Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-16 UtilitiesOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK UTILITIES Committee Members Present: Other Council Present: Others Present: MAY 19, 2016 5:30 P.M. Dr. David Varner, Regina Williams- Preston, Randy Kelly (Late), Dr. Fred Ferlic John Voorde, Jo M. Broden (Late) Joseph Molnar, Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand, Eric Horvath Agenda: Bill No. 23 -16 — New rules and regulations for Installation Charges Dr. David Varner, Chairperson of the Utilities Committee, called the meeting to order with one (1) item on the agenda. Bill No. 23 -16 — New rules and regulations for Installation Charges Chairperson Dr. David Varner explained the basics of the bill and the process so far. The Administration has provided a substitute bill with a number of amendments as well. Chairperson Varner asked Eric Horvath to explain the background of the bill and the changes that have been made. Eric Horvath, Director of Public Works with offices on the 13th Floor of the County -City Building, spoke as the presenter of the bill. The differences in the second substitute bill versus the previous version is the addition of language clarifying the exemption of the assessment fees. Councilmember Dr. David Varner asked if that means anyone who is hooked up already would not be liable for fees overlooked in the past. Mr. Horvath stated this bill is saying that if a person has executed a permit to connect or have connected prior to July 1St, 2016 than they are exempt from paying an assessment fee. Even somebody who has a current house under contract and came in now for a permit they would be exempt if this passes. We hired a new permit manager and when he was putting S.O.Ps together we found out that compact fees and assessment fees were not being charged for the most part. We knew we had to start complying with the ordinance but we also did not want harm people who had been living under the existing process. These exemptions keep those people from those back payments. There is also some clarification language as well. In terms of the assessment on 455 County-City Building • 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard • South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone 574- 235 -9221 • Fax 574- 235 -9173 • TDD 574 - 235 -5567 • www.SouthBend[N.gov JENNIFER M. COFFMAN ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE EMILY SEXTON CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK the water side the language for commercial and industrial was clarified. There is also a clarification that if you live on a corner property you only get assessed on the lineal foot frontage on the one (1) side you are connecting to. The rates are all the same regarding sewers but the wording was changed slightly to make it clearer so people can calculate their assessments. In regards to the compact fees, the proposed bill states they remain in effect after anyone who connected after June 2002 but they will not be charged until January 2017 and the first bill would go out at the end of 2017. That fee will be thirty (30) percent difference between the County and City affective tax rate. We got rid of the water section for compact fees. Finally, there were a few exemptions added to the assessments including exempting anyone prior to July 1St. Also, in cases where the cost of the water or sewer was covered by an entity other than the City, the Board has a right to enter into reimbursement agreements or wave assessments. The idea for this is that if some other entity pays for these lines, we wanted to have the ability to do reimbursement agreements up front where we could wave the assessment. For reconnections, where there already is existing infrastructure, they would be exempt as well as those who have already paid assessments. This is for both residential and commercial properties. Chairperson Dr. Varner asked if that is an incentive to redevelop old properties. Mr. Horvath responded that language is important because the assessment is meant to recover costs for extending new water and sewer and if you don't have to extend those lines the City really has no costs to recover. These lines that were built years ago have already been paid for and we don't need to recover that cost. There is still the tap fee but not assessment fee. If the City Redevelopment Commission builds sewer or water, they have the ability to enter into an agreement to wave the assessments as well if they wished. Any assessments that have been collected from 2002 to date, we wanted to reserve the right to retain those funds. Chairperson Dr. Varner asked who would be paying these fees and in what circumstances would these fees be processed. Mr. Horvath responded if the City extends water or sewer service, anyone connecting would pay these fees for any new extensions. If City funds, other than redevelopment, are used to extend new lines than there are no exemptions. If the water or sewer are paid for by an entity other than the City, then they can enter into agreements to have those waived or reimbursed. Committeemember Randy Kelly arrived at 5:46 p.m. Mr. Horvath provided a handout which had a table showing the different assessment fees for South Bend, Mishawaka and Elkhart based on an average residential lot. The hard part of these comparisons is that the three (3) cities all do their calculations differently. The comparison is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mishawaka actually has three (3) different ways to assess and they take the highest of the three (3). Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand asked if Redevelopment is the only entity to have the authority to enter into the development agreements. Mr. Horvath responded yes, the Redevelopment Board is the only entity. N Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked why is there a difference between Mishawaka and South Bend regarding the difference in rates. Mr. Horvath responded that these are the rates that were developed and approved in 2002 for South Bend and they must have used to a different calculation than those who do so in Mishawaka. It is a recovering cost mechanism and there is no perfect system. The rates are different across the board between the three (3) primary cities. It is possible maybe Mishawaka's is lower because they are subsidizing it with other user fees. It's not like they can build a sewer or water line much cheaper than anyone else. We didn't change the rate and were not looking at changing the rate. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked if this is a competitive rate compared to the other cities. Michael BLANK from Engineering responded the assessment fee and the tap fee are different and should be thought of as different. In Mishawaka they only have one (1) exemption and that is if the assessment fee has already been paid. If the developer built the sewer or water they would still pay the assessment. If you take out the assessment fee, which has not been paid at least since 2002, Mishawaka has been higher than us. Our tap fees are lower than Mishawaka. Mr. Horvath responded he could give three (3) different scenarios, all that are possible, where Mishawaka, Elkhart and South Bend would be the most expensive since the three (3) cities assess on different measurements. Mishawaka uses a gallon usage and square footage as well. We don't look at gallon usage, so if it was a high water consumer, South Bend would be the cheapest. If it is a very large property, Elkhart may be the most expensive in that case. There is probably a case where we are most expensive. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic responded no matter which way you look at it we should always be competitive. He asked how are we going to compete to keep costs low on the scenario where we are most expensive. Mr. Horvath responded this proposed bill has nothing to do with setting rates. If we were, we would have to look at competitiveness or do a regressive tax rate and have the homeowners pay entirely for this and not charge an assessment. We could also put the bulk of it on industrial properties. If the City was wishing to recover all the costs from extending lines and were to calculate the exact cost of doing so, it would be a lot more than what any three (3) of the cities are charging. If we were to do a cost service rate study, we would find out in individual cases exactly how much it costs and charge these entities accordingly but it would be a lot more than this rate. This situation is solely so the City can start complying with the ordinance. If we were to start complying today, we would have to back pay all of these properties. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked from July Pt forward are we competitive with Elkhart and Mishawaka. Mr. Horvath responded on the assessment fees, yes we are. If they Committee or Council wants them to calculate specific costs for examples versus the Mishawaka and Elkhart ordinances they are happy to do that. We would also be more competitive than either of them because of the 3 exemptions that are in this proposed bill because many of these big large projects like Lippert are reconnections and there would be no assessment fee. Councilmember Jo M. Broden arrived at 5:58 p.m. Michael BLANK stated that if you look at these exemptions in the proposed bill, they would take out the majority of the cases where we would have higher assessment fees than South Bend and Mishawaka. Councilmember John Voorde asked under what situation would the Redevelopment Commission grant these exemptions. Mr. Horvath responded his thought was that if TIF dollars are used to extend water and sewer to entice a business to come in there is the flexibility to include that as part of the deal for these potential businesses. It would be part of the larger economic package. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked if Mishawaka does that with their Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Horvath responded he does not know. Chairperson Dr. Varner opened up the meeting for public input on the proposed bill. Bill Schalliol, St. Joseph County Economic Director, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on the bill. The building community and the County understand it takes money to run a utility to a property and that also in the coming years there will be challenges towards the circuit breaker imposed by the state in 2019. They also understand this is an ordinance already on the books. With that being said, with this ordinance there are some things he has concerns about the disparity of the rates for development within the City and development in non - incorporated areas or towns like New Carlisle which has South Bend sewer. He asked if the new sewer schedule is the same. Mr. Horvath responded it is the exact same. Mr. Schalliol asked the way he looks at it, the new schedule would be more expensive. Mr. Schalliol provided a handout with his concerns to the Committee which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. The question has been raised how does the assessment rate affect existing projects. The Fed Ex project under the revised ordinance would pay $83,000. The Pepsi Project would pay about $52,000 and the City and Commissioner building would pay $71,000. The General Sheet Metal project, which is just outside the City limits, would pay a one hundred and ten (I 10) percent multiplier because it is not in the City limits and hasn't signed a waiver for annexation would pay $83.000 for its assessment. The St. Joseph Engery Center in New Carlisle would pay the one hundred and ten (110) percent multiplier for a total of $349,027.25. Again this is already in the ordinance, but in the spirit of regionalism we should look at this. The waiver also provides a quid pro quo situations because what happens when an owner does not want to sign the annexation waiver of if there is no reasonably semblance of contiguity or adjacent to in another municipality. That may need some revisions. On the compact issues, we are not asking not to pay a rate but by making only projects outside the City limits pay a compact fee that presents a tremendous burden on projects outside of the City. To have that fee burden the County presents a big barrier to development. To be clear, these very large one hundred and fifty (15 0) acre lots do not exist in South Bend City limits. There are some very good logical and effective waivers in the proposed bill. But there are also concerns as well but if the County builds these sewer lines that will then be part of the City's network the County should also have some type of entity that can enter into a development agreement to waive these fees. In the spirit of regionalism, the County should be a part of a larger conversation so we can sit down and talk about how these fees effect development. It really should be a conversation of how we all fit together in the County as a larger economic area. At the end of the day if a project lands in South Bend, that is still a win for the County because it's in the County. If a project lands in New Carlisle it will still be a win for South Bend because chances are somebody at that project lives in South Bend. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated this comes back to his question of who will pay these assessments since there are so many exemptions granted going forward. That is certainly something we ought to discuss. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic asked how would the County like to go forward because it seems there are some standing issues. Mr. Schalliol responded he would like to see the County work with Mr. Horvath's team and maybe bring Mishawaka authorities as well to the table. We can work very quickly so this gets adopted and into effect but there does need to be some collaboration on some of these issues. Jerrod Huss, consultant for the town of New Carlisle and the St. Joseph Energy Center, stated the energy center has a concern for the assessment fees even though there is a provision that the Board of Public Works can wave the fees. A bigger issue to is the July 1St date because the permit has not been issued yet. Phase two (2) of the project will come on later than July 1St and they would be relying on the exemption waiver. They put together a good portion of the money to build these utility lines. As for New Carlisle, part of the concern from the town's perspective is they no longer have a contract as of 2009 related to their sanitary rates. Obviously they are exempt from the assessment portion but they are less clear on the retroactive compact fees of the town. That really wouldn't be fair since they are on a line that was paid for by TIF District dollars originally from the County. They are the only large scale users that do not have a contract with the City and that's a concern in the long run of these rates. Mr. Horvath responded on a compact there would be no charge from 2009 to present for current users. Committeemember Dr. Fred Ferlic stated he thinks Community Investment and the Redevelopment Commission should be involved with this issue because this is a bigger conversation. It seems from South Bend's standpoint it would be wise for us to look at this at a County level and the bigger picture. 5 Mr. Horvath responded that the issue he has is that this is an ordinance that he needs to start getting into compliance. If we continue to drag this out, the Department cannot continue to not charge people. They would have to start putting bills together for people because they are not going to be out of compliance with the ordinance any longer. If the Council wants to do something where they say not to worry about that then by all means go ahead. It's not just the City, the builders in the community are on pins and needles right now because they need to know if they are going to get back charged or not or if they are going to have exemptions. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated from what he has heard and believes, there is no intention to catch people in retroactive assessments and he is willing to work to see that doesn't happen. Chuck Leone, offices at 521 W. Colfax South Bend on behalf of the Town of New Carlisle, stated the comments so far have been very appropriate. Any new developer or project in the middle of development needs to know what to expect with these fees. This situation may lend itself to an interlocal agreement between the County, towns like New Carlisle, and the City. Once you have something like that in place, and they understand it may not be as quick as the City would like, it may give developers a better landscape to look at coming into the area. Dave Sieradzki, president of the local Home Builders Association, spoke on behalf of the local builders. They are investigating the use of the assess ordinance down state with legal counsel with other instances of compact fees and assessments. We need to be competitive to build in the area and especially South Bend. In no way should we be charging assessment fees for those using our local infrastructure that is in place. We should be encouraging people to come back to South Bend and not discouraging them to move out to the County which is how the original ordinance reads. He is worried that some ninety five (95) percent of the properties are going to be exempted and it is on them to prove that they granted permits and don't get charged an assessment. Mr. Horvath responded no that won't be the case. The way the exemptions are structured makes it a lot easier to figure this out. We know anyone who has been connected before July Pt is exempt and we also know anyone that is doing a reconnection to an existing sewer is exempt. The other ones would need development agreements which we are happy to do. Mr. Sieradzki stating he is living in the moment and they are on pins and needles. In the County there is no assessment hanging over them. For the City they are signing waivers that they will not be on the hook for these assessments. All these properties are either on existing infrastructure or infrastructure the builders put in and paid for. Mr. Horvath responded those are exactly the case the exemptions are utilized. Mr. Sieradzki responded yes and it is his concern they are not in place yet and HBA is looking statewide to see at the whole assessment fee structure itself. As the builders, we want to work with the City but make sure everything is fair. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated its clear no one wants to do anything to hinder development to take place. R Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski - Farrand stated they have never crossed through what is currently on the books for exemptions. Mr. Horvath stated the only exemption so far is E. That is the only one on the books. Chairperson Dr. Varner asked is the really important piece from the Administrations perspective is getting so we are in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Horvath responded yes. Council Attorney Cekanksi - Farrand stated there is also the questions of specifying in the bill who has the burden of proof in these exemptions. Mr. Horvath responded if it makes it easier that we say there will not be assessments if other than those City dollars were used to build, we can do that. The reason they left it as it was because a developer might build a long water or sewer line they would be exempt from theirs but others connecting we wanted to give them the ability to enter into a reimbursement agreement. But, if we want to say all assessments will be waived for any water or sewer built by a developer or the County then that is fine too. Linda Rogers, President of Nugent Builders, informed the Committee that there legal counsel is reviewing this ordinance and their original belief is that this violates the Indiana Impact Fee statute. This bill may be subject to legal challenge and before anything is done the Council should step back and see what the state says. We wish to work with the City, we understand the City is under financial constraints. This should be an equitable and fair resolution but also one that is mutually beneficial. It can benefit the City, residents, and developers. Ms. Rogers believes the original ordinance passed in 2002 should just be scrapped and something should be put together that works for everybody. James Mueller, Chief of Staff in the Mayor's Office with offices on the 14th Floor of the County City Building, stated the utility is going to recover its cost regardless. The real question is who is going to pay for new development. Should the developers pay a fraction of the cost which is what the assessment fee pays for or do you want to put it all on the backs of rate payers? That is the essential debate here. The City thinks there is the justification that the cost should not be pushed onto all ratepayers, a low income community, so when we talk about a fair and equitable solution we need to keep in mind where the costs are shifted to. Mr. Horvath stated if he was asked to look at scrapping this 2002 ordinance and starting over, he personally would want to look at it from a cost of service perspective and try to recover all the money needed to extend lines. Otherwise you will always have a portion of that rate paid by the conglomerate of your rate payers. That number would certainly come out to be more expensive than the current rates. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated we need to first address the issue that this ordinance hasn't been enforced since 2002 and people are concerned about retroactive enforcement. People are justifiably concerned about that so that needs to be clarified and Mr. Horvath and the 7 Administration should not have to work under those circumstances. Second, we do not want to put South Bend in a disadvantaged situation when it comes to development. He asked Mr. Horvath how long he thinks it would take to resolve the issues with the various parties, especially the County. Mr. Horvath responded he doesn't know. He did ask from the County to supply suggestions because they are welcome to changes. We want to be fair about this and we would be putting everyone in a really tough situation if we just stared trying to enforce the existing ordinance and the City does not want to do that. We don't know what the intent back in 2002 was for these assessment rates. Assessments are typically again used to recover cost for extending water and sewer. Compact fees are meant to level the playing field. All of these properties are in the County either way but if one - hundred (100) percent of the tax in the City we are trying to compete against the County which has zero (0) percent of the tax. That is why people put compact fees in place to equal the playing field because if you don't then it becomes more difficult to develop in the City. Chairperson Dr. Varner asked if Mr. Horvath was willing to continue this to incorporate some of the concerns heard today. Mr. Horvath responded at some point we have got to get to a point where we all agree and can move forward and understand exactly what we are enforcing. At the moment we are letting every developer know exactly what their assessment fees are and are keeping a file of those assessments. Council Attorney Cekanski- Farrand asked if that is a list that the Council can see. Mr. Horvath responded yes but that is only part of it. It is also these properties going back to 2002 that right now technically owe the City money and that has to be scary for them and until something done they are on the hook. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated he is certain the Council does not want to see anyone back charged. The real issues is going forward that we don't do anything disadvantageous towards the City in future development. As for regionalism, we want as much development everywhere as possible but the City wants its fair share. We don't want anyone to say the City screwed up by making our tap fees to high so they move to the County. Mr. Horvath stated he agrees with all of that. Michael Schmidt, Legal Department with offices on the 12th Floor, stated you could pass a bill that just clarifies there will be no back charges and then take your time on the issues that pertain to going forward. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated responded currently it states July 1 st but we could move that to August 1St to give everyone another month for negotiations. Let's use that second meeting in June which would proceed that July 1 st date which was used by the department earlier. Mr. Horvath stated they will draft something that just deal with the back charges with anyone who has a permit to connect by August 1 St. The language for the compact fees will remain July 1St. We will do our best to have a substitute bill that sets the forgiveness timeline by the Utilities meeting on May 23`d Ms. Rogers asked if a builder came in the next day to take out a permit would they have the assessment fee. Mr. Horvath responded until the Council passes a bill, Engineering will be calculating the assessment but not ask the builder to write a check. We will ask the builder to cover that if the ordinance does not get changed and we put that into a file. Once the Council does pass a bill we can get rid of that file and not make those charges. As of now until we get an ordinance change we can't just not charge people because it is an ordinance on the books. Mr. Horvath stated to be clear for the May 23`d meeting he is going to draft a forgiveness ordinance that deals with the previous assessments. Chairperson Dr. Varner stated the May 23`d meeting will be short and most likely just a short update. He thanked everyone for coming and clearly everyone wants to get this right. With no further business before the Committee, Chairperson Dr. Varner adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. /Respectf.444 ubmitted, Dr. David Varner, Chairperson O Q O U Q) 4) H E O 4--J U Q� O U m U O .4-j E a� .V) cr- a) CL) I Q co O U 0 O N p r- M N O Lr) c-I Ln O N (Z r--i r-I tr� 4j)- qj)- Q Q Q1 U N O U Lr p O Sri n 0 m o � Lr) � N � M N l� O N i l- Q co O U 0 O N p r- M N O Lr) c-I Ln O N (Z r--i r-I tr� 4j)- qj)- Q Q Q1 U N O U Lr p O Sri n 0 m LL L/) Rzt N v Q LL Ln m rn a� O L- LL m 4 N w O N LL L/) Rzt N v Q LL Ln m rn a� O L- LL Substitute Bill No. 23 -16 Statement of Purpose and Intent ...to add language so that fees are only required of users wishing to connect to water mains and sewers constructed and funded by the City with the expectation of recoupment by the City. > This ordinance doesn't just apply to those parties but applies to parties like the County and Private Developers that are building utilities to connect into the City system. Section 17 -79 - Water Main lines within City Limits (a) Residential Service (Less than 12 ") is $23.75/LF with a max rate of $2,000 (b) (1) Non - Residential Service (12" or larger) is $30.53/LF with no max rate (2) Non -SF Residential Service (less than 12 ") is $23.75/LF with no max rate > Is this fee collected if private developer builds the lines? Section 17 -80- Water Main lines outside City Limits (a) Residential Service (Less than 12 ") is $28.50/LF with a no max rate (20% difference with no cap) (b) (1) Non - Residential Service (12" or larger) is $36.64/LF with no max rate (20% difference) (2/3) Non -SF Residential Service (less than 12 ") is $28.50/LF with no max rate (20% difference) > Is this fee collected if private developer, County or SJC Water & Sewer District builds the lines? Section 17 -81- Sewer Main lines inside /outside City Limits > Fee is assessed on a per square foot basis pf property owned and applies to all property owners (R /C/ 1) . > Fee for SF Homes within City limits is capped at $3000 Old scale Step of Block Rate Max 1St 25,000 SF $.28 /SF $7,000/25,000 SF (.5 AC) Next 50,000 SF $.22 /SF $11,000/50,000 SF (1.1 AC) [$18,000] Next 50,000 SF $.14 /SF $7,000 /50,000 SF (1.1 AC) [$25,000] Next 50,000 SF $.08 /SF $4,000 /50,000 SF (1.1 AC) [$29,000] Over 175,000 SF (4 AC) $.04 /SF $7000 /Over 175,000 (4 AC) + $1,742.40/AC > Old scale was $29,000 for 175,000 SF if adding each step or was it $7000 then per acre cost if over 4 acres? New Scale Area of Property Rate Max 0 - 25,000 SF $.28 /SF $7,000/25,000 SF 25,001- 75,000 SF $7,000 + $.22 /SF $7,000 + $16,500 = $23,500 (up to 75,000 SF) 75,001 - 125,000 SF $18,000 + $.14 /SF $18,000 + $17,500 = $35,500 (up to 125,000 SF) 125,000 - 175,000 SF $25,000 + $.08 /SF $25,000 + $14,000 = $39,000 (up to 175,000 SF) Over 175,000 SF (4 AC) $29,000 + $.04 /SF $29,000 + $1,742.40/AC > New scale causes dramatic increase in rates even though base rate values are still the same. > All projects outside City limits pay a rate of 110% with no cap > Example attached seems reasonable, but it is for a 4.6 Acre lot. A more comparable example would be as follows: FeclEx Project 31.5 AC $83,885.60 Pepsi Project 13.4 AC $52,348.16 Spec Building 24.3 AC $71,340.32 General Sheet 26.7 AC $83,074.29 (110% multiplier) SJEC Project 165.46 AC $349,027.25 (110% multiplier) Section 17 -82 — Effective Date > No issues Section 17 -83 — Owner Responsible for connection costs to main line > Need an understanding of how tap /connection fees play into final cost? > Is 110% multiplier applied with connection costs too Section 17 -84— Party Responsible for payment of charge > What is the need to add "current" to this section? Section 17 -85 — Methods of payment (c) If in the City, city rates apply. If outside the City, non -City rates apply. If outside the City but file an irrevocable annexation petition, City rates will apply. Section 17 -86— Waiver of Annexation and Compact Fees (a) Effective date affirmed to be June 3, 2002 > If not presently enforcing these rules, should not the effective date be moved to date of passage or new effective date? > Is there a plan to go retroactive with Compact Fee and Waiver requirements? Or is there a statement of fact on file that says Compact Fee and Waiver will only be required here to forward? (b) Waiver provision for service (quid pro quo) > What happens in situations where owner does not want to sign nor is there any reasonable semblance of contiguity or adjacent to another municipality? (c) Compact fee for NON -CITY residents only > Annual fee > Discriminatory in that it only applies to Non -City residents on top of 110% requirements for service > The language has been modified to say "...that utility..." — so does this contemplate that there could be a compact fee for both water and sewer at a total 60% rate? Previously capped at 50% Section 17 -87 — Exemptions (NEW SECTION except for subsection e) (a) Owners that have executed a permit to connect or who have connected prior to 7/1/16 are exempt. > Will projects be approved in interim period so that they become exempt or will they be held past this date? (b) BOW will enter into a reimbursement agreement with other entity that built water and sewer to reimburse expenses or waive assessment fees outright. > Is County /Developer exempt from creating separate reimbursement agreement? > The waiver of assessment fees is subjective and outside entity has no control if BPW approves. > Why have assessment fee if it will be waived? (c) Re- connection to City sewer or water lines constructed prior to 7/1/16 or properties that have paid assessment outright. > How does this affect in -fill housing development projects within City? > How does this affect in -fill development projects outside City? (d) Sewer or water install assessments addressed in RDC agreements may be waived. > This is limited to only City of SB RDC. SJC would fall under section b and be at the mercy of BPW. (e) Rates do not apply in to user contracts executed with the City prior to the effective date of this article. (f) The City reserves the right to retain any assessment which has been collected prior to the effective date of this amendment. > Is this a correction cover? Section 17 -88 — Board of Works Rate Modification > Will there be any notice provided to development partners when the BPW seeks to changes rates?