Commissioners question fairness of 0% loans to developers funded by water/sewer fees

A central point of contention during discussion of the 1g1 substitute was whether it is appropriate to use money collected from water and sewer customers to make zero‑interest loans to entities remediating county‑owned parcels.

Commissioner Koeniggan asked directly whether the proposal would "give it to developers at no interest for them to pay for something that they already have to pay for," noting developers typically absorb remediation costs through project financing. Other commissioners suggested adding an interest rate, placing a cap on per‑project loans, or limiting eligibility to projects with specific public benefits.

Sponsor Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Hardiman argued the loans are a practical tool to unlock projects that would otherwise be financially infeasible, particularly on very large parcels (10 acres or more) that are expensive to remediate. Regalado also said most eligible parcels are intended for affordable housing, which she said supports the public interest and justifies targeted assistance.

No decision on loan terms was made; the committee asked the administration to recommend a rate range and per‑property cap to include in the ordinance exhibit before the next committee meeting.