OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Tacoma City Council Study Session: Historic Preservation, Budget, Camping Ordinance – October 7, 2025

City Council Study Session — Tuesday, October 7, 2025
BodyTacoma, Washington
SessionCity Council Study Session
DateTuesday, October 7, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:38:13

Transcript — Verbatim
0:03

I'd like to call to order the city council study session of October 7th, 2025.

0:08

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

0:10

Councilmember Bushnell.

0:12

Present.

0:12

Councilmember Daniels, or sorry, Deputy Mayor Daniels.

0:15

Abstent Councilmember Diaz.

0:17

Here.

0:18

Councilmember Hines.

0:19

Councilmember Rumba here.

0:20

Councilmember Sidalgay.

0:22

Here.

0:22

Councilmember Scott.

0:23

Here.

0:23

Councilmember Walker.

0:24

Here.

0:25

Mayor Witards.

0:26

Here.

0:26

The material is sent to you at 1215.

0:28

Thank you very much.

0:29

All right.

0:29

Our first agenda item today is the Historic Preservation Code Amendments.

0:34

And I would like to begin by calling on Planning and Development Services, Historic Preservation Office Officer, Ruben McKnight to begin the presentation.

0:42

Ruben, it's all yours.

0:44

Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

0:46

I'm Reuben McKnight, I'm the Historic Preservation Officer with Plan Development Services.

0:49

I'm here with Matt Davis with the Architectural Resources Group, who has been uh helping us with the uh code amendments that um are the subject of a public hearing tonight at City Council.

0:59

And so, let's see if this works.

1:07

Just give me a second here.

1:14

I'm not having any advance.

1:16

Okay, there you go.

1:18

So um the subject of uh the um presentation for study session today is really to provide an introduction to the um the planning commission's recommendation they made back on September 3rd to City Council.

1:31

Um and so in this presentation, I'm going to go through um kind of the broad overview of the recommendations and sort of the um policy guidance that we received that that guided our way through these um uh these recommendations and then uh Matt will be taking over and going through some of the different code sections that um are in the amendment package and um things that the council may hear at the public hearing tonight and the written commentary.

1:56

So really um the scope of this uh is uh amendments to the nomination process and criteria for local historic districts and individual city landmarks um and uh uh reducing some of the uh regulatory burdens on um uh properties within uh residential historic districts, the creation of a new community heritage register, uh the expansion of the existing special tax valuation incentive program, which council may be familiar with uh to include national register properties is currently limited to uh local landmarks and local historic districts, as well as changes that are driven by changes in state law, uh such as um owner consent requirements and then mitigation guidance into the demolition and review process.

2:40

So kind of a broad overview.

2:43

Um the the guidance that we've received um through the prior discussions uh with city council, with the planning commission, and with the landmarks commission over the past couple of years, um and also uh influenced by the direction we receive from the uh moratorium that currently exists on the consideration of local historic districts.

3:00

Um we kind of have uh an overall kind of framework we're working with.

3:04

And the first really was to work with the uh nomination process, especially for um local historic districts, but also for local landmarks.

3:12

And what you'll see in the code is um the addition of inclusive criteria for nomination processes, uh a clarification and cleanup of the historic district nomination process, especially the coordination between the planning commission and the landmarks commission, and then as I mentioned before, there's some changes at the state level that we had to incorporate.

3:30

So for the district nomination process, really um it's a zoning process, and what we have done and what our guidance was really was to make it consistent with the existing zoning area wide rezone process um that is in code and the landmarks commission is a process and the historic district process under the existing code differs slightly, um, especially um in the sense that the um the local historic districts are the only thing they don't move forward to city council if the planning commission doesn't recommend it forward.

4:00

Oops, sorry.

4:02

Um as I mentioned before, uh our direction was to consider ways to reduce barriers and burdens on uh um design review within local historic districts, and there's actually um we've had some comment on that at the planning commission level, and I'd expect that the comments that come into city council will also um uh reflect some some uh uh input on that.

4:21

And then the demolition review, we had some directors' rules or administrative rules to clarify the code, and then um things like uh compulsory nominations uh for landmarks that are considered for potential landmarks that are considered for demolition.

4:35

Um we we no longer are able to put those on a historic register um without the consent of the owner.

4:44

And so this is my last slide before I hand it off to Matt.

4:47

Um, just general to orient ourselves what the historic preservation program does.

4:52

Um so we have several functional areas.

4:54

We identify historic sites, uh we do that through historic surveys and inventories.

5:00

We administer the Tacoma Register of Historic Places, including local historic districts and that area-wide rezone process and the designation of landmarks to the individual Tacoma Register of Historic Places.

5:10

We do design review and also development review for cultural resources impacts, approval of historic incentives, as I mentioned, the special tax valuation program.

5:19

And then also we have events and outreach programming year-wide, but especially in historic preservation month.

5:25

And so that's kind of the scope that we're working with.

5:27

And in this in the present, you know, set of code amendments, really, we're working also with the with a very specific scope, this oriented towards the code.

5:36

There's other broader program areas and things like that that we'll be will be working on in the future as a part of the comprehensive plan amendment as we move forward.

5:45

So Matt, I'm gonna turn it over to you.

5:47

All right, thank you, Ruben.

5:49

Um so I just have eight slides that at a very high level walk uh council members through the code changes to give you a flavor of the recommendations.

5:58

For starters, the changes to the zoning code were really uh were largely procedural in nature.

6:04

Uh they were about you know clarifying that historic district requests are in fact zoning requests, um, clarifying the sequential review between the landmarks commission and the planning commission with the idea that the LPC is reviewing historic significance while the planning commission is reviewing compatibility with land use policy and framework.

6:24

And that finally that the recommendations of both those commissions come forward to you as the council, as is the case with other zoning uh recommendations.

6:34

The recommended changes uh include several important clarifications regarding historic design review, including exempting religious properties from historic review in keeping with state law, uh exempting ordinary maintenance and repairs, and exempting changes that uh some changes that are not on a prominent facade or located on a prominent parcel, and removing some outdated requirements that had been in the code regarding paper submittals.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Homelessness█████████████████████████████29%
Public Safety███████████████15%
Historic Preservation██████████10%
Budget Equity Analysis██████████10%
Procedural████████8%
Arts And Culture████████8%
Affordable Housing██████6%
Economic Development████4%
Public Engagement███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Tacoma City Council Study Session Summary

The Tacoma City Council held a study session on October 7, 2025, to discuss five major items: historic preservation code amendments, Tacoma Creates ordinance amendments, 2025-2026 mid-biennium budget modifications, a council consideration request to amend camping and storage of personal belongings on public property, and property tax exemptions for multi-family housing. The session included presentations, council questions, and public input scheduled for the evening. No formal votes were taken during the study session; decisions and next steps were outlined for future meetings.

Historic Preservation Code Amendments

  • Reuben McKnight (Historic Preservation Officer) and Matt Davis (Architectural Resources Group) presented the Planning Commission's recommendations from September 3, 2025.
  • Key proposed changes: reduce eligibility age from 50 to 40 years, add criteria for culturally significant events/individuals, create a non-regulatory Tacoma Community Heritage Register (age threshold 25 years), expand special tax valuation to National Register properties, require owner consent for properties under 125 years, and clarify historic district nomination as a zoning process with sequential review by Landmarks Commission (historic significance) and Planning Commission (land use compatibility).
  • Council questions addressed: economic hardship provisions for income-limited property owners (existing code allows documented hardship waivers), the five-year waiting period for repeat district nominations (discretionary, not mandatory), and the role of the Planning Commission as a potential stop point (now allowed to move forward to council regardless).
  • Councilmember Rumbaugh noted District Two has all historic districts and expressed desire for districts elsewhere in the city.

Tacoma Creates Ordinance Amendments

  • Mayor Woodards presented an updated proposal developed with co-sponsors (Deputy Mayor Daniels, Councilmembers Scott, Walker) and the Tacoma Creates Advisory Board after a meeting on October 3, 2025.
  • Changes from original proposal: increased cultural organization funding from 76% to 78% (matching community request), decreased capacity and administration funding by 1% each, removed specific capital expenditure percentage from cultural organization section, added a 6% limit on capital expenditures from the administration section with rollover up to 12% per two-year period, and specified that capital expenditures be funded from fund balance above reserves as available.
  • Councilmember Rumbaugh offered a motion to direct the city manager to present spending criteria to council prior to implementation; council members expressed support.
  • Christina Kahn (staff) was credited with devising the compromise. Councilmember Bushnell withdrew his alternative amendment.
  • Councilmembers broadly agreed the proposal achieved balance between programming and capital needs.

2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Modifications

  • Andy Cherullo (Finance Director) and Jeff Upton (Finance Manager) presented the proposed modifications, citing economic uncertainty (weakening labor market, inflation uptick, federal government shutdown, tariff volatility).
  • Year-to-date general fund revenues are about $2.1 million positive (but overstated by ~$1.5M), with three of four major revenue sources (business tax, sales tax, utility tax) negative; property tax is on track. Expenditures show $5.2 million underspend (partly timing-related).
  • Proposed general fund additions total $20.8 million, reductions total $3.2 million, net addition of $17.6 million. Key additions: police/fire overtime ($2M fire, $1.28M police), lateral incentive program, body-worn cameras/tasers ($1.7M), health care rate adjustment (14% increase for 2026 vs. budgeted 8%), workers' comp, third-party liability fund, and environmental services legal support ($3.5M). Reductions: vacant positions in fire (HOPE team) and police (three positions), contract services in neighborhood/community services ($640K), and various other department cuts.
  • Non-general fund adjustments total $17 million, plus $37.8 million in grants and revenues (including $18M from Sound Transit for South 58th/Adams projects).
  • The $17.6M net addition will be funded from $17.5M in cash reserves above required levels; general fund reserves remain fully funded at about $84 million.
  • Councilmembers asked about: police overtime and lateral program interaction, HOPE team vacancies, shelter contract reductions, watershed modeling details, and the one-percent-for-arts program adjustment for environmental services.
  • Next steps: additional study session on October 14, public hearing and first reading on October 21, adoption on October 28.

Council Consideration Request – Amending Title 8 (Camping and Personal Belongings on Public Property)

  • Councilmember Hines presented a proposal to update the 2022 camping ordinance (TMC 8.19) due to closure of several emergency shelter sites, resulting in reduced buffer zones and increased encampment impacts.
  • Proposed changes: (1) add buffer zones around permanent shelters (e.g., Rescue Mission, Nativity House) using the same model as temporary shelters, (2) add buffer zones around public schools, parks, and public libraries (with options of 10-block, 5-block, or 2-block radii), (3) include diversion to therapeutic courts (community court, behavioral health court) where applicable.
  • Six maps were provided showing various combinations of buffer radii and current/previous areas. Councilmember Hines emphasized the policy is about private use of public space, not a homelessness solution.
  • Council discussion: Councilmember Walker supported adding shelter status updates alongside the policy; Councilmember Sadalge supported as a prioritization for public facilities; Councilmember Bushnell asked about private property owners offering tiny home village sites and low-barrier shelter availability; Councilmember Diaz requested a map with 5-block buffers around permanent/temporary shelters (instead of 10) and asked about HOPE team capacity; Councilmember Scott expressed concerns about equity (disproportionate impact on lower-income neighborhoods), lack of measurable reduction in encampments, and questioned whether the policy merely displaces people; Deputy Mayor Daniels questioned costs (noted $11 million biennium enforcement reported earlier) and lack of a comprehensive city homelessness strategy, and asked about pre-engagement with impacted council districts.
  • Councilmember Hines committed to further revisions based on feedback and to bring a comprehensive homelessness plan to future discussions.

Property Tax Exemptions for Multi-Family Housing Ordinance Amendments

  • Councilmember Sadalge presented a substitute amendment (Substitute No. 2) to the MFTE ordinance.
  • Changes: 8-year exemption available to all developments of 20+ units; for developments of 4–19 units, limited to home-ownership occupancy (condos). Title note requirement extended to all MFTEs for transparency.
  • Councilmember Hines signed on as co-sponsor. Councilmember Bushnell asked about affordability caps for 4–19 unit homeownership projects; Councilmember Sadalge agreed to discuss a 120–150% AMI cap offline.
  • This item was scheduled for a vote at the regular council meeting later that evening.

Executive Session

  • Council unanimously approved a motion to convene an executive session for pending and potential litigation, not to exceed 15 minutes, with no further business after the session except adjournment.

Key Outcomes

  • Historic preservation code amendments: public hearing on October 7 (evening), first reading October 14, final reading October 21, effective date early November.
  • Tacoma Creates ordinance amendments: consensus reached; Councilmember Rumbaugh's motion to present spending criteria before implementation was accepted; formal adoption pending.
  • Mid-biennium budget modifications: further study session on October 14, public hearing and first reading October 21, adoption October 28.
  • Camping ordinance: Councilmember Hines will revise based on map options and council feedback, with additional discussion on a comprehensive homelessness strategy.
  • MFTE amendments: substitute version to be voted on at October 7 regular council meeting; potential affordability cap for smaller developments to be discussed.

Meeting Transcript

I'd like to call to order the city council study session of October 7th, 2025. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Councilmember Bushnell. Present. Councilmember Daniels, or sorry, Deputy Mayor Daniels. Abstent Councilmember Diaz. Here. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Rumba here. Councilmember Sidalgay. Here. Councilmember Scott. Here. Councilmember Walker. Here. Mayor Witards. Here. The material is sent to you at 1215. Thank you very much. All right. Our first agenda item today is the Historic Preservation Code Amendments. And I would like to begin by calling on Planning and Development Services, Historic Preservation Office Officer, Ruben McKnight to begin the presentation. Ruben, it's all yours. Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council. I'm Reuben McKnight, I'm the Historic Preservation Officer with Plan Development Services. I'm here with Matt Davis with the Architectural Resources Group, who has been uh helping us with the uh code amendments that um are the subject of a public hearing tonight at City Council. And so, let's see if this works. Just give me a second here. I'm not having any advance. Okay, there you go. So um the subject of uh the um presentation for study session today is really to provide an introduction to the um the planning commission's recommendation they made back on September 3rd to City Council. Um and so in this presentation, I'm going to go through um kind of the broad overview of the recommendations and sort of the um policy guidance that we received that that guided our way through these um uh these recommendations and then uh Matt will be taking over and going through some of the different code sections that um are in the amendment package and um things that the council may hear at the public hearing tonight and the written commentary. So really um the scope of this uh is uh amendments to the nomination process and criteria for local historic districts and individual city landmarks um and uh uh reducing some of the uh regulatory burdens on um uh properties within uh residential historic districts, the creation of a new community heritage register, uh the expansion of the existing special tax valuation incentive program, which council may be familiar with uh to include national register properties is currently limited to uh local landmarks and local historic districts, as well as changes that are driven by changes in state law, uh such as um owner consent requirements and then mitigation guidance into the demolition and review process. So kind of a broad overview. Um the the guidance that we've received um through the prior discussions uh with city council, with the planning commission, and with the landmarks commission over the past couple of years, um and also uh influenced by the direction we receive from the uh moratorium that currently exists on the consideration of local historic districts. Um we kind of have uh an overall kind of framework we're working with. And the first really was to work with the uh nomination process, especially for um local historic districts, but also for local landmarks. And what you'll see in the code is um the addition of inclusive criteria for nomination processes, uh a clarification and cleanup of the historic district nomination process, especially the coordination between the planning commission and the landmarks commission, and then as I mentioned before, there's some changes at the state level that we had to incorporate. So for the district nomination process, really um it's a zoning process, and what we have done and what our guidance was really was to make it consistent with the existing zoning area wide rezone process um that is in code and the landmarks commission is a process and the historic district process under the existing code differs slightly, um, especially um in the sense that the um the local historic districts are the only thing they don't move forward to city council if the planning commission doesn't recommend it forward. Oops, sorry. Um as I mentioned before, uh our direction was to consider ways to reduce barriers and burdens on uh um design review within local historic districts, and there's actually um we've had some comment on that at the planning commission level, and I'd expect that the comments that come into city council will also um uh reflect some some uh uh input on that. And then the demolition review, we had some directors' rules or administrative rules to clarify the code, and then um things like uh compulsory nominations uh for landmarks that are considered for potential landmarks that are considered for demolition. Um we we no longer are able to put those on a historic register um without the consent of the owner. And so this is my last slide before I hand it off to Matt. Um, just general to orient ourselves what the historic preservation program does. Um so we have several functional areas. We identify historic sites, uh we do that through historic surveys and inventories. We administer the Tacoma Register of Historic Places, including local historic districts and that area-wide rezone process and the designation of landmarks to the individual Tacoma Register of Historic Places. We do design review and also development review for cultural resources impacts, approval of historic incentives, as I mentioned, the special tax valuation program. And then also we have events and outreach programming year-wide, but especially in historic preservation month.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com