still draft and staff asked for feedback on district boundaries and names.

Examples provided: Consultants walked the committee through calculations for sample projects and a sample development. One example cited was the Sixth Avenue Complete Streets project in North Tacoma, with a project cost cited in the presentation as $8,450,000; the consultant reported that 31% of the Sixth Avenue project addresses existing deficiencies and therefore 69% (about $5,830,000) was deemed impact‑fee eligible under the draft methodology. For a hypothetical 33‑unit apartment building the consultant used a 19 peak‑hour peak‑trip rate to illustrate the fee calculation. The presentation also showed a regional comparison of transportation fees and noted Tacoma’s draft fees would be below many peers on an apples‑to‑apples sample project.

Reductions, exemptions and payback: Staff reviewed reductions allowed by state law, including a statutory 50% reduction for middle‑housing near high‑capacity transit and up to 80% reductions for qualifying low‑income housing; staff noted that certain reductions trigger a requirement to pay the differential from non‑impact‑fee funds (a "payback" obligation) and that any increases beyond the state‑specified reductions would create a payback liability that the city would have to fund from other sources. Staff described the role of quantified reductions for developments that generate fewer vehicle trips (for example, reduced parking, proximity to transit or demonstrated mode shift) and said the methodology would allow for substantiated, site‑specific reductions without requiring payback when the reduction reflects an actual lower impact.

Committee feedback and next steps: Committee members raised several areas for additional analysis. Among the requests and concerns: - Provide concrete examples tied to Home in Tacoma building types (single‑family with ADU, duplex, fourplex, six‑ and eight‑plex) and show how fees affect smaller infill or middle‑housing projects as well as larger apartment projects. Several members said the earlier 33‑unit example was useful but wanted examples that reflect the types of housing the City encourages under Home in Tacoma. - Show how transportation impact fees interact with other revenue sources (expected sales‑tax receipts, utility taxes, Transportation Benefit District revenues, developer on‑site obligations) so council can assess total cost to development and net new revenue for transportation. - Provide full listings of the 52 candidate CIP projects and the district allocations used to derive district‑level fees; committee members asked for the detailed math behind district allocations (trip distribution, growth assumptions tied to Home in Tacoma). Staff committed to share the project list and the underlying calculations. - Clarify timing and update frequency: staff recommended annual inflation indexing and a program update every five to ten years, with the Nexus study and fee adoption occurring after stakeholder outreach and additional analysis.

Policy considerations recorded in the meeting: Members asked about legal guardrails for fee setting and whether fees could be set high enough to deter growth; staff and consultants responded that methodology, project selection and growth allocations create constraints and that state case law and nexus requirements require fees be reasonably tied to documented growth impacts. Members also asked how to treat low‑income homeownership and whether existing statutory reductions for low‑income housing could apply to owner‑occupied units; staff said they would review statutory definitions and report back.

Action and follow up: No ordinance or adoption motion was taken at the meeting. Staff said next steps include stakeholder outreach (planning commission, Permit Advisory Task Force, economic development groups, a larger public open house this summer), additional analysis and a return to IPS or Committee of the Whole with refined materials before any council review and adoption. Staff also said they would provide the full project list, worked examples for Home in Tacoma housing types and a more comprehensive comparison with peer jurisdictions. Committee members requested more detail on South Tacoma projects and on examples of how a typical smaller infill project would be charged under the draft fee structure.

Ending: The committee did not adopt policy at the June 11 meeting; staff will continue analysis and outreach and return to committee with further detail before any code amendments or fee adoption are proposed to full council.