I'd like to call to order the city council study session of September 15th, 2025.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Bushnell.

Present.

Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Councilmember Diaz.

Absent councilmember Hines.

Yeah.

Oh, that was Diaz.

Councilmember Hines.

Absent.

Councilmember Rumba here.

Councilmember Sidalgay.

Councilmember Scott.

Absent councilmember Walker.

Sorry.

I'm here.

Okay.

Councilmember Walker.

Here.

Mayor Woodards.

Here.

The study session materials sent you at 11.

All right.

We have a very short agenda today.

So I'm gonna skip over items other items of interest, and I'll come back to that while Councilmember Heinz gets settled.

I'm gonna move on to item number two, which is agenda review and city manager's weekly report.

City manager.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, uh, members of council council, deputy mayor.

Um we have two ceremonials on tonight's agenda.

First being um a proclamation for September 15th through October 15th, 2025, as Hispanic and Latin Heritage Month, as well as uh the city council tonight will be recognizing the students of Lincoln and Stadium High Schools.

Um no changes as proposed for tonight's agenda and uh as of note for public comment, there will be one opportunity tonight under public comment period for the for the public to weigh in on matters pertaining to the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, City Manager.

All right, I'm gonna go back to other items in of interest, and I'm gonna call on um council member Hines, who has a council consideration, council consideration request on an ordinance to amend Tacoma Municipal Cold Chapter 6A.110 regarding property tax exempted exemptions for multifamily housing.

Councilmember Heinz.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor.

So uh first of all, I just want to say thank you to all my government performance and finance committee members and all their work upon what brought us here today.

Let me move this microphone a little closer.

So uh as many of you know, uh multifamily tax exemption was something that government performance and finance took up back in 2021, and we made some um changes to the policy then, kind of was the first major update we'd had for quite a few years.

Um, you know, removing the eight-year multifamily tax exemption from the uh Proctor Point Rust in very high opportunity areas, expanding the 12-year to the areas that have since been designated mid scale, which was um I guess UR2 when it was finally adopted as part of home Tacoma phase two, and so expanding to that area and also expanding to our some of our neighborhood nodes, the 12-year MFTE.

We also authorized the 20-year MFTE at that point in time, and we lowered the affordability requirement from 80% of the area mean income to 78% of the area meaning income.

So those are the five major changes we made in 2021.

At that time, we also said that we were gonna come back and talk further about making changes and set kind of a uh three-year window by which we would reexamine the policy.

So we began that review back in 2024, and it's taken up until now, but uh I'm ready to kind of share out what our committee has discussed, and then I will also allow, I'm not allowing anyway.

I encourage my colleagues who are on the committee to um share some of their thoughts too as we get further.

So um as part of this review process, we've had three meetings at Government Performance and Finance to kind of talk through potential changes to the multifamily tax exemption.

Um I also hosted uh round table with some community stakeholders to kind of learn more about the multifamily tax exemption, some of the challenges, some of the benefits, some of the um you know where it's being utilized and not being utilized.

So those are some um pretty important uh good questions we got we got some feedback, and that helped guide the proposals before you here today.

So we at our la at our government performance and finance committee meeting uh in the last month, uh we moved forward a few um items for consideration for the full council.

Oh, so number one, uh we decided propose to increase the minimum number of units required for the year MFT from four units to 20 units per project.

So currently in our mixed use centers, uh if you are building a project anything more than four units, uh you could are eligible to either for either the eight-year MFT or the 12-year MFT.

And as for for background, um the 12-year MFT requires that 20% of the units that are produced are available at someone making 70% of the area median income.

And that's generated by HUD every year.

Uh it's based on kind of the Seattle uh Tacoma, the the numbers generated for the uh Seattle Tacoma metropolitan area.

Um but that is what the number we use.

We actually moved it to 70% of AMI, mostly because that gets us closer to kind of the 80% number in Pierce County because the number is generated for the entire region for the kind of Seattle Tacoma region.

So this project would mean that if you were going to be in a mixed use center, because the only place we still allow the eight-year MFTE is in our mixed use centers or downtown core area.

The eight year is kind of the pure economic development tool that exists versus the 12 year has an affordability component.

And the idea behind this was when we expanded the MFTE out into the mid scale areas or the UR2 areas, the idea was to incentivize some of this missing middle housing.

And products housing development that is between under 20 units actually fits more closely with the kind of mid scale missing middle housing model.

It's not you know the kind of larger scale.

And so just kind of level set a lot of the incentives, we're just saying that anything that's lower than 20 units would have to use a 12 year MFTE, which basically means that it's the same whether you're inside a mixed use center or outside of the mixed use center.

So the mid scale areas, UR3 or the mixed use center that have the same kind of expectations.

You know, what we're hopeful is that when we do this, we'll be able to nudge some development that would have potentially built four units or six units inside a mixed use center with no affordability that they will include affordability.

So that also will hopefully encourage them to take advantage of some of the bonus programs that we have created in our you know our UR3 areas where we've expanded out to.

So the first change is removing the eight year MFT for anything lower than 20 units.

All right.

The second change is to allow households to continue, and Madam Mayor, do you want me to pause after each one, or do you want me to just run through the whole list and go okay?

The second one is to allow households to continue to qualify as low income or moderate income for the purpose of the MFTE unless the household's income exceeds 90% of the Pierce County's AMI.

Okay.

So there's a lot there.

So basically, to qualify for a rent restricted unit for an M 12-year MFTE, you have to be making 70% of the area median income.

And the challenge, uh the challenge is that's verified every year.

And what we didn't want to see currently it means is as people make more money, they would become ineligible to be in that unit, would have to go to a market rate unit.

So what this allows you to do is to make up from 70 up to 90% of the area median income and stay in that unit and be counted.

Now and so that allows we're not having people kind of being displaced out of those units.

It also means that we're not then triggering people as they make more money, which we want to see them do move into a market rate unit in the same building.

So just kind of promoting kind of our oral goals around housing stability and allowing people to kind of stay in those places.

And then the question of why 90% why state law allows you to go much higher than that.

So state law allows up to I think 150% is what the number I saw through state law to stay in those units.

And we said 90 because we really do want those units available for people making you know more uh you know 70% of AMI incomes.

We don't want to see, well, it would be great to see someone continue to raise their earnings and make more money.

We would then want as they started exceeding that 90% of area mean income, we'd want to have that unit available to someone who was making 70%.

So it's the idea of kind of as you make more, you would then move into a market rate unit, and then those units would be available for people making kind of the 70% of AMI.

Um we there's this idea of a long-term concern about maybe somebody making 150% of AMI and then also occupying a rent stabilized or rent restricted unit.

So we want to avoid that.

So we thought 90%, the committee we talked about it was a good place to start.

There was lots of discussion about what that number should be, um, but that's where we kind of landed at the end of this discussion.

Okay.

Uh the next change, number three, require properties applying for an extension to their rent uh to their multifamily tax exemption to rent their affordable units for at least 10% less than the market rate.

So what is happening here?

Well, we've in 2021, something else we did was we allowed the 12-year extension of multifamily tax exemptions.

So in that currently, under city code, if you have an eight-year MFT or 12-year, you can extend for an additional 12 years if 20% of the units are available at 70% of AMI or lower.

And so what this is meant to do is in some of our places, some parts of our city, the market rate is already at or below 70% of AMI.

So we've had a couple extensions come through that we've seen where it's they're extending their their tax exemption, and the market rate and the affordable rate are exactly the same, right?

Which which begs the question of whether or not there's actually where are we getting the affordability levels we want to see for in exchange for the extension?

So what this would say is if you're coming for an extension, um the market rate, the affordable rate that you're offering your affordable units at must be at least 10% less than the market rate you're renting your other units for.

And we have those numbers because we see we get to see the market rate that's a real thing.

They have a market rate, and so it should be 10% less.

And that's just meant to be that that the even within projects where the market rate is affordable, the units that are being subsidized by the multi-finance tax region are even more affordable.

So kind of striking that balance.

This is only, you know, in some parts of our city, this is not an issue.

Um when we looked at the Proctor 1 extension back in 2024, you know, you saw that on the on the three-bedroom or two-bedroom apartments, you're seeing like a thousand dollar nexus between what the market rate is and what the affordable rate is.

Um it's a very large number because the market rates rents are very high, but in parts of our city where market rates and rents are lower than they're coming for an extension, we want to make sure that they're actually creating even more affordability.

Uh number four is expand the community and economic development department's efforts to share and centralize outreach resources for property owners and community members.

So something we heard a lot about during the stakeholder round table, and I've we've asked a couple of us have heard publicly, is um it's really challenging to try to identify people who can qualify for the rent that qualify for the units.

Because you have to have someone who can both kind of meet all the requirements of the rental unit and also only make 70% of AMI, at least at the beginning.

And so trying to find someone who kind of can get to that is often a challenge.

And so what we've been we've heard from the public is how can we better help match prospective tenants into these units.

And so CED can continue to enhance its role and sharing helpful information and serving as a resource for MFT projects as part of the current workload, just kind of making sure this information is available to kind of get to that matching.

So we don't have vacant um units in these affordable housing projects, which would be a real challenge.

Uh and then the last the fifth point was that we talked through was uh to launch additional GAPFC review of the MFT program in 2028, which is like the three-year look back window.

So we come back in 2028 and look at it again.

It could be in GPFC, it could be anywhere, um, but just that we want to make sure we're revalue reevaluating the incentives on a regular basis.

And so that would set it at 2028 because we're completing our work here in 2025.

Um the other reason we wanted to look at it, and and I would be honest, one of the reasons why we were kind of why we're relatively um limited in some of the post changes we're making right now, was just um some feedback from kind of community and development community around home in Tacoma 2 just went live, so we've got a lot of new incentives, we've extended the program, there's a lot more opportunities, kind of letting uh see how that is working, what's what is and what isn't working to make changes, and then the second part was just um the financing environment is very difficult right now.

It's interest rates are up and they they may or may not be coming down here there's this week, but interest rates are up, a lot of uncertainty at the federal level, a lot of uncertainty on material and building costs, a lot of uncertainty around workforce and access to workers who can do the work that um gave us pause that this might not be the um the time to make a lot of major changes.

So that was one of the why we kind of landed with what we did.

Um Deborah Mayor Daniels has a sixth recommendation, and I'm gonna let I'm gonna have her kind of talk a little bit about what she would like to what she proposed, and she brought the GPFC and she's gonna talk about it here with us today, and I want to give her an opportunity to talk through that.

Um, I just want to take a moment to just reflect and say how excited I am about all the work CED is doing around this program.

Um, you know, I believe uh these proposals we put together really um take seriously some of the feedback we got from the community to try to get together something that makes a lot of sense.

Um our community stakeholders, people we talked to really stress that the MFT is an important tool to build more housing.

It's one of the few incentives we actually have to get more housing built, but just there's a lot of uncertainty right now.

And I think actually, if you look at um some of our kind of building permit data, when we look at how many building permits are being kind of taken right now to build these projects, we're seeing that in the numbers that's coming out of it.

Um, when we passed the change in 2021, you know, we saw kind of record-breaking amounts of housing development things being built in an era of low interest rates.

Um, and right now we're seeing fewer and fewer things being built.

So they were asking us to be very caught, they were very cautious about potential changes that could shake that.

Also considering a lot of these projects are um begin development multiple years in the past, right?

So changes that are made today while seeming not as a it's significant impact projects that have been in the works for multiple years in the past.

Um you know, I'm also just happy to say that a lot of these fiscal impacts changes are very low.

Um, and that CD has kind of mentioned they can incorporate some of these in their work into their current work, so I think that's really important.

And um I just want to stress I'm glad we're thinking about how the MFT program can help advance our goals to kind of both build more housing and also provide more stability for people in our community.

Um, you know, our efforts to allow renters to maintain units, even with small income increases.

I think it really gets more to the spirit we're trying to do, which is we want to encourage people to increase their earning power while remaining stably housed.

And so I think that's really good.

And I'll now turn it over to Councilmember.

Sorry, I keep saying that.

Deputy Mayor Daniels uh to speak a bit more about her proposal regarding the eight year MFTE.

Deputy Mayor Thank you, uh Mayor and Councilmember Hines.

Um I appreciate all of the things that council member Hines brought forward.

Um, and I am just here to add one more uh recommendation that you'll see in the CCR.

Um I've added a recommendation to the GPFC proposal that we remove the eight year MFTE from the two census tracks that overlap with the parts of the downtown regional growth center, uh mainly in the hilltop neighborhood.

Um the part of the map and the CCR of the two tracks is included.

Um why um I'm asking or I'm proposing to do this is because the eight-year MFTE offers no affordability or it requires no affordable affordability, and we are seeing it as a result in the creation of a high number of market rate units in the hilltop area that too many of the current residents cannot afford.

Um just two of the new luxury apartment buildings created within the eight-year MFTE are the Aspire 11 and the Haley, which have almost 450 units combined, um, none being affordable.

I believe that we need to make sure our economic development tools um are in place and that they are doing what they are supposed to do, but also not unintentionally aggravating displacement.

Our own anti-displacement action strategy specifically identifies these two stracks as these two tracks as being uh at highest risk of displacement in our city.

Our anti-displacement strategy also identifies nine additional tracks in East Tacoma, Hosmer, McKinley Hill, and South Tacoma that are at high risk of displacement as well.

And I can pass out those tracks if you'd like to see.

Uh my recommendation is that we start by removing the eight-year MFTE and the two hilltop tracks as a pilot program and then evaluate the impacts on the development and the next proposed three-year review.

This will allow a future council to decide whether to remove the eight-year MFTE from the additional tracks that have a high risk of displacement.

And I am I welcome any questions, um, but I don't know if we have more to present.

So I will leave that to um either Chair Hines or Mir.

Uh that was kind of the overview of what I had.

I think it would really just now the GPFC committee has been working on this for quite a while, um, over a year now.

And so really wanted to see if there were questions from the uh the rest of the council members or any of the GPFC members that have additional comments, um, and then we can kind of go from here.

All right, let's start with councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Hines and Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Um, I am really excited about moving this forward.

Um, Councilmember Hines, thank you for including that through your check-in last time and uh making it happen and for including it going forward too.

I think that that's really really valuable, especially a product or uh a program like this that has so much activity.

So really appreciate that.

Um Deputy Mayor Daniels, um, really supportive of that um proposal uh that you brought forward with the um the removing those census tracks.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

And as we talked about um before this meeting, um it makes sense in a way that we could build on it going forward.

Um so I think it doesn't, you know, from a policy standpoint doesn't isn't an outlier, it's a building block.

So I really appreciate how you put that together.

All this sounds great, and I um echo the comments um about CED and the work they're doing and and appreciate them um leaning into this program.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Walker.

Any other questions from the DIS.

Councilmember Chadel.

Uh just no questions, Mayor, just uh just a couple of comments.

Um I just want to really appreciate being able to work on this with uh councilmember Hines and the rest of the GPFC.

Um, you know, I did try to find a way for to mold this tool in a way that could help bring uh additional housing ownership, ownership opportunities.

And through my research, it didn't quite jive well to create a tool through this particular uh program.

Um and so I'm really open to exploring other opportunities for home ownership, um, maybe outside the MFTE or maybe a different type of tool with and working with our state led delegation and things of that nature.

So just want to let folks know that I did try to explore and see if there was an opportunity for homeownership to be a part of this, and just didn't quite work out.

Um, and then just uh really appreciate a lot of the you know, Councilmember Hines brought up a lot of great points.

Um, and I think one of the things that um that I really appreciate about this in particular is the uh the allowing for the 90% of Pierce County AMI to for folks to be able to keep that stability because there is a reality of a benefit cliff um that a lot of families face.

Um, and this really helps uh keep people in their homes and help them to strive to improve their own situation without the risk of um losing out on their home because they want to improve their um their salaries and and and their uh circumstances.

And so uh I you know we landed at 90%, and I think that's a good number.

Um, and if you know, based on when we do this three year review, we can definitely re-look at that number and see if it doesn't need to go higher, doesn't need to go lower, um, and where that benefit cliff might lie.

And also um just appreciate the uh the reviews every three years, and and part of that is because the the market is very dynamic, it's changing.

Uh the the market has changed significantly since the last time we reviewed this interest rates have changed significantly.

Um, and so I think it's just like how the market changes the MFT program will need to change in order to fit uh the needs of the community at the time.

And I think this is this is actually perfect timing given the the rate um rate increases and and how that impacts housing and and how we can try to uh utilize um the MFT program to bring in additional affordable housing.

And you know, the primary focus of the MFTEs is an economic development tool, and then the how affordable housing is a is really a kicker um that supports it.

And so that's part of why I really um appreciate uh Deputy Mayor Daniels inclusion of uh excluding those specific census tracks.

Um just not too dissimilar to what had happened in Proctor where we removed the eight-year MFT.

Um there's a point in which the community uh has seen that economic development and it begets more economic development, and I could see that happening in the in these census track areas, but not necessarily in other parts of the city that we'd like to see that uh additional economic development.

So I'm happy to support this uh moving forward, and I really appreciate all the diligent work that staff and everybody else has put this together.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Let me go to Councilmember Sidalge, followed by Councilmember Diaz.

Um thank you.

I want to thank everyone that was part of uh this update.

I think there's some really good um um Spark uh changes to MFTE.

Um it's something uh I know we've been talking about, especially given that we've um we had home and Tacoma to uh come through.

Uh I did want to explore and maybe we can do this offline uh because council member Bushnell actually hit on it.

I wanted to understand what, if any capabilities there are with MFTE around home ownership.

Um perhaps that's I don't know if something you can speak to now or if it's something we could do debrief through staff um, you know, within the next week.

The question would be like what were the actual challenges.

So you the MFT currently can be used for home ownership products.

We actually have a really large multifamily MFT project down in Point Rest in this condo project, those are all MFTEs.

The challenge is that that doesn't accrue to the developer, it's you know sold.

So the benefits accrue to the homeowner, the property owner.

So we don't see as used as is this is not used.

Also, we don't see a lot of um the condo townhome kind of projects that are utilizing that at this point in time.

So you can you can even use the 12-year MFTE for um sales to home ownership too, it just require that you would sell 20% of the of the units at 70% somebody making 70% of AMI or or you'd have to meet the qualifications for sales.

Or no, actually, it's 100% correct, because it's it is different for sales.

It's 100% for homeownership, yeah.

Yeah.

Um I'm gonna look into that also, maybe with staff.

Um really one of the reasons why condo development um wasn't happening, um, and it's something the state changed uh this year is the liability around condos and the state get has made it easier for developers to build condos of 12 units or fewer.

Um recognizing that if there was a way to incorporate that, um, you know, is a potential amendment I may want to um explore in this next week.

Um, but other than that, I really do like um everything that's in here.

I do think that you know, uh, given that we've done home and Tacoma 2 and getting rid of effectively single family exclusive zoning, the MFTE 8 makes less sense today.

Um, and it's it's good to try to modify that.

I like that um, you know, you guys thought really deeply about the idea of a benefit cliff and talk about that.

Um, you know, coming into this late juncture, I do have thoughts about that, but I'm happy with the numbers that you guys came up with.

And I actually do like the idea of having at least some minimum uh lower rent uh versus uh market rate because that is a public good.

So uh I want to thank you all for that.

I'm very supportive of this entire thing.

Um and thank you.

Yeah, that's it.

Thank you, Councilmember Sadal Sidalga.

Councilmember Diaz.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I wanted to sort of invite if folks have comments they'd like to make now or maybe conversations as this is going forward um around expanding the eight-year um eight-year MFT exclusion to all of the census tracks listed in our anti-disparity study.

While I appreciate using just the two hilltop census tracts as a pilot.

I actually think we've heard pretty loud and clear from folks in the community almost every council meeting when we have an MFT come forward about folks having concerns about the affordability not being even to the thresholds that they see as really reasonably affordable.

Therefore, I think it would be time for us to start thinking about how we move away from an MFTE model that doesn't even include the affordable rates that people don't even find affordable.

So um I'm I'm unable to more conversation around that, but that is something that is um sort of concerning to me that we would only do some of what's identified in our own anti-displacement strategy because so many more of those communities are already right for displacement, I think, particularly after home and tacoma.

So um interested in more conversation around that.

Thank you, Councilmember Diaz, and I'm glad you went first because uh you asked the same question I was going to ask.

If if we do this, like I I'm open to a trial, but I would be curious if there would be something in place that would say after, because I wouldn't want to get stuck on only a trial, but would want to say if we try this in these in these areas, then um at this point, then we'll add all of the other census tracks, which I think which I think is a really good point.

But what I worry about just a little bit, is we know that we need all types of housing all over the city.

And and I guess the the a little bit of the reason I appreciate a pilot is to make sure that we um are not stopping people from building in areas big because we know affordability is one thing, but the other part of affordability is making sure that there's enough housing that's demanded, right?

So if we're not building, if people decide since I can't take the eight, they're not gonna do anything, then that would worry me because again, we do know the more housing we have, the lower the price gets, right?

And so just a little bit of concern about that, but I guess those are kind of not very well thought out questions, council deputy mayor, but I think you get the gist of kind of the first one aligned with what council member Diaz said, and then you know, how are we evaluating this to make sure that we're doing no harm while we're trying to um build more affordable housing?

Um yeah, I I think uh the both of you are spot on.

And what I would say is uh ultimately the decision came to defer to uh each council member in their district, as we know that each district is kind of experiencing a different level of development of economic development overall, um, some more than others, and I think that that's what led me to say let's study where we know we have the most economic development and the most market rate units coming up and the most people using the eight-year um and see where that goes and then kind of hit these other areas.

But um again, I just want to make sure I am responsible and kind of respecting um the council members in each district that know the most about um kind of the tracks and and where they want to see them go um to make sure that I'm not uh pushing too far.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Pushner.

Uh thank you, Mary.

I I appreciate council member Diaz for bringing this forward.

It is something I've I've thought about significantly as well.

Um, and I think one of the ways that we can kind of see when where is the tipping point, when is the tipping point is when eight-year MFTs are being utilized in a robust way.

And uh based on the information that I've seen, some of these other census tracts aren't even utilized in the eight-year MFT if anything at all.

Um, and so I there's there there certainly is a tipping point.

I feel like we've we've reached that tipping point both in Procter Stadium, hilltop area.

Um, that economic again, this is an economic development tool, and economic development begets more economic development.

And um, I feel like it would be premature in this moment uh because the lack of utilization of the year MFTE in these other census tracks that we we would pull it out because nothing is necessarily being built as as much as we would like.

So um, but I I where that tipping point is, that's I'm happy to have that conversation and and you know, maybe we find some kind of metric and what that looks like.

I guess council member Sidalgay, um, as as kind of the east side, and you know, there are lots of census tracks on the east side that that um that would fall um into this category.

Just curious about your thoughts.

Um that was a uh question I had was um are there other census tracks we can um test this out.

And um I haven't had a chance to review all of those census tracks yet.

So uh I will ask staff to give me an update.

But yes, I would be open to kind of expanding that as well.

Um I do have a clarifying question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Oh, change would in in included in here would now make the eight-year only applicable to one T plus unit developments going forward.

Would that be all across the city or just everywhere except those census tracks?

I'm trying to just understand the the ramification of that change.

Uh yes, it this that would apply citywide.

So in the mixed use centers where there's eight years currently, so basically what this would preclude it is the idea of you know, I think to your point, Council to use an example that Council More Osh used to talk about is she always got really frustrated with the four unit projects going into the Lincoln or the McKinley Hill district and getting an eight-year MFTE when if they were just right outside, you could have to have 12 year and have affordability, right?

And so when we think about mixed use centers where we want to drive density, where we want people, we want larger projects for and density, we want to incentivize the bigger projects with the eight-year MFT versus kind of the smaller mid-scale project.

So by a limit, so basically it would mean that in any of the mixed use centers where we currently allow the eight-year MFT, the floor would move from four to eight.

The 20.

So for 20.

Sorry, for I'm I'm getting my eights and twelve.

In this so effectively the four unit MFT is now basically gone citywide.

Because we expended MFTEs to UR3s.

Um in every place except the census tracks that are listed.

You could do the eight-year MFTE, but only if you build at least 20 units.

Yeah, it would need to be it'd be it would yes, need to be more than 20.

Yes, more than 20.

Council Debbie Nails.

Sorry.

It's okay for me to jump in.

Yeah, go ahead.

Christina is also sending you all um a map of where the eight-year and the 12-year are available prior to this, there is some distinction in the different areas with that in throughout the city.

So you'll probably want to look at that first to see um where the eight-year is still allowed.

So on the map that she sends out, the tan areas are where the eight-year are allowed currently.

Um, and then the blue areas are where the um 12 and 20 are allowed.

And so you'll see as a um if there's a census number on here, it's a part of the uh potential nine tracks that I had mentioned earlier for displacement.

But there's actually only one, two, three.

There's actually only five that are um that have the eight-year opportunity there.

Yeah.

Okay, but that was but that was before today.

That was before any changes were made.

So these differences in the maps did not come today or this year.

So in all those light brown that's outside of those two census tracks.

If you wanted the eight years, you had to do at least 20 units.

Or you could do less than 20 units and get a 12 uh 12 year if you made 20% of them affordable, or 20 years if 25% of them were permanently affordable.

Um let me think about this because it my opinion, when I look at the actual locations now, thank you, Christina, for sending that.

Um those light browns might be places where we really that's where we really want affordability to be built.

Um so let me kind of think about that for a second.

It's the first time I'm I'm kind of seeing it.

But uh, thank you for bringing that point up, Councilmember Diaz and um Mayor.

Um this is interesting.

I I've asked Debbie Bingham to come forward um at this time, the housing expert who has something to share with us.

Thank you, Debbie.

And hit the yeah, you got it.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to clarify that um we're not adding any new residential target areas.

So even though the census tracks show it, we're not adding areas that you can use the 12-year within those census tracks.

So if they're not already shaded a color, and I can't see which color, um, you we're not adding those areas.

So it's only still within those areas that this that the MFT is already allowed, you could use the 12-year.

But it was it was changed during home into coma two.

UR3s now include uh MFTEs all over the city.

So we banded it earlier this year, is my understanding.

Correct.

Um, council member, and on the map you have the colored areas include those expanded UR3 areas.

Okay, so policy-wise, our question is now with the expanded zones as of February 1st.

Do we or do we not want eight years in those other census tracts?

That's what I'm kind of thinking in my head.

Am I am I right?

So, as part of home and coma's um all of UR2 and UR3 that can use the MFT, you can only use the 12-year.

There's no eight-year allowed.

So, really, that the change from the eight-year uh the four to the twenty unit is only in mixed use centers.

Oh, it wasn't all MFTE years.

It was only it was only 12 and 20 were expanded to all UR2 and three, or just UR3?

Two and three.

Okay, that was my that was not that was where I was missing my understanding.

I thought you were also allowed the eight.

You're saying that the eight existed pre-home and Tacoma too.

Uh and those are the current ones that we're seeing.

Yes, even currently, only the eight-year can be used.

The only place the eight-year can be used is in mixed-use centers, minus the two that we already took out.

Got it.

Okay, that helps me.

I'm gonna think about this, I think, with staff um this following week.

Okay.

All right, are there any additional?

Oh, yeah, council member Diaz.

The one other um sort of point I think I'm trying to make and trying to capture all of the census tracks or trying to ask about capturing all the census tracks in the anti-displacement plan, is while MFTE was created originally as an economic development tool.

Right, I think particularly in Tacoma, we are in a place where we're different economically than we were when MFTE was created for us as an economic development tool, and I would like to start moving us away from it being an economic development tool and being an affordability tool.

Um, and that's part of why I think we need to start the CP, the state has allowed us to add in affordability or remove options that don't include affordability because they weren't able to get to the votes of including affordability in all MFTE requirements, and I think we should just make the move in that direction.

We have a huge housing crisis that requires affordability going forward, and I just don't know how we in good conscience keep allowing um tax exemptions to go out without requiring some amount of affordability for folks.

Any other questions or comments?

Well, that do you comment?

Yeah, I'll just uh oh yeah, go ahead.

Because I I think Council Diaz and her and I have chatted about this before, and I think this is probably a broader conversation for us as a council to have, which is do is are we in such a space where we have such a shortage and crisis of housing that we need every incentive possible to build it?

Or are we in such a space that it's not that much of a crisis for housing housing overall, but what we need is affordable housing and we need to look and expand our affordable housing tools.

So I think that's the underlying question that I think we that we probably haven't had a conversation, but we need to lean into because I would if we were gonna say housing is such a desperate need that there is a real shortage.

I I find it hard pressed to say that we should just not incentivize it at all.

I just hope it should and and like and then it will show up.

Um I would think we'd want to leave the incentives, any incentive possible to build more.

But if we are in a space where it's like, well, no, what we really need is affordable housing, so all we want to incentivize is affordable housing, then we should leave those on the table and maybe remove the incentives for not for housing doesn't require an affordability.

I mean, I think that's the question.

What we came out of the conversations in GP with stakeholders was that we are in a space where we it's not 2021.

Um we don't have multiple cranes in sky building lots of housing.

Um we've seen permits go down, interest rates go up, uncertainty at the national level, cost of building, all these issues that their counsel to us was messing too much on those dials may lead to a period where we don't see as much build as we would otherwise.

And so that's what kind of why I was originally was paused on the idea of like, well, do we just look at the eight year and do we need it at all?

Um enough of the conversation where we are today made me think that it's still something we need to have because we want we need more housing, we want to incentivize it.

Um but I think that's the conversation to be had here is you know, is that the place we want to be in?

Uh to look at what kind of deputy manager Daniels is proposing.

One interesting thing, and and this is a good reminder if you look at the map, is the census tracks and the mixed use centers are not the same.

There's lines across each other.

So if we're to adopt Deputy Daniels' proposal, we will really clearly see in three years in say the Sixth Avenue Business District or in the downtown core.

Um part of it will have an eight-year MFT and part of it won't.

This part of it will be in the will be in the census track and part of it will be outside.

And we'll have a really clear kind of experiment to say, like, did anything get built in the part of that that was in the census track?

Because there you're gonna have a point where there's gonna be two properties directly across from each other or right nearby each other where one can get an eight-year MFT and one can't.

Um, and to be able to kind of it will we'll have like a clear kind of way to look at the two.

The same thing will happen in the downtown core because one of these downtown core the down just for the public who can't see the map.

The downtown core is on our mixed use center map includes hilltop, right?

It's a very large area.

Um if that was dropped out, we'll be able to kind of see clearly see the distinction.

I think we look at the other census tracks to um some of the points that has been made here.

You know, some of these, if we took the census track out, there is no eight-year MFT there already, so it's only like five that Councilmember Daniels said, or maybe Daniels' reference.

Um but there are a couple here that um would be impacted.

I mean, the the Debbie, can you remind me the the Tacoma Mall sub area that's in here?

Does that even have an eight-year MFT?

It does.

It does.

But there's inclusionary zoning as part of that area, though, right?

Isn't there like some other mechanisms?

Gotcha.

Okay.

So uh I think that's just the this is a conversation we cut we started having at government forms of finance that I think is a good one for us to be to be thinking about is kind of you know what is it that we want to incentivize and at what level do we want to?

The proposal I brought forward that the committee committee brought forward and I think the deputy maybe's brought forward was kind of like here's where we can start to think about maybe some changes that make sense, consider all things considered, and then looking ahead at three years, like do we still need this or not?

Um yeah, things are great.

Well, thank you.

Um, unless there are any other questions or comments.

I want to thank the two of you for bringing um for bringing all these changes forward.

I think it's good for us to look at the MFT and and it's a tool, right?

And so sometimes you have to adjust the tool to use it in a different way.

Debbie, anything to anything to add, um, or find more uses for the tools.

So um appreciate this.

When when you're introducing it today, when would it what are the next steps and when will we see it?

Great question.

The idea would be that we would bring it forward for first reading on September 30th, because we don't have a council meeting next week, uh, with second reading the whatever meetings after that, because we it's different different meeting schedules.

So, yes.

Okay, great, perfect.

All right, well, thank you.

Thank you both for the presentation.

Debbie, thank you for the phone of friends.

All right.

With that.

With that, we're going to move on.

I will entertain a motion to convene to an executive session pursuant to RCW forty two dot three zero.

One I and I to discuss potential potential and pending litigation not to exceed thirty minutes.

So moved.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying I.

All those opposed.

All right.

Um the motion is declared adopted.

Um, once we complete executive session, um, we will not conduct any further business, but I will also entertain a motion um to uh convene to a closed session pursuant to RCW forty two dot three zero dot one four zero four A and B to discuss labor strategy.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying I.

The motion has been declared adopted.

So we will conduct executive session, come out and adjourn the meeting, and then we will go into closed session.

With that, we stand in recess.