Tacoma City Council Special Meeting on Charter Amendments - June 7, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Tacoma City Council Special Meeting on Charter Amendments - June 7, 2024
This was a special meeting of the Tacoma City Council held on June 7, 2024, from 11:00 AM to approximately 5:30 PM, focused on reviewing and discussing numerous proposed charter amendments from the Charter Review Committee (CRC) and council members. The council deliberated on each item, often debating whether changes should be placed in the charter, handled by ordinance, or addressed through other means. Key decisions included advancing some amendments to the ballot, referring others to committees, or setting them aside for further work.
Discussion Items
1. Charter Review Committee Recommendation #5 – Charter Review Process (Duration & Requirements)
- The council discussed whether to amend the charter to require a longer review process (at least 6 months), legal review, and fiscal analysis. Many members preferred to achieve these goals through resolution or ordinance rather than amending the charter. The consensus was to not proceed with this charter amendment, but to have staff report back on other ways to address the concerns.
2. Proposed New Section – Neighborhood Councils (#6)
- The proposal would establish neighborhood and community councils in the charter. Council members expressed concerns about placing independent nonprofits in the charter, potential legal implications, and the need for flexibility. The council decided not to move this forward as a charter amendment, but to commit to strengthening neighborhood councils through the ongoing municipal code review.
3. Proposed New Section – Campaign Finance (#20)
- This permissive language would allow the city to enact campaign contribution limits and create a democracy voucher program. The council leaned toward not placing it in the charter, but instead referred the topic to the Government Performance and Finance Committee (GPFC) for further study, with a possible future vote of the people.
4. Planning Commission (#14)
- The council discussed increasing the commission from 9 to 11 members, removing specific seat requirements, and eliminating the prohibition on pay. The consensus was to advance this amendment to the ballot, but with modifications: increase to 11 members, keep the five district seats, remove the list of specific expertise requirements, and retain the strikeout of the no-pay clause.
5. New Section – Climate Commission (#9)
- This proposal would establish a carbon budget and a new climate commission. The council debated whether to include it in the charter. Some members supported only the carbon budget section, while others opposed the commission. No final decision was made; Councilmembers Daniels and Scott agreed to work on an amendment to potentially bring forward a more targeted version.
6. Council Proposed Amendments (C1-C5)
- C1 (Council Meetings): Advanced to ballot with language requiring at least 70 meetings per year.
- C2 (TPU Board Member Qualifications) & C3 (TPU Board Member Stipends): Presented by Councilmember Bushnell; no further changes, moved forward.
- C4 (Sale or Disposition of Waterfront Property): Presented by Councilmember Rumba. Discussion focused on limiting sales to public agencies with perpetual public access, recreation, education, or habitat preservation. Councilmembers raised concerns about excluding affordable housing. It was agreed to work on amendments to potentially include open space or housing language.
- C5 (Initiative Fiscal Notes): Presented by Councilmember Rumba. The council generally supported the idea, but debated whether it needed to be in the charter. It was decided to move it forward without further discussion.
7. Amendments to CRC Recommendations (#2B, #12B, #13B, #18B)
- 2B (Term Limits): The council discussed changing term limits to three consecutive full terms for mayor and council. Concern was raised about applying it to current members. The item was tabled for further work on language and applicability.
- 12B (Purposes of Inquiry – Council) & 18B (Purposes of Inquiry – TPU): These amendments reframe the language in a positive manner. The council approved them to move forward.
- 13B (City Attorney): This amendment would require council approval for the city manager to remove the city attorney. After debate, the council decided to move it forward as is.
8. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) – Presentation and Discussion
- Pierce County Auditor Linda Farmer and Elections Manager Kyle Hawk presented on the history of RCV in Pierce County (2008-2009) and current state law. They noted that RCV in primaries would be possible but costly (estimated $2.147 million annually). The council discussed the high cost, voter education challenges, and state law limitations. No decision was made; the item will be revisited on Tuesday, June 11, when absent members are present.
Key Outcomes
- Charter Review Process (#5): Will not be a charter amendment; staff to report on alternative methods.
- Neighborhood Councils (#6): Not advanced as charter amendment; commitment to improve via municipal code review.
- Campaign Finance (#20): Referred to GPFC for further study.
- Planning Commission (#14): Advanced to ballot with modifications (11 members, remove specific expertise, keep no-pay strike).
- Climate Commission (#9): No final decision; Councilmembers Daniels and Scott to draft an amendment.
- C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 (Council Proposed): C1, C2, C3, C5 advanced to ballot; C4 will have amendments from two groups.
- Term Limits (#2B): Tabled for further language work.
- Purposes of Inquiry (#12B, #18B) and City Attorney (#13B): Advanced to ballot.
- Ranked Choice Voting (#19): Discussion deferred to next meeting.
- Deadlines: All amendments must be submitted by June 17; final public hearing on July 2.
Meeting Transcript
I would like to call to order the City Council special meeting of June seventh, twenty twenty-four. Clark, will you please call the role? Here Um, I sorry we I know we just came in, but I need to call uh I need to call a uh recess for for ten minutes. We stand in recess for ten minutes. I'd like to call back to order the city council special meeting of June 7th, 2024. Roll has been called. And so we are going to move into our charter review recommendation amendments this morning. And we're going to start with number five charter review, and I'm going to turn it over to the city manager to begin the to begin the discussion. And just so that you know, charter review charter amendment number five is in your binders behind the number five tab. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council. It indicates that the process should last longer for a duration of at least six months by the language. Clarifies that the comprehensive review is to um include but not be limited to public outreach anti-racist analysis, stakeholder and expert interviews, budgetary and fiscal impacts, and drafting of recommendations. It also states that the charter review committee may publish its findings. They to have during the time of charter review. I think it does address the issue. Um, and I think I think we can tell just from what happened with this charter review committee that there is a need. So I will open it up for anybody else to weigh in. Councilmember Walker. Um thank you. I think that additional time is good. We've seen the um the uh the number of hours that we have asked uh folks to put into this um really stretch people. So I'm I'm really supportive of um adding a little bit of extra time. I agree with you that we need to be very clear about um what we're asking of the charter review committee. Um I am curious if that or I guess I should say I I like adding legal review in there. I think that's a really important piece of this that would be nice to put in the charter review committee's um timeline so that it that's done before it comes to us. Um but I also am wondering um how much of that detail goes in that memo or the resolution that we did to the committee versus what actually goes in the charter. I'm fine with either just throwing that out there that we did have that opportunity to communicate with them. Um so generally supportive of this, it seems like an important cleanup recognizing the reality. Councilmember Rumba. Thank you, Mayor. Um I've been thinking about this for a while, and I definitely agree that that more time might be good. I'm not sure what would happen if they got more time based on the group of people we had who worked so hard, they might have worked even harder and come back with 54 things instead of 24 things. Um, but um I was curious um about whether or not and I forgot my question. Let me uh let me get back to it. Okay. All right. Um uh deputy mayor. Uh thank you, Madam Mayor. So wow I I do understand the need for some more time and all the and I happy with all the work that the Charter View Commission put in. My question would be the reason we gave them the amount of time that we did was we appointed them in November. Could we not just appoint them earlier and start the process sooner and not have to make a charter amendment? You know what? That's a really good point. It it it is it is up to the council to decide what the timeline is. There's nothing in the charter, and I'm looking at Steve Victor, our attorney for today. There's nothing in the charter that says that's correct, Mayor. Okay. So okay. Um yes, so I mean that was my first thought was rather than changing the charter, I think we could there could always uh start um you know the process sooner and not even go through a charter amendment.
openpublica.com