I'd like to call to order the City Council study session for December 2nd, 2025.

Clerk, will you please call the role?

Councilmember Bushnell.

Present.

Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Absent.

Councilmember Diaz.

Councilmember Hines.

Councilmember Rumba.

Here.

Councilmember Sidalgay.

Here.

Councilmember Scott.

Here.

Councilmember Walker.

Here.

Mayor Woodards.

Here.

Mayor, the set Mayor and Council of the study session materials were sent at 11.04 a.m.

Thank you very much.

All right, our first agenda item is Puget Sound Nutrient Regulations, and I'd like to call on the Director of Environmental Services, Ramero Chavez, to begin the presentation.

Rami, I'll turn it to you.

Good afternoon, uh Mayor, Council members.

Uh, my name is Ramiro Chavez, Environmental Services Director and City Engineer.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a brief introduction before Teresa Peterson and Cassandra Moore present a more detailed overview.

Today's informational briefing focuses on the city's formal comments submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding the draft 2025 Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit.

Tacoma has a long history of leadership in protecting the health.

Well, Puget Sound while ensuring the environmental actions are grounded in sound science, fiscal responsibility in fairness to our community.

Our primary concern relate to the significant financial, technical and operational implications of the proposed permit.

Particularly a potential impacts to utility rates and affordability to Tacoma residents.

The draft permit proposes to a stringent, more stringent nutrient limits that will require substantial treatment upgrades at both of the city's wastewater facilities.

Without adjustment or additional funding, those requirements could drive major increases in rates over time and reduce the resources available to address other pressing environmental priorities, such as contaminants of emerging concerns and infrastructure upgrades as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor Woodards.

Uh Deputy Mayor Daniels and Council members.

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you today.

I am Therese Peterson, a principal engineer in Environmental Services Asset Management and Technology Services Division.

Today I will be providing a briefing on the Washington State Department of Ecology's regulatory approach for addressing nutrients in Puget Sound.

The anticipated impacts on the city and its wastewater utility, and an overview of the city's comments on two recently proposed regulatory actions by Ecology.

Environmental Services Wastewater Utility has three funding challenges that it faces.

The first is to replace aging infrastructure.

The second is expanding capacity support to support growth and economic development in the city.

The third involves meeting future regulatory requirements.

This includes regulations that we know today, like nutrients, and others that are not yet defined, including contaminants of emerging concern, such as PFOS.

Today's briefing will focus on the third challenge and specifically nutrient regulations.

Fish and aquatic life need oxygen in the water to survive, just like we need air.

Oxygen levels in water aren't influenced by nutrients alone.

They're also influenced by a complex set of factors, including temperature and seasonal changes.

In marine environments like Puget Sound, nitrogen is the primary nutrient of concern.

Washington sets water quality standards to protect people, wildlife, and the environment.

These standards address key factors like temperature, oxygen, and nutrients to keep our waters clean and healthy.

It's considered highly conservative, not based on current biological science, and has been the subject of scientific debate and appeals for decades.

While ecology is updating the freshwater standard, the marine standard remains the same.

Using the 1967 standard and a complex water quality model, ecology has determined that parts of Puget Sound are impaired for dissolved oxygen.

To address this, ecology is pursuing a regulatory approach focused on reducing nitrogen, particularly from the wastewater treatment plants.

In January 2022, ecology issued the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit.

Tacoma's two wastewater treatment plants are among the 58 wastewater plants covered by this permit.

Combined, the wastewater treatment plants contribute only 7% of the total nitrogen entering Puget Sound.

The majority is coming from the Pacific Ocean.

Ecology notes that wastewater plants are the highest human cause source, but even then, the human portion only accounts for 9% of the total nitrogen in Puget Sound.

The city has actively participated in ecology's regulatory process processes, including providing comments on draft documents.

Unfortunately, many of the city's concerns on the draft general permit were not addressed in the final general permit.

As a result, Tacoma's leadership, along with many other utilities, made the very difficult decision to appeal the general permit.

In February 2025, the general permit was invalidated by the pollution control hearings board.

The board ruled that ecology cannot issue a mandatory permit, two mandatory permits for the same discharge.

In June 2025, Ecology released a draft voluntary version of the general permit.

While voluntary, the requirements are nearly identical to the previous general permit, including pre-2021 based nutrient caps that will limit growth and require expensive treatment upgrades to stay below it.

These upgrades risk becoming stranded investments when final discharge limits are required in the future.

The permit also requires an engineering evaluation and monitoring.

Also in June, Ecology released the draft Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction Plan, which proposes regional nitrogen limits for both stormwater and wastewater sources, including the 58 wastewater plants in the general permit.

These proposed limits are significantly more stringent than those required in the general permit's engineering evaluation.

Ecology also proposed a compliance timeline requiring that all 58 wastewater plants be upgraded and fully operational by 2050.

Environmental services submitted formal comments on both draft documents in August 2025.

This briefing will highlight the key pillars of concern and anticipated impacts raised in those comment letters.

The executive summary for those comment letters was included with the study session memorandum provided to you in your council packet.

Ecology also noted that in noted in June that it plans to issue both documents by the end of this year.

Regional utilities, including Tacoma, have been working together to communicate four key pillars that we believe are essential to finding the right balance when it comes to nutrient regulations.

These pillars reflect the practical, financial, and scientific realities we face as we work toward protecting Puget Sound while also serving our communities.

First, affordability.

The level of treatment being proposed will require significant capital investments, leading to substantial utility rate increases.

We need to ensure that any regulatory path forward is financially sustainable.

Second, growth.

Nutrient caps that don't account for population increases could limit our ability to support growth and economic development in the city.

We need a regulatory framework that allows for responsible growth while still protecting water quality.

Third, benefits.

We believe more work is needed to align the regulatory approach with the best available science.

And finally, partnership.

We need a transparent and collaborative process with ecology and other stakeholders to develop long-term and sustainable solutions.

Utilities want to be part of the solution, but we need to be at the table in a meaningful way.

After the original general permit was invalidated in February of this year, Ecology hosted a webinar in March, during which it introduced even more stringent nitrogen treatment targets, effectively moving the goalposts.

Ecology also announced its plans to release the two draft documents, the general permit and the reduction plan in June.

In preparation, environmental services continued its engineering evaluation and directed its consultants to evaluate ecology's pivot for more stringent limits.

This proactive step helped ensure the city was well positioned to provide informed comments on both draft documents.

The consultant provided a draft report that estimated capital cost to upgrade Tacoma's two wastewater treatment plants would range from $625 million to $1.25 billion.

Without substantial external funding, the proposed regulations will place a severe financial burden on Tacoma's ratepayers.

Current federal and state funding opportunities fall far short of what would be needed to upgrade over 50 wastewater treatment plants in Puget Sound by 2050.

To fund the upgrades, the average monthly household bill would need to increase from $68 a month today to over $400 for the lower range of $625 million.

At the upper cost estimate of $1.25 billion, the wastewater bill would be much higher.

In addition, this rate impact does not reflect the additional annual operations and maintenance cost increases, nor does it address the other funding challenges that the utility faces, including replacing aging infrastructure and accounting for future growth.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency or EPA considers a wastewater bill to be unaffordable when it exceeds 2% of a household income.

Under ecology's March limits and the lower range of $625 million, the percent of burden Tacoma households, those paying above the threshold, is anticipated to skyrocket from 14% today to 67% by 2050.

Again, that's at the lower limit, not the upper limit.

Furthermore, the draft reduction plans even more stringent limits could even more than double these financial impacts.

Tacoma is not alone.

Other utilities and jurisdictions across Puget Sound face similar financial impacts under the proposed regulations.

If ecology moves forward with a general permit without any changes, it will cap wastewater discharges at pre-2021 conditions, which does not include the plant's permitted design capacity for future growth.

This would leave Tacoma unable to support its home and Tacoma affordable housing initiatives.

In addition, the city could face permit violations until upgrades requiring at least 12 to 15 years to complete are built.

In contrast and in conflict with the draft general permit, the draft reduction plan proposes even more restrictive limits that basically cap discharges at 2014 flow levels and would require treatment at the limit of technology.

When we account for growth, this means that those limits are actually below the limit of technology.

These requirements greatly exceed what Tacoma was asked to evaluate under the original general permit engineering evaluation.

Furthermore, the upgrades needed to meet these new limits may not be technically feasible and would likely take well beyond 2050 to implement.

The city's formal comments on both draft documents emphasize that these proposed caps and limits could severely constrain Tacoma's ability to meet its obligations under the Growth Management Act, support future growth, and expand affordable housing options.

Under the more stringent limits proposed in the draft reduction plan, that demand could double.

Similar increases are expected across the more than 50 wastewater treatment plants in the region of Puget Sound.

In conversations with Tacoma Power, it became clear that regional power utilities are not yet aware of the full scale of electricity demand that would result from nutrient removal upgrades across Puget Sound.

The additional power demand could further challenge and further compound the growing regional power demands, such as from population growth, the shift to electric heating, and a rise in electric vehicle adoption.

Environmental services has encouraged ecology to proactively engage with Puget Sound power providers to begin a coordinated planning effort for these significant increases in regional power demand.

One of the key pillars that was raised in the formal comments to ecology is the importance of grounding regulatory decisions in the best available science.

There is ongoing scientific debate about the actual magnitude of the environmental benefits that would result from the costly upgrades currently being proposed.

Given the scale of investment required, environmental services believes it is essential to first align the regulatory approach with the most current and credible scientific understanding.

Ecology has relied on the Salish C model using the 1967 standard, which has not been updated.

Additionally, the modeling relies on a regulatory provision that has not been approved by the EPA.

The lack of approval introduces regulatory uncertainty and may result in more expensive upgrades than what is needed.

Ecology submitted documentation to EPA this October, and the approval process could take years.

More importantly, this approach does not incorporate the new and evolving science that is currently available for Puget Sound water quality and aquatic life.

There is a risk that the currently proposed treatment limits are overly conservative, misaligned with actual environmental needs, and may be unnecessarily expensive to implement, thereby facing thereby placing a significant burden on Tacoma's ratepayers.

For these reasons, environmental services department has asked ecology to reconsider its current approach and to collaborate with leading academic and scientific institutions to ensure that any regulatory actions are scientifically defensible and will result in a measurable change in Puget Sound.

To ensure that nutrient regulations in Puget Sound are grounded in the best available science, the city has recommended that ecology engage in formal collaboration with all stakeholders, including Washington's academic and scientific institutions, such as the University of Washington's Puget Sound Institute and Washington State Academy of Sciences.

These institutions have expertise in marine science, ecosystem modeling, and environmental policy, and can provide independent science-based analysis to inform regulatory decisions.

Similar partnerships have proven successful in other regions.

In San Francisco Bay, collaboration between the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Environmental Community, and the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies has resulted in adaptive science-driven nutrient management strategies.

Likewise, in Chesapeake Bay, long-standing cooperation between scientific institutions, regulatory agencies, and the utilities has helped develop a nutrient reduction strategy that is both environmentally effective and operationally feasible.

By fostering similar partnerships here in Washington and the Puget Sound, Ecology could promote a more transparent, informed, and regionally appropriate approach for nutrient management in the area.

I would like to highlight that environmental services has been actively collaborating with regional partners to address the key concerns raised in response to ecology's draft documents.

This has been a coordinated effort involving other utilities, the association of Washington Cities, and Ecology, with the goal of ensuring that any regulatory approach is both environmentally effective and operationally feasible.

Here are examples of several key actions the department has taken as part of this collaboration.

First, the department participated in a joint utility and AWC meeting with the governor's office to discuss those concerns in more detail and to advocate for a more balanced science-based approach.

Second, we participated in a joint utility and AWC meeting directly with the director of ecology to discuss these concerns and reinforce the need for collaboration, transparency, and the integration of updated science into the regulatory process.

Third, over 40 mayors and managers of utility districts across Puget Sound signed a joint letter organized by AWC utility leaders, including Tacoma, which was sent to Governor Ferguson this month.

This letter outlined some of the key pillars of issues, many of which you have heard in this briefing.

In addition, the letter requested the governor support a collaborative approach and process led by a third party facilitator.

Fourth, we are currently coordinating a tour of Tacoma's central treatment plant with King County and Ecology representatives.

This upcoming visit would provide an opportunity to show firsthand the scale and complexity of our facility and to continue the dialogue around practical implementation timelines.

Fifth, the department is voluntarily completing the original permits engineering evaluation ahead of any formal requirement to better understand the potential impacts of the proposed limits and to provide informed feedback to ecology.

A portion of this effort has been funded by a grant from the Department of Ecology, and we would like to thank them for that.

Ecology recently notified our department that additional grant funding will be provided to the city to complete this important work.

And finally, the department also engaged in voluntary is also engaged in voluntary nutrient monitoring, which contributes to valuable data to support the regional understanding of nutrient dynamics in Puget Sound.

These efforts reflect our commitment of being a constructive partner in this process.

The department is not just raising concerns, we're offering solutions, sharing data, and working collaboratively to shape a regulatory pathway that protects water quality while supporting Tacoma's long-term growth and affordability goals.

In closing, environmental stewardship has long been a core value for Tacoma, and the concerns we have shared today reflect the complexity of nutrient management and the shared responsibility to sustainably protect the health of Puget Sound.

Tacoma continues to advocate for sustainable science-based solutions, ones that are grounded in the best available science, deliver measurable environmental outcomes, and remain affordable for our ratepayers.

This is essentially especially important when proposed regulations could impact housing supply, affordability, and the utilities' ability to address other critical environmental priorities.

Environmental services respectfully requests the support of Tacoma's mayor and city council in advancing a regional approach that provides meaningful collaboration and partnership across Puget Sound.

An approach that addresses the key pillars of affordability, growth, benefits, and partnership, and allows us to move forward with the right balance between improving water quality, managing nutrients, and ensuring responsible public utility management.

We are not asking to delay the process.

We are asking to ensure that we move forward in a way that is meaningful, balanced, thoughtful, and achievable.

With your leadership, Tacoma can continue to help shape a regional path forward for that protects water quality while also supporting affordable housing, economic development, scientific integrity, and long-term environmental resilience.

Thank you very much.

Whoops.

Thank you all very much, and thank you so much for the presentation.

I just want to say obviously a ton of work has happened.

And Tacoma's not afraid to be a regional leader.

So thank you all for continuing to work together and all the great work that you all are doing.

Obviously, you know the burden that this could put on us as a city, which is scary in some ways.

Um, and we want the same results as well.

So with that, I will just one question.

You did talk about a letter of support.

I'm wondering what your timeline is for that.

Thank you, Mayor.

So at this point, um, we would like to see um call the problem ecology is taking the next steps and issuing the permit.

Okay.

So it will be probably um uh flexible on the timing, but we will certainly engage you and the council members when they're time strike.

Perfect, thank you very much.

All right, um, Sarah.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Rumbaugh.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I just I want to thank you.

I mean, this is you have taken something that is very complex and tried to make it simple, but it's not simple.

And um, I think we all know that, and I appreciate you coming forward.

I guess one of my questions is are there any of the people who were part of or the municipalities that are part of the 2022 Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit that are actually doing upgrades that meet the standards for what Department of Ecology is looking for?

Are they like are they going ahead and charging their users for what it's gonna cost to meet the need those requirements?

Council Mayor Ramba, no, many of the utilities are waiting to better understand what the final limits will be from the Department of Ecology.

Um there are some other utilities that are voluntarily completing their engineering evaluations, just like the city of Tacoma.

Um, but we are waiting for those final limits to be implemented.

Okay, and I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And then the question like I'm just why are we using something from 1967 as a water quality standard?

Like that's almost like that's 70, like how almost 70, well, 60, 60 something years ago.

I mean, like, why are we using that?

Um good question, Councilmember Ramba, and that is one of a portion of our comments that we submitted to ecology.

Um the uh thing there is an opportunity to bring the size to the present.

It's not the choosing of the city to use the science of 1967.

Okay.

Because the Department of Ecology who bases their decisions on that science.

All right, and then I know that Puget Sound is different.

I appreciate the two examples you gave, which was Chesapeake Bay, which has they're doing something special, like people are paying to like write off the I can't remember what you call it, but they have a system that they're using there to help make up for like the like their issues with what's happening in the Bay, um, or they say is happening to meet the standards.

And then San Francisco Bay, which is also different than Puget Sound.

So we know in Puget Sound there are these areas where there's where the during certain months the um the uh effluence gets caught in these little areas, and so I think like thinking about Puget Sound differently than other places is really important, and I appreciate that you're being really careful about your examples.

Um it seems to me that like the biggest issue with this is um we're looking for other available science, and we keep thinking there's gonna be a better, once we know what they want, there may be a better available science to get to where we need to go.

Like they might have developed something that will be necessary and that they'll come up with in the future.

I this issue since I got on council, that's four years ago we were talking about this, and it's not gonna go away.

I mean, I appreciate we're having this conversation.

This is not gonna go away.

We we're gonna have to deal with this at some point.

I'm hoping that we feel like maybe a solution is that once there's changes in Washington, there might be more federal dollars for this.

I think this is really important, and I am a firm believer that our that commencement Bay and Puget Sound are what make us so special.

And we have these great mountains, and we have the most beautiful place to live in the I think in the United States, and I don't want it to not be that because we and I understand that you're saying 10% is from human, um, but I also know that 10% from human, and if it's only in this one area where we're not able to get it out further, or like there's overflow discharge issues, and I understand this is a bigger issue than what you're saying here.

I also understand cost is really one of the number one things that we're looking at is making it affordable for the users, and I appreciate that we care about that.

I really this is one of the most important things that I think we have to struggle with over the next four years that I'm gonna be on council.

I hope that we have some more ideas of what's gonna happen next.

Um I'm gonna stay on you about this because this is like for me one of the biggest things, and I really appreciate that we're here having this conversation.

I think it's important to talk to community.

I think it's important that we intersect with people that are sitting on our commissions that care about this issue and we listen to them.

Um that's important to me is that we always are transparent about what we're doing.

And I appreciate how you're leading, Ramiro.

This is important.

That just you being here today to talk about this.

I appreciate it.

So I just those are my those are just some things I wanted to say, but it does seem like it's about cost and coming up with the next next of the best available science as we move forward.

And if I'm wrong about that, let me know.

Maybe Cassandra and Teresa can help on this, but it does absolutely on point is um what we are requesting from ecology is to have a broader conversation uh to touch base on on the best available science because there is some available science that we can have a discussion.

And we asking for perhaps for a third party to be the one who facilitates those conversations at the region level.

Because you're right.

I mean, the the Puget Sound is mass, big, and I think we need to be looking from the larger context as to how we're gonna be bringing the health of maintaining the health of Picha Sound.

Um and that is really the basis and one of the bases of the pillars of our recommendation.

This comes to the table, this kind of a third-party facilitator.

There's some available science out there by some renowned uh groups, they have provided that that piece of information.

So at least broadened the conversation, as opposed to, in my opinion, just having a uh uh a single issuance of the permit.

All right.

Is that all your questions, Councilmember?

All right.

Councilmember Hines.

Is that Walker had Walker?

She's she's back now.

She dropped out and came back.

Oh, well, there we go.

Um why does ecologists say they're using 1967 as their model?

I guess I'd be more blunt more specific about it.

Have we heard why they're using that as their model?

So I heard I mean I understand the point of like we don't agree that that we should use it 1967, but I'm sure they've had to justify 1967 at some point in time, correct?

Or no, as far as I know, I I have no heard of uh justification.

Uh yeah, I mean that that was the first thing that stuck out of my mind.

It's like why are we picking that date?

Did we do a study in 1967?

Do we have data on 1967?

Okay.

All right.

That was the year that they established the standard.

Gotcha.

They do reference a document from 1968 as their technical basis for the 1967 standard.

Okay.

There you go.

All right.

That I I've always questioned around that.

Um if I could jump in as well.

Um there are some academics that are currently doing studies to understand what the actual uh dissolved oxygen needs are for species within the sound, and that's some of the science that we're waiting on.

Okay.

No, I the you know, the I would, you know, I but if we could ever get if I get some more information about like why we land on that, I would love to.

I mean, I want to give it, I want to view it in the best light and not that it's some arbitrary number that was picked up.

Because um, you know, this 1967 was a great year.

Um the second I I think one of the points that you brought up very clearly was kind of the impacts of this.

Um it's something I'm on the board of the association of Washington Cities, and we've been advocating a lot around some of the challenges we're seeing, right?

Which is if the state is saying we want more growth in dense areas and we need to accommodate more housing growth and actually forcing us to accommodate more housing growth by changing our zoning and preempting us, and at the same time adding this these regulations around point source nutrient control, which is gonna impact the cities where they want growth to happen, and then somehow trying to figure out how do we I mean it feels like an unfunded.

I mean, I'm speaking to you, I'm I'm speaking out loud.

It sounds like an un feel like an unfunded mandate that we've been advocating for at the state level to talk about how is the state stepping in to help support with some of this stuff because we have very limited ways to pay for these things.

Um way is we make more growth, pay for some of the impacts, some of the impacts, they can't capture all of them, um, which makes it costly and prohibitive to build more, which may get in the way of some of our housing goals, or we pass this off on all of our current rate payers in our city, um, which as you pointed out, we have a lot of um cost-burdened people that are there uh that with a real tension that we have to work through, and something I'm thinking about both here as a council member and then in my work at the association of Washington Cities.

Um my question to the Councilman Rumbaugh's point is we're starting looking at um technical ways to address this.

Are there, you know, are there people are doing this on the cutting edge, like that are out that there's new technologies out there that we're we're seeing that potentially will become much more financially feasible or more ability to scale in the years ahead that we could be looking at if whenever ecology determines what the actual neutral is requirement is or there are other people we're looking at.

So we are um by finishing our engineering evaluation that was required in the general permit, we are getting an idea of the different technologies available to us and how that would integrate into both of our treatment plants.

Uh Tacoma also participated in an innovative uh pilot with an industry um to see if there was an opportunity to make some of the technologies more feasible.

We're always looking for opportunities to work towards that.

Um, but it is it is somewhat dependent on the limit.

Um, and then there's also the space constraints of our two facilities.

So the limit the opportunities of technologies available to us are limited based off of the space we have.

And I think that is something just is one of the challenges that we face absence reconstructing a brand new sewage treatment facility somewhere where there isn't something already built and a lot of green space to do it.

Like I mean we talk about Pierce County, one of the opportunities that Pierce County had is they had a huge piece of parcel of property of which had nothing on it except for an old gravel mill or gravel field, and they were able to build this huge brand new facility that does treat for nutrients in some ways.

Yes.

And not only is our central tree plant constrained, but our North Tacoma tree plant was even more constrained, correct?

Yeah, even as part of the conversation looking at the consultants, is to look a um, you know, um within the system another treatment facilities.

But we we're dealing with a built environment in the city, and it's extremely difficult to find that type of real estate.

So what we're left absolutely on point, uh Council Member Hines, is the two wastewater facilities, the central and the north uh uh wastewater facilities, they don't have much real estate.

Would reactivating the West Tacoma one that's been closed since the 1970s, is that even a possibility for expanding capacity, or is that so moffballed that we can't do anything?

That serves a different service area than the other two treatment plants.

And that plant also would need additional treatment beyond nutrients.

Okay.

You'd probably have to pump over to that too.

I mean, isn't one of our long-term solutions for this that we're gonna have to pump out of the North Potoma treatment plant to the central treatment plant?

We did look at that, um, but it actually makes more financial sense to upgrade that facility rather than pump it to the central plant.

Okay.

Uh no, I think those are I think those I'm trying to think if there's one other question I had.

No, I appreciate the conversation here, and you know, I think kind of really laying out the one thing I really think we uh is important for us to do for the public is kind of lay out the cost-benefit analysis of these things, right?

We can do almost anything with unlimited money and unlimited technology that may or may not exist.

Um, but we have to really lay out like well to do that, here's what it's going to cost individuals, and I appreciate that we're kind of looking through this.

Um, because I think that's something I think a lot about.

So thank you for the presentation.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

And now Council Member Walker doesn't have a question.

All right.

Um, I don't see any other questions.

Thank you all so much for that.

Oh, sorry, Councilmember Bush now.

Sorry, I was waiting for Councilmember Walker to jump back in.

Um thank you.

Thank you for Mayor, and thank you for the presentation.

Um, and I kind of want to echo sentiments on the 1967 study.

Is there any plans to update that uh currently at all?

Okay.

Um and then could you describe for me a little bit more about we're talking about nutrients?

I I don't I I heard nitrogen burn out there, but what else does that encompass?

Maybe you go back to your initial question of 1967.

That is also part of our comments uh to have the opportunity to bring the 1967 to current um uh uh scientific analysis.

Okay.

Just to add one more thing too, um, ecology is working on updating the freshwater standard for dissolved oxygen, but they have not elected to update the marine standard, which is what would apply to Puget Sound.

Got it.

Thank you.

And then I I appreciate you mentioned earlier that there's kind of some ongoing studies on life, uh, the habitat uh and and sustainability for the the different organisms that uh what their tolerance level for nutrients levels and things of that nature are.

So I think making sure that we're obviously protecting I think everyone's goal here, including the city of Tacoma and ecology is to have the cleanest Puget Sound that we can have.

So I think we're all in alignment there.

Um it's just we want to make sure that everything that we're doing is rooted in in based in the science and and understanding and making sure that we're preserving habitat as much as possible, making sure affluent levels are um you know reasonable, uh, that it doesn't impact uh super uh negatively impact uh in the marine environment.

Um so I'm really I I really like the idea of uh cost-benefit analysis as well as been mentioned earlier.

I think I'd be curious as to um if we were to do complete and have zero nutrients uh or or as close to zero coming out, uh, with how much would that actually impact the the overall uh nutrient levels within the Puget Sound Commensement Bay specifically?

Um would it would it have a uh a big impact and and what kind of data that might look like yeah and I don't know if you guys can answer that now, but I it sounds like it would be like a scientific study.

Maybe on um slide let me give you the number.

Slide number five.

Uh on the bottom of slide number five, you will see the graph.

What is what uh what are the contributors to nutrans in Puget Sound?

And um and get to the cost benefit of the analysis to get zero um may not be achievable because there's other factors outside of the wastewater utilities in the human factor.

Sure.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Are there any more questions?

Okay, now I think we're done.

Thank you all so much um for being here today and for your presentation.

All right.

Now we're gonna move on to um the second agenda item, which is the council action memorandum amending um the landlord fairness code.

And I'd like to call in council member Rumbah.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I um I just want to take a second first off to just appreciate um this entire council for engaging in this important review of the landlord fairness code initiative.

I think everyone had ideas and thoughts on what we should be updating.

And this has been a long journey filled with research, community outreach, and deliberation, and I want to thank the hundreds of community members and organizations that have reached out to me and others for their feedback for um providing feedback.

And I especially want to thank the organizations that have invested in research and data collection and who have shared this information with us to help inform our choices.

Um I also want to thank my fellow community vitality and safety members, um, Councilmember Sidalga, Councilmember Scott and Walker, and our alternate council member Diaz for engaging in these discussions and shaping the policy in front of us today.

The CBS members who attended the November 6th CBS meeting and brought this proposal to the full council for your review are all co-sponsors of the ordinance and have been essential to creating the scope of what is before us.

Um before we dig into this conversation, I want to orient you to the latest comparisons chart for this ordinance.

It goes over what is in the landlord fairness code initiative, what was presented on the November 18th, and the changes that are in the ordinance in front of us.

And I just want to kind of um talk about what we incorporated based on November 18th study session discussion.

So it limits one of the things that does is it limits deed restricted affordable housing exemptions to nonprofit entities.

I heard that that was one of the things people wanted to see, and it's defined by RCW 84.36.560, which covers nonprofit organizations that provide rental housing or use space to qualifying households.

So that's one of the changes.

Another one is units exempted from the landlord fairness code initiative, are all still that this is just a helpful for you to know, are still required to comply with tenant protection laws before evicting a tenant.

We changed the um 80% AMI requirement um for the cold weather eviction defense to a hundred and twenty percent AMI requirement.

We changed the cold weather eviction defense dates from December 1st to March 1st um to November 14th to um March 15th.

So it's uh November 14th to March 15th now.

So a little bit shorter amount of a little bit longer amount of time.

We moved the 75 dollar maximum for late fees so that the late fees can only be up to 1.5% of monthly rent.

And then we extended the notice requirement.

It had two notices, one for 120 days and another for a hundred um for 200 and I can't remember it's 220 days, I think.

We just went to one of 180 days.

So it used to be you had to do two, now you only have to do one.

Um, and then this ordinance is on the agenda for first reading tonight with a second reading on December 9th.

So that's just a high level view of what we did for amendments based on what we heard.

And I've believe I talked to everyone who wanted to talk to me about this.

If there's any questions, hopefully I can answer them.

Great, thank you, Sarah.

Say Councilmember Rumpah.

I'm really losing it today.

All right.

Any questions or comments, Councilmember Bush now?

Uh thank you, Mayor.

And uh thank you again, Councilmember Rumbaugh, for all your work on this.

I know this is uh and CVS and everybody on CVS.

I know this has been a long um long and um topic of conversation and a lot of community engagement.

I really appreciate that.

Um of the questions I had in regards to the definition for the nonprofit entity, um the the deed restricted housing, um so would the with the new the new verbiage excuse me as I try and think this through the new verbiage, does that allow for for-profit uh affordable housing that are deed restricted?

Uh or is that is that uh I want to say it's it's that specific definition, the RCW.

I I it's believe it's for nonprofits, or it might be nonprofits that have a there could be I believe a for-profit that might have a nonprofit part of it, but it's not for for profit.

Okay.

I I guess that was one of the concerns people had.

Okay.

Um I I think there are many different kinds of affordable housing providers out there, both nonprofit and for profit, and if they're if a for-profit is able to make affordable housing work within their uh business model, I I don't think that should necessarily be exempted because at the end of the day we want affordable housing units.

Um and so if they're able to make it work, I I don't know how uh not carving them out as well as as a part of this is is helping us make sure that we're maintaining as many affordable units as as well.

Well, I agree with you.

I agree with you.

I mean, I feel like there's a lot of different types of affordable housing, and that's what you're saying.

I agree.

However, there was a like consensus or concern about what it meant to be a for-profit affordable housing, like providing affordable housing, but being for profit.

Like what what what does that look like?

How do we control that?

What are one of the concerns like was there a way to put something in there that protected I mean, our our rental housing code has protections for what people call slum landlords, and I don't like using that term because I don't really know what that means.

But for people who are are consistently um violating what we have in our rental housing code, we have ways to approach that.

Um, but I I think that that was the concern is that that's what I heard from the community.

Okay.

I mean, if you have an amendment you want to bring forward, I would love to have you bring an amendment forward.

I I I was actually I really appreciated the original language.

Um I was very supportive of the original language because it it doesn't um prescribe uh it talks about deed affordable housing, which I think encompasses a of the wide swath of affordable housing um specifically, and and this gets very prescriptive to nonprofits only, and I think that affordable housing is is very broad.

And I think the deed restricted specifically would include those for-profit entities that could provide the affordable housing.

So I worked with the affordable housing consortium on their definition.

So anyone who is doing affordable housing through the affordable housing consortium, they're considered their part of what I used for their that was the definition they gave us for nonprofit.

Okay.

So I mean, if if you want to sit down and talk about it, I'd love to talk about it.

Yeah, I I'd love to I'd love to talk about it.

And you know, we'll have another opportunity after the first of the year to look at this again.

Yep.

And we can make some more, we can like talk about what other changes might work or edits.

Great.

Thank you.

Thanks for your questions.

Absolutely.

All right.

Um Deputy Mayor Daniels.

Thanks, Mirror.

Um, I think I just had a question that kind of is in alignment with uh council member Bushnell's um some things I thought about as we define like what is a nonprofit, what is deed restricted, and kind of the difference between the two.

And one of the things that I was thinking about in our kind of time from November 18th to now was um if I am a landlord or a housing provider and I own units and I have um people that I want to evict, but I can't evict them because for whatever reason, any of the reasons where we can or state reasons, um if I go start a nonprofit, am I allowed to then be exempted from this?

Is there like am I exempted from that or does the unit also have to be affordable?

And then kind of the other way around.

If I have a if I am a nonprofit and I decide to build housing, but they're not affordable, because there's no rule that says that, right?

Do though am I also still exempted from this policy?

And I and I only ask that.

Can I just gonna have Linda come up and explain what this actually the RCW says?

Is that okay?

Yeah, would that be good?

Thank you.

Linda, I I think you might as well just um I can hang out.

Okay, hang out there.

I was gonna say you can come here and sit down if you want to, because I think you're gonna be hanging out for a minute.

Sure, I'll do that in just a second.

Hi, I'm Linda Foster, um senior council policy analyst here in the city manager's office.

To answer the question, the way that council member, well, I should say the sponsors, um the way the proposal is written, it says the Tacoma Housing Authority or a nonprofit profit entity, only specifically units with that deed restricted affordable housing.

So let's say the nonprofit entity is 20% market rate and 80% deed restricted affordable housing, it would only be those restricted units that would receive that exemption.

Okay, so they have to so it applies to both the entity and the unit in it of itself.

It's a yes and situation.

And then um also some new language that um we put in is it has to be written into the lease.

It can't just be um something that the the landlord knows it has to be put in the rental agreement so that there's that awareness for the tenant as well for any existing units.

Um they do have to be given 30 days' notice that this would apply.

Um so there is a notification component.

Okay.

Okay, so then that helps me answer the question that I think I was getting to on both sides.

Um the other portion of that is I I want to make sure I understood Joe's question that if it is deed restricted to be affordable, you you are not exempted simply because you're a 50, simply because you're not a 501c3, even if the the unit in and of itself is restricted to affordable housing.

Um so we could follow up on the definition of nonprofit entity.

I'd want to make sure that I am being really um careful because I I don't have a full understanding of if every 501c3 would would be covered by that, I'd want to look into it.

It is state law and it is tied to some of their policies, so I just want to make sure I'm getting that correct.

However, if you do qualify for that state law nonprofit entity and you have that deed restricted affordable housing, the units that are deed restricted would would have that exemption.

Okay, that makes sense.

I think I probably want to follow up with you because I'm just kind of confused.

If the unit is what we're trying to protect here, then it would make sense for it to follow the unit regardless if it's deed restricted, it doesn't matter who creates the unit.

And my just in the way that I generally understand it, but I probably just have more questions about it.

And I want to make sure that we're not like just making sure we're only protecting groups that are in a certain group of an advocacy group, and that we're kind of being more broad about what we're trying to do here.

But that's that's no, but I think that that what you just brought up is opposite of what people wanted from the last meeting.

What we heard strongly was non-profit was the important part with deed restricted.

Right.

It wasn't that it was for a profit with the deed restricted.

So I I think you're I think what you're bringing up is a really important question, Deputy Mayor.

And if that's something that you want to talk about and put something together to bring something else forward, I'd I would love you to do that if that's what you choose.

I think in general, I um yeah, I think it really kind of gets at the larger point that I have that there's like I feel like we're giving mixed signals within here, and that's kind of something that I'm challenged by and wrestling with.

Um that um yeah, and I I don't want to ask more questions right now, but that was one big one that stuck out to me that I want to make sure I actually understood.

So thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Councilmember Scott.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just wanted to start by saying uh that I appreciate um your inclusion of some of the changes that I proposed last week or on the 18th, I guess it's been a while now.

Um but uh just yeah, I'm glad to see that you know we've changed the language a bit.

Um I think it's specifically around the cold weather eviction moratorium, and I think shortening it by two months was would have been quite the I mean it's November.

I if we've been paying attention the last few weeks, it's been very, very cold.

So I think moving it to December would have been not the greatest thing is as considering why that moratorium is there.

Um I do I also appreciate that there has been um more robust of a definition around economic hardship when it comes to selling a unit, and I recognize that it was a tough item to define.

Um, but I think some important boundaries have been set in the code, so I'm appreciative of that.

Um I also appreciate the late fees, limiting the late fees and charges.

Um then I'm glad that we're extending the timeline for rent increase needs to be provided, although um I'm still not certain why providing two notices is a burden to landlords.

I haven't I'm not clear on that just yet.

Um so I think we should continue to monitor the item the as far as this piece of it goes and see if there really is.

I don't like I just I don't see the harm in giving people more of a heads up.

I think that's kind of the whole thing is getting people prepped to make sure that they are able to best prepare themselves if they know that there is going to be something that burdens them in paying the rent where they're at.

Um it takes a long time to find a place.

So I think I'd I'm just not clear on what the the burden is there.

Um, but mainly my concerns that I have remaining, there's a few things.

Honestly, I think that there's still so much outstanding, and I I get that we can talk about this further next year, but considering a lot of the comments and questions and uh from and things we've heard from various people in the community.

Um I don't know which of these things are so important that we can't wait to continue the conversation next year before voting on them in general right now.

Um, but one of the biggest things is the AMI level.

I don't for the cold weather eviction, I'm not sure.

I don't support including means testing for the defense, and I think that means testing just places an unnecessary and often like complex administrative burden on both the tenant and people who are trying to um navigate those, which can result in many eligible individuals not participating in.

I mean, you know, if you're already stressed out about not being able to afford a rent, you're looking at an eviction, the last thing you want to do is have to go hunt down your pay stubs or your tax return or however people decide you have to prove that you are um below the poverty line in some sense.

Um I just also think again, um we s the idea that there are folks that are abusing this who have tons of money and could pay, they're just not paying.

Um beyond anecdotes, I don't necessarily see that that's happening.

And so I think um I would rather see this as keeping the means testing out for now and um monitoring that situation so that we actually have some actual data that tells us that that's something that we're fighting against.

Um also I'm not clear on the piece around um the exemptions for folks with four units or less.

I still struggle to understand exactly how we are gonna identify how many people how many properties people have.

Um I had asked you said that you might send some information and I'll like I just got a definition on what it means on what a small landlord is, not necessarily how we track when people have private trusts and LLCs and uh nonprofits and things like this.

Like I don't know how we actually with fidelity make sure that people are keeping to the four units or less, and that we're not inadvertently giving people um the ability to maneuver around that that rule in any way.

Um I know it does say something about uh creating protections for homeowners with DADUs and ADUs on their property.

Um I also appreciate that.

I just the other question I had, and maybe I didn't have a whole lot of time to see if maybe I was just missing it, but I guess I was trying to make sure that if it's four units or less, and that just that also and those bear with me for a second.

Um if it's four units or less, or uh people who have DADUs, or is it um I guess basically I don't want it to be that somebody might have 10 units somewhere, but then they get exempted, like or I'm trying to understand if you have 10 units elsewhere but you also have an ADU or DADU, are those exempted, but the other 10 aren't.

Are you exempted under um I can just speak to how it's written?

The first thing I want to do is address one of the comments you made.

Um, as with all things in the landlord fairness code initiative, the city doesn't monitor it, it's a civil issue for the courts.

So um what this policy does is define this is how um unit ownership works, and then the courts would be responsible for determining that in a court of law.

Um, if for any reason a landlord perjured themselves in a court of law, I'm not I'm not sure what the ramifications of that could be.

I I believe there would be some.

So that's what just what I would share on that topic.

Um and I do know that there's discussion about bundling the landlord fairness code initiative and the rental housing code into one code next year um through CVS, and that would be a discussion that um would definitely be dug into further.

And the work that would go into that is one of the reasons why council member Rambaugh um has put that on the 2026 agenda and it's not being done right now because it is significant work.

Um regarding the two different things.

So the way the code is written, there is a school year eviction defense.

There is a cold weather eviction defense, and there are different things for each of them.

So just speaking about the cold weather, this does not apply to the school year.

That is where the um ownership of four units or less within the city of Tacoma comes from.

So that doesn't apply to the school year.

Um, however, like let's say I always use myself as an example.

I Linda Foster own a hundred units, only two of them are in the city of Tacoma.

It would still like those two would still be um exempt specifically from the cold weather eviction defense.

That is the way it is currently written.

It matches the way the city of Seattle has written their code, which was what Councilmember Rampa modeled hers off of.

It is a policy decision that could be shifted.

Um when it comes to the ADU one, this applies to both the school year and the cold weather eviction defenses, which is why I just stress that they're different.

And um, that again matches the city of Seattle.

It is um an exemption they have for both of their eviction defenses, and that is if I again Linda Foster, let's say I am so fortunate as to own both a single family home and an ADU on my lot, I could live in either of those units and be exempt from the defense for the other one as long as I live on the unit.

And I do believe they did that in order to incentivize um ADU development in their city.

Did that clarify?

Did I did I address those questions?

Uh maybe I don't know.

I don't know that you did, but that's okay.

I still appreciated that that information.

Yeah, let me know.

We we can also follow up.

Sorry.

Linda, I think the question that council member Scott still needs um clarification in is on how do we know when someone has four units.

I know you said that the courts would ask for the proof, but it's like it's something to do with how if 40% of like if you own 40% of a unit, how does it word it that's how you'd figure out if they had four units or less in the city?

Like that would be a court, the court would be deciding that because someone would be going through an eviction process, and that's how they would be figured out that they were exempt from the cold weather.

So I'm I'm gonna touch on the word we, which is um we the city do not have a registry.

So it would re like if we the city wanted to take on some sort of obligation of of tracking every unit and registering them in ownership, that would be a different discussion.

We do not monitor that as a city.

Um so the court, it would be a court discussion in a civil case.

So if somebody owns like four luxury units and they're getting quite a bit of money from them, they would still be exempt.

Just from the somebody else turn off the mic.

Just from the winter eviction, if they're trying to evict somebody that might not have been paying their rent and they went to court, then the judge would be the one to look into this and say, did do they fit that definition?

It doesn't matter what type of unit, it's that it's what's happening in the unit, and if they're in court, and this becomes applicable at that moment that you have four units at that point, the eviction process.

I guess I'm just trying to understand the small landlord part of it, like because it doesn't like small landlord, we're trying to define a small landlord.

And I and I just want to be clear, we we don't use the phrase small landlord at anywhere in here.

Um small, small in that PowerPoint slide, it was put in quotes to say this isn't a real, we're not defining small landlord at any point.

That's just a colloquial term.

I believe back in 2023, council members often referred to mom and pop landlords, but that is a phrase that also has been requested not to be utilized.

So probably a more accurate phrase is just landlords with four who who own four or fewer units in the city of Tacoma, which is quite long, which is why there's a desire to simplify it.

Um but owner, just to clarify one thing, Councilmember Rambaugh said, um, we the code here um matches the rental housing code definition of owner, um, which is a little different than the city of Seattle definition, and it says owner means one or more persons or entities jointly or severally in whom is vested.

A any all or any part of the legal title to a property, or B all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the property, so it's all or any part.

Um again, we don't have a registry for that here in the city of Tacoma.

Okay, thank you.

Um I just yeah, I think I just want to reiterate that I feel like because there are so many things that, especially because we're not the ones who are enforcing this, it feels like I don't I don't know that I have enough information and data and things that are not anecdotal and things that are not based on how Seattle does it to have a lot of comfort in like I'm I'm glad that we are beyond the first proposal in a sense.

I think that we are better from having conversation now than where we were when we first started.

Um, but it just it concerns me that we are making guidelines and definitions based on what feel more like antidotes than actual data, and I I don't know why Seattle does what they do.

So it's hard for me to say that that's what we should be doing in Tacoma.

Um I so it just yeah, so I I guess that's that's just where I'm at.

But I I mostly just outside of understanding that I think the main thing that I really wanted to um highlight is that I do not believe we should be having any means testing in this.

So thank you.

Councilmember Diaz, thank you, Councilmember Scott.

Councilmember Diaz.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to check.

Councilmember Hines, did you have something you wanted to react to, or can I go for it?

Go to a different topic.

Okay.

Um broader questions further down the road.

Um so I want to thank you, Mayor.

I wanted to daylight a couple of uh amendments that I plan to bring forward.

But first, I wanted to say that I appreciate all of the work and effort to review the full landlord fairness code initiative that council member Rumbaugh did both personally um with staff and in the CVS committee.

I think they did an extensive amount of outreach and research from the little bit I can tell as an alternate to the CVS committee and from the conversations we've had.

Um I also wanted to say that I was able to attend the November 6th CVS meeting as an alternate and dig into the discussion.

And as a committee, we proposed the scope for the learner fairness code initiative, which was further defined at the November 18th study session.

So that's why I'm a co-sponsor of Councilmember Ramal's proposal.

Um that said, I appreciate all the work leading up to this.

There's still two things for me that I can't reconcile.

So I'm proposing two amendments.

Um, I believe on final reading, not this evening on first reading.

Um, and I'd like to go through those.

So one would be about the relocation assistance expansion.

So, first, this is an expansion of the voter-approved relocation assistant requirements.

The landlord fairness code initiative was written to require relocation assistance.

Should rent increase more than five percent, and the tenant needs to relocate to a new rental due to not being able to afford the cost of the increase.

The voter approved landlord fairness code initiative also requires that at least a 180-day notice for a rent increase, which is six months.

The initiative, as written by advocates and passed by the voters, allows for multiple rent increases within a 12-month period that add up to more than 5%, which could allow for more than 5% rent increase increase within a year without the relocation assistance kicking in for folks.

So, with that, I would like to expand the tenant protection to say that the relocation assistance would apply if the rent, if the 5% or more rent increase occurs within a 12-month period.

So, what we're really adding here is the stipulation of within a 12-month period to make it clear that that should um that uh uh assistance should only happen once in the five, and if up to five percent in any one 12-month period.

Um, the other is about cold weather evictions.

Um, I'm looking to make a change to the cold weather eviction defense in the current proposal.

Um, Councilmember Scott brought up a couple of other folks have brought up with me in discussions.

Um, that we would like to see a change in the AMI requirement.

Um, there was a lot of discussion from the original proposal to now even shifting the AMI requirement from 80 to 120 percent.

However, after some reflection, I'm thinking we want to just take out that AMI requirement entirely.

I think removing this requirement would go further to help protect low-income people by not overburdening them with some cumbersome court processes, and um, I think keeps to the spirit of of what was passed by the voters.

Thank you.

All right, any questions of council member Diaz?

Councilmember Hines, can I can I have you turn your light off first?

Unless you have a question, I'd let me take questions for council member Diaz and then I'll call on you.

Oh, I do have one question.

Okay, go ahead and talk about it.

We talked about this before.

My question would be state law currently says you can raise up to 7% with temp with up to 3% with CPI.

You're setting a cap on 5% outpay um relocation assistance.

Is that gonna interfere with the state's preemption on rent control, or do we assume that they it is not a rent control mechanism here because they can always raise rent, they should have to pay money.

Um I will lead on legal to answer that question, but I will just say that I'm in making the amendment.

I wanted to stick to five versus seven just to keep consistent with what we have before us at the city level, but I don't know about the legal piece.

I don't know if legal wants to answer that.

I can't answer that.

Chris, so the state preempts us from doing anything related to quote unquote rent control.

This isn't saying you can't raise your rent above five percent, just as if you do you have to pay money.

Uh is there been any kind of case law or anything about the relocation assistance as it relates to rent control?

My recollection is there's at least one case that's interpreted rent control case out of the city of Seattle.

I haven't looked at that in probably six months.

So we would have to look at this question if there's a proposal that comes up from the council member and provide a legal analysis of whether it is preempted or not, and it may be a gray area.

Okay.

I I mean, in to my mind, right?

I to Council Diaz's amendment, I think it gets closer to the spirit of what was visually passed by the voters, which was this idea of these levels based on per year is what my interpretation of it too.

Um I'm glad that we're closing the Tacoma for all loophole that was left in their document.

So thank you for uh at least looking into that council uh council member Diaz.

Um my other uh other question is related to this, but probably kicks over.

But all if people have questions for council Diaz, I'll hold back and then come up later.

Wait, let's let's uh council member.

Oh, do we have any questions for council member?

I thought Councilmember Walker, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Councilmember Diaz, thank you for these two um and as you mentioned, we talked about the removing the means and I'm supportive of that and supportive of the if if we deem it legally possible, supportive of the the other amendment as well.

My question is um are there other changes it's is it just those two changes that are in this giant packet?

These are the proposed changes from the committee plus yours in this one.

I don't know that mine is printed.

I just didn't look at what's in front of me, but I do know that mine are coming separate from what came out of committee.

I'll say um I do believe council member Diaz was printed, it should say substitute.

It's her changes should be highlighted.

The changes are just what she discussed.

Um the clarification is um in the underlying proposal, it's written as eviction defense for both cold weather and school year, and this would create a new category for um cold weather eviction prohibition.

We're getting away from the word moratorium, none of my documents will use that word again.

We're going towards prohibition.

Um that that is what she does to set up a prohibition that just makes clear it's not an eviction defense because there would be no need to defend yourself.

Um it would just be prohibited.

But this document that says substitute includes the CVS proposal and then the other one.

It's on top of it.

It doesn't include her other item, um, which is the the separate separate one.

So there's a motion and then there's a substitute.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um, and then um so supportive of those, and council member Rumba just want to echo what colleagues have said.

Thank you so much for all your work on this.

Um, and appreciate, and I think last meeting I was supportive of the um the two notices.

I and I learned a few things about that in the interim.

So I am supportive with how it's written now with the one notice because um there's a provision in there that the landlord has to ensure that the tenant receives that notice.

So as long as that provision is in there, I don't see any need to ask to do two notices.

Um but all the other things that you listed out that we have changed since the 18th sound good with the addition of Diaz's um additional amendment.

So I think um, in my view, we're in it, we're in a good place on this.

And um, council member Rumba, you have said many times, you know, this we're gonna uh bring this forward.

Um we'll pass whatever amended version comes forward, and then the discussion will happen.

Though there'll be more discussion on those other items in the new year.

Is that an additional CVS conversation or is that back to the full council?

How do you see that happening?

So I guess it's I it I I had vision envisioned it coming back to CVS and let's talking about it and then bringing again working with staff and bringing something back to to study session to the council, the full council.

Okay, yeah, and then also not just it wouldn't just be us again, it would be us bringing in you know experts and people who are stakeholders to talk with us about further things that we want to see happen and how it should be put into the rental housing code and what enforcement looks like.

Okay, great.

And so as um we're working through this, and there are additional items even you know over the next week on this, we can continue to add them to that list to look at them next year.

Okay.

Um and then my final question that I think I know because I think we've talked about this before, but just to confirm the goal next year is also to um integrate the rental housing code and the landlord fairness code, um, not to necessarily get rid of any content, but that we have one code so that it's clear.

Is that true that that's yeah?

So the goal is to take the state code to take our landlord fairness code initiative updates and then put them into our rental housing code and then re-evaluate the rental housing code.

As a one body.

What is one document make it easier for people?

And I think when I've talked to people who I talked to representative Fai the other day, and I was talking to him about the state housing code that they did, the update.

The the idea of the state housing code is to make things more uniform rather than have everything be different in different municipalities.

I mean, I think we're kind of a one-off, and so is Seattle, because we've done a lot more work on our rental housing code, and their goal is to try to get it to be the same so that if you're a renter and you move somewhere, there's the same code.

And their goal is to try to get it to be the same, so that if you're a renter and you move somewhere, there's the same code.

And I think part of the issue that you know people move from like little city to little city in a county, and things are different in each place, and they just it's hard to educate people on the code.

So I just this easy as we can make it for people to understand what's in our code and to also really lean into that education piece, is which is what I think we should be doing is figuring out rather than um asking landlords to give people information, we need to figure out how to get information out to people ourselves.

And so they have the right information, so they understand what it means to be a renter, where they find the information.

I just think that we need to we need to do a better job as a city, and I think it's our job as council members to educate the community on what it is to be a renter in the city of Tacoma.

Great, thank you.

And the last thing I'll just say, and I think um I think I'm echoing what you just said, Councilmember Rumbab, but I there were a number of public comments last time about situations that involved landlords that were bad players, and I want to make sure that we as a city have that information readily available to renters so that they're not living in mold and not being taken advantage of by landlords who are not doing the right thing.

So I'm wondering, or I guess I'm just gonna say here and now for our budget conversation next year, if we might put some dollars towards that to get information out to renters so that they know what their rights are and what the provisions are and the help that we can give as a city.

So I think I'm seconding what you were saying, but um supportive of figuring out how we get more information out to folks because we don't want to see any of those um situations and we want to support those tenants that are in there.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Walker.

Any other questions for council member Diaz?

Um yeah, just Diaz for now, just yeah, and then we'll come back.

Um councilmember Diaz, thank you for um for bringing these two amendments forward.

Um I fully support them.

I supported them when Jamika had them.

So I hope that the two of you can get together because you both have the kind of the same amendment as it relates to the means testing.

So um so it would be great to have to have the two of you bring that forward together since you've both been working on it.

But I think I think it is really important.

I know for me, my support of this ordinance goes clearly to saving our nonprofits who are about to um lose their buildings.

Um, and while I think this is an important issue, I I totally um agree that there are some things that that need more conversation and and and can hold off, but the idea of the YWCA or any Tacoma Housing Authority losing their buildings is just not something that we can take a risk on.

So I appreciate you bringing um bringing those forward.

And I probably will chime in again, but I too um uh council member Rumba want to thank you for um you've put a lot of work into this.

Um, and I want to thank you for that work and to all of my council colleagues who have shared in shaping it and bringing things forward that have have that have been incorporated now and and maybe incorporated later.

Um, thank you all for working so hard and for hearing from our community about what's important.

So, okay, nothing else for council member Diaz.

I will then go to Councilmember Hines.

Or no, yes, maybe it's just a technical question.

I just want to make sure I understood that.

Okay, go ahead.

You you mentioned it earlier, but so this is the motion, and this is the substitute that goes with it.

No, one of the motions had to come as a whole substitute just because of the content of it, and then the other one is just the second motion that'll get added to either Rumbaugh's proposal or that proposal, depending on which passes and becomes the vessel.

This is means testing, and this is relocation.

Yes.

Under score, got it.

Okay.

Drafting technicalities.

All right.

Councilmember Heinz, I think it's your turn.

Yeah, no, thank you.

Um you know, a question that I'm hearing multiple times, someone asked Council Rumbaugh, maybe what the future holds.

Um, I hear a lot of folks talking about data, like we need data to talk about it, and I feel like anecdotes is all we hear on both sides.

I mean, if there's two sides on this conversation, I hear anecdotes on people who don't want change, I hear anecdotes on people who want change.

Um, and so I what is the plan for some better?

Are you all gonna talk about data tracking in CVS or is that part of the future?

Because I I really would like greater data.

Um, I get emails and anecdotes from people who say I gave someone five thousand dollars relocation assistance and then they didn't move and they've been in the unit, didn't pay their rent.

Um that's an anecdote.

That's I don't know if that's if that's just one story or if that's if that's happening frequently.

So I mean, can you talk a little about maybe some of the data conversations are having?

So the reason that um there's the strong push for nonprofits and to exempt them is that we have data.

We have like strong data from them.

They have federal dollars, so they have to provide us strong data.

Um they have all their numbers.

I mean, they're nonprofits that have to, you know, uh have to show where their money came from.

And so their books are very clear of what their need is.

When I talk to, I'm just gonna say, if we're talking to a nonprofit and we talk to for-profit, you know, every time I've talked to them, I can't get what I would consider the same kind of data.

And when I I'll reach out again and ask them, do you have more data?

And they say they do, but they haven't shown it to me.

So if you can get that data, that's what I'm looking for.

Is um, for instance, the idea that people say they've sold their houses who were um who were had rentals here and they've sold them now and don't have them anymore.

I that's what I hear, but I don't know that for sure.

So that's something we need to look into, and how do you track that?

Um then also every story of an eviction is different.

And especially um, you know, it that there may be, I don't know why, like there someone needs um chooses not to pay their rent.

That's not what I'm looking at.

I'm just looking at the raw data of how many units.

When I talked to someone just recently, they have a hundred unit building here in Tacoma, only one person is not paying the rent.

And now it's been about 10 months since they paid, they haven't paid their rent.

So I just want to say I I think that I don't have good enough data on that.

And but what I do know is that Tacoma Pro Bono has told us that because of the landlord fairness code initiative, people who might have been living in a for-profit unit were able to negotiate with their landlord to get a few months of rent to use as a down payment somewhere and not get an eviction to move out sooner than the whole moratorium time.

So that was a tool they were able to use to help them move to something else.

Yeah, no, um, I think you counselor money, and I appreciate that.

And I think agree I agree, Councilman Scott, and if this goes back through CBS, and I'm sure I can talk to her or you about what data I'd like to see as part of that process, but I would hope that while we don't have any, we'd have a conversation about what is the data we are looking for.

Yeah.

There's like things that I am like interested in is kind of how many, like you said, how many formerly former rental properties are now gone and have been sold.

I don't know how we would track that other than looking at business licenses and then looking at sales.

I mean, there's like lots of ways to look at that's something I'm interested in.

Um I'm interested in how many people choose not to pay rent in these units during the moratorium.

It's like what percentage of people we're talking about here.

Um and the one compelling thing about the housing authorities prior to the landlord fairness code passing, they had like a 15% liquid C and the 16%.

16% now they're 40% in some of their places.

So that's a stark jump.

Um, but uh we also have to recognize like economy shifts and changes.

So I mean I there'd be a good point for tracking that I would only like us to be able to do.

I think the thing that I'm most concerned about, Councilmember Hines on this conversation is the idea that people aren't talking to their landlord, and that this has been a divisive um piece of legislation that keeps people from wanting to work out the issues that they have.

I think part of what I would like to see is figure out is how do we get people to talk to each other?

And I don't think that this is allowing that opportunity.

I think it's easy to shut your door and not want to work on the issues that you might have.

The housing authority has a system set up already in-house where they talk to people.

If something changes with their economics, they meet with them and try to figure out what would 30% of what you're getting now be, and they readjust.

I want to say that what I know now from talking to landlords, and again, it might be anecdotal, is that they're not able to get a hold of somebody, and then they have to start the eviction process, and that's how this happens.

There's not the conversation about what happened that you can't pay your rent.

How can we help you?

And and that's that's not happening.

And so I want to see us figure out if this is what's happened with us, what do we need to do to make it so people do talk to each other before a the moratorium or eviction takes place?

Yeah, I mean, I let me again, I universally agree that we need more data.

And so like I'm looking forward to that conversation as we kind of look ahead.

My second question, um, when you look at relocation assistance, and this only flagged in my mind because Council Diaz's amendment.

Do we have one of the concerns that was raised is there's no date by which if you do not move, you need to return the relocation assistance.

Is that any if did you all touch that at all or make any amendments to that whatsoever?

Um, that might be something I I might want to look at because I I have heard some, I don't know how exactly how many people there are, but I have heard for some where people have paid relocation assistance and the tenant has not moved, and then the mechanism by which to or timeline by which to recover the um relocation assistance is unclear.

Because what the currently says is once you get notice, you have 30 days by which you need to pay the relocation assistance, which is predicated on how much is the increase is, but there's no timeline established on the back end to say that money is come back in.

Is there?

I don't think there is.

I'm looking okay.

So that might be something I might want to just have as part of this conversation that if the tenant receives relocation assistance and then chooses not to relocate but resigns the lease.

What is a timeline by which they need to return the relocation assistance to the property owner?

Um but uh that's just it was a it was a it was something that it was part of the conversation back when we talked about the one of the first code two years ago that I only re came back into my mind when I read this right here.

Um the last thing those are my kind of two questions I had.

Um, but uh thank you, Councilman Romba, and thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

Any questions for council member um Heinz?

Uh Deputy Mayor Daniels.

I don't have a question for council member Hines.

Just okay, just a comment.

Okay.

Any questions for council member Hines?

All right, council member Sedalkey and then Deputy Mayor.

Okay.

Oh, no, nope, deputy mayor.

No, no, no.

I'm just I'm sorry.

I'm just looking I'm trying to follow my thing.

Deputy Mayor, you go, then council member Sidalkey.

Okay, okay.

Got that, got that good.

All right.

All right.

Um, sorry, I'm trying to get my thoughts together.

I asked, I wanted to make sure I jumped in in the beginning because we were already on the topic of um nonprofits, and I want to make sure I got my question in while you were already talking about it.

Well Honda was already up here.

So I had a couple other questions, just kind of about process and how we get here.

But first, I want to just make sure I thank you because this is a huge uh body of work.

It's a huge policy, and you could have just said let's just repeal the whole thing.

Um, and I think that there is great intention in trying to go line by line and figuring out what to do about each piece, what works and what doesn't.

And I really appreciate your um being amenable to that.

Um, one of the things that worries me particularly about um what we have here um and what came to us even prior, how we even got here, is that I don't think it is it was comprehensive of what all renters and land owners or landlords are experiencing, and that was my big problem with it in the beginning was we um we were missing a lot of the data.

And one of the things when I proposed um changes to our rental housing code before this passed, uh one of the things that I heard from you all was that you wanted to study this more, and you wanted to be more comprehensive with the data before we decided things about how we would change um particular people pieces about how people access housing, and I really took that to heart.

And with this, I see that we have another body of work that while it may be well studied majority or mostly from like the nonprofits, we are exempting them from this policy, and that's troubling because I I feel like it leaves out a huge piece of who is left behind here.

Um, and so I wonder if it begs question for me just about again how people are accessing housing in the city of Tacoma, how does that affect the building of the house of housing and our supply in the city of Tacoma, and how people are just how it's affecting affordability overall, our court system overall, um, and just and and and what what our economic outlook and our just general outlook looks like for people here, and I want to know and and let me just get back to kind of like what I've been thinking about, right?

Is the so when one part piece of our policy we are we have mean test means testing for kind of exempting folks that are under 120 percent AMI, and then the other part we are exempting people from the ability to uh um evict or the other way around at 80 percent AMI and under, and those two things alone feel like they are conflicting values, and again, that's what I see all kind of through here is like what problem are we trying to solve in the city of Tacoma?

Who are we trying to solve it for, and what is the balance that we're striking?

And I'm not sure that we have balanced it on data and and what in real time what we want to see in our city, and that's troublesome for me because I I feel I like to make policy based on outcomes and what what is real, and I know that there are just like there are THA has a building with 30 percent uh folks that are not paying rent.

Are we okay with other individual landowners or property owners that have people that haven't paid for 10 and 12 months at a time?

Are we okay with that?

And if we are, that's okay with me.

I just need to know what we're doing as a city and what values we're putting forth.

And for me, this doesn't have a comprehensive scope on that.

I don't know what we're doing, and it feels like we're a little bit mixed, and we need to do some more work.

In particular, we need to study how this is impacting not renters, really is who I feel like is missing from some of this conversation, but also landlords that are not going to be exempted, and I just I don't know how to reconcile that.

Um but that's not to say like any one piece of this I disagree with or agree with.

I just want to make sure we're basing it um on real time data and yeah, not just one story or two stories, right?

So I really appreciate your work and um yeah, thank you for entertaining that.

Great.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Councilmember Sidalgay.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I have one question for Linda, and then I have a few comments.

Uh Linda, you mentioned that we do not uh maintain a registry, but we do require every um housing provider that is renting to have a business license.

Yes, so business license are required.

I don't believe the business license asks who for every name of co-owners of the business.

So if you were to get to the individual, if me and my husband shared a business, um, we wouldn't necessarily both be recorded in addition to the name of the business.

Sure, but it has to have the business in charge of the unit.

Yes.

So there is something, and there could be an argument made about the ownership side of it, but there is something that exists that at least uh a court can review.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes.

Um my comments are, you know, um, I want to thank um Councilmember Rumba and and and members of the CVS committee that I'm part of for all the outreach.

This was a lot of work.

Uh one of the things that isn't spoken enough is um it's also really important to to know that there is a court involved in here and court commissioners um take a look at the totality of the circumstances between the landlords uh and the tenants that are involved, and quite frankly, the courts err on the side of keeping people in home as often as possible, because that is the best possible outcome.

And to continuously do things like do stays of 30 days or further or or more uh in order to get to negotiation, and this is part of what Councilmember Rumba is is uh getting at.

And so, as much as we do want data, and I love data and everything, we also have to understand that there is a third party over here that has a lot of power and a lot of ability to do some really good things, and we should have a policy that allows them to do it without their hands being tied, and a lot of what was uh uh uh proposed in here is them asking us uh to help them out.

And and I think that's an important point that might be lost.

Um I do want to make uh another comment around um the uh uh means testing or the AMI requirement.

Um that is not something I I support for a really simple reason.

The the the time in which this will come into play is is a really narrow one, uh, which would apply primarily uh to market rate uh rentals.

Um and what it really asks is that someone shows up and either emails the court or shows up and talks to the court, either with a paycheck or something that says I've either lost my job or my job uh has reduced pay, and I no longer make in most cases a six-figure salary, because that is what 120% of AMI for most uh uh Tacomans uh this year is going to get into, depending on family size.

And it says in those cases, then you will have that moratorium.

In those other cases, you negotiate.

And I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

Um I think it's okay to say things, and and this is part of a larger conversation that I'll have tonight.

But it was appalling to me when I moved to Tacoma to see that there were literally very little uh protections for tenants other than a booklet you got when you signed uh a lease.

A booklet so large no one's actually gonna read it.

One that's so large that most of it is actually about lead paint.

But it's also okay to say that the pendulum swung too hard when the landlord fairness initiative is put in.

And it's also okay to say that this is not in a vacuum and that we suffer from a massive housing shortage.

And as much as I want homeownership housing, rental housing is an important aspect of the housing ecosystem.

And if we have policies that disincentivize that, it actually will eventually and will has shown to lead to greater displacement.

And so it's important that we do strike a balance.

I don't think this is the end all in be all.

I appreciate that uh councilmember Rumba is aiming to do um if you actually look at the whole whole of the initiative, it is not a terrible large amount, but it is important to address some of the the most uh important aspects, and that is why I supported it.

Um I'm looking forward to greater and more robust conversations about this as we come because housing policy is important.

We were at the National League of Cities, and yet again, the number one thing, whether you're a blue state, a blue city, a red city, or an in-between city is housing, housing, housing, housing, housing.

What do we do to preserve housing for our residents and plan for the growth that is coming?

That is what our charge is.

And it's important that we think in that context.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sidalgi.

Are there any other questions or comments on this topic?

All right.

Seeing none, we will be prepared for this evening.

All right, moving on to our third agenda item, which is a CCR adding a new chapter to the municipal code around business safety and resiliency program.

I'm gonna call on Deputy Mayor Daniels for this one.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'll be super quick with this one uh because some of you might recognize it from last year.

Um this is an ordinance request to uh create a new chapter in Title I of the Municipal Code.

Uh this chapter would establish a business and safety resilience program that advances Tacoma's strategic objectives, including the goals in our community and economic development strategic plan, which we just finalized updating this year.

In addition, this chapter would establish policy direction regarding the allocation of business license revenues within the biennial budget to fund this program.

Specifically, I have proposed that the city manager include the preliminary budget proposal of 2027 to use 1.5% of the business license revenue to fund this program and in 2028 increasing to 3% of the fees.

The hope is that ultimately this program will reach an allocation up to six percent for budgets beyond 2027-2028.

This ordinance does not establish the the specific parameters of the program because that will take time to develop, and it will be based on uh business climate surveys that we will have that we've had in the past and in the future.

Instead, it directs the city manager to assist the city council in developing a program that can be implemented starting in 2027.

The ordinance does provide general guidance for the program's goals, including that qualify capital programs we focused on enhancing public health, safety, and welfare.

In addition, the goal of the program will be to help with removing Glight and activating safe and welcoming spaces for businesses and community members, along with creating physical, social, and cultural improvements that help that help nurture a robust local economy.

As a chair of the economic development committee, and during my four years on council, it has become clear to me that our business community needs more support.

We hear about the need consistently from the city's ongoing engagement with the business development ecosystem partners and its business owners.

We also have the data from our local businesses, noting the strong need for greater technical assistance and access to capital.

We have already enshrined in many of our city strategies and plans that value the importance of enhancing our local economy and local business ecosystem.

This ordinance gives us the opportunity to bring life to a pathway for helping our businesses thrive so that we can provide access to a diverse range of jobs, help create complete neighborhoods, and ensure safe, convenient access to goods and services needed in daily life.

Um if you have any questions, I'm happy to take those offline or online.

Um and I pray I plan to bring this proposal to you for first reading on December 9th.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um Councilmember Bushnell.

Uh thank you, Mayor, and thank you so much, Count Uh, Deputy Mayor Daniels for bringing this forward.

Um, I know in a lot of our conversations uh over the last few years, we have done the business climate survey, we've um and talked with business owners uh and and folks that are business adjacent about a lot of the needs and struggles that they have uh trying to operate within the city of Tacoma.

Um and I really appreciate um this attempt at trying to uh find ways to utilize the funds that we are receiving from our businesses specifically and making sure that's going back out to support businesses.

And so I really I think that's a really good effort.

Um I guess I'm I'm curious as to the scope of the program.

Could it would it just be with an economic development uh EDC specifically, or would it be uh kind of a citywide approach so this this money can be utilized across the city in order to enhance business uh support and experience?

Because there are certain needs uh that may uh may need one department over another in order to help uh fill uh certain gap or or support that a business might need.

So just kind of curious about that.

Yes, um, I think I need a little bit more help in asking what you mean by what I think I hear you saying, like does it go specifically to CED programs that already exist, or are you saying um I I'm trying to make sure I I understand kind of what you mean a little bit more.

Yeah, I just I just want to I just kind of want to understand um uh because uh we're basically putting a restriction on this uh through uh out of the general fund into this specific program.

And I just want to make sure that the program is flexible enough that uh it could be utilized by multiple departments, like it's it's a bucket that can be utilized by multiple departments to uh fill the business safety and resilient needs of the community because CED might not necessarily have everything within their uh department if it were just to be focused on CED specifically, and they do great work.

Uh don't want to dismiss that.

Yeah.

Um, but maybe maybe it's uh something that another department could support a business with that makes more sense.

Uh for example, maybe public works, so maybe the uh there's a a business that could utilize lights uh or street lights.

Maybe there's a way that we could support a business with street lights through this fund.

Uh you know, things things of that nature that might not necessarily fit within the CED department, but it's it's funding that could be flexible enough to be utilized to support the businesses in that way.

I'd say it's both, and um currently CED has a bundle of programs, and I I don't I don't want to bring you guys up without making sure it's okay, but I it'd be great if you could come talk about the best program.

If we could talk about the best program, some of the things that we've already done with the funding that we've kind of patched together uh because this model isn't new.

We did talk about this last year of kind of pulling those pods together.

This is designed to be a little different, and I want to just be careful in how I talk about it because there it's still being developed in how we get money to our business community, and it's not really meant to live just within CD programming that's already happening.

It's really designed to go directly to our local business economy, and I I want to make sure that I communicate that clearly without crossing any lines.

Sure.

So um do I press this up here?

Okay.

So phone a friend.

So good afternoon.

I'm Carol Wolf, and I work with community and economic development department.

And in advance of this, with some pilot programs that were spearheaded by Deputy Mayor Daniels in the last budget cycle, we have developed a what we call a business engagement solutions team.

And it is not a program, it is an internal infrastructure.

And the participants on that are what we call members of the Mighty Middle, which is your middle management that received their direction from directors and have their strategic plans based on the budgets that have been awarded.

That group comes together every other month, and they are the ones that are talking about what are the items that they come to them either through a council member, through community, or through their work that are business solution identified issues around safety and resiliency.

So that infrastructure has been stowed up for six months and it is performing very well.

Should city council advance this objective and work with the city manager, I would assume we would work through that model as a way to make sure this was not a said program, but a said-led team to identify when there was a resiliency or safety issue.

The other thing that we have been working on, and through the past COVID year and the Fed COVID era and the state and federal grants that we received, we've developed an ability to actually develop direct resources to a business through a partner such as the chamber, uh, the cross district association.

We've done it through some of our more culturally um competent partners, um, uh APCC.

So we've developed that approach and style that we can also make sure that there's direct assistance, but through our community partners through their business or cultural competency lens.

So that is what is in place now.

Should you go forward, we would work with the city manager to build that out.

And um let me know if that answers the questions you might have.

Yes, that that does.

Thank you.

I I really appreciate that.

I I just want to make sure that um, as we're restricting funding, because it's not going to general fund, that we still maintain that flexibility for things like the best team to be able to utilize these funds in a way that makes sense because what uh maybe a very high priority right now, if as we do more business climate surveys in the future, as we resolve things and and things shift as well, priorities may shift as well.

And so I want to make sure that those funds are able to be flexible to support the business needs at the time in which we are engaging with them.

And so I I think I in my mind, and I'm not trying to be prescriptive either.

Um, the best team would be a great opportunity to bring the multi-departmental approach and say it is a public works priority or something that we could do to support lighting infrastructure for a business district or area.

This these fundings could potentially be utilized, and maybe even leverage for grants as well.

So that's why just trying to maintain the flexibility within it while still allocating it for uh business resiliency because it's not necessarily general fund, it's where we're allocating it out.

And I just would like to add to that, Councilmember Bushnell, that is the reason why the participants on that team are at the middle management level.

So you have community policing captain, you have the fire inspector, you have the public works code managers, and um you also have streets and grounds, so and transportation, NCS, 311, the whole gamut as well as council assistance that are on that team so that it can react and respond in a nimble and flexible way.

Yeah, perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you, David Mayor and Mayor.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor, yeah, I just wanted to emphasize one thing that I did.

I wasn't sure that I made clear.

Uh, the best program is an internal infrastructure, it's a it's a function inside.

Um, and the business resiliency program is more of what they bring to businesses, so they're not showing up empty-handed, and that when we do bring all of these folks out, that we are bringing actual resources and not just hopes and prayers.

A hundred percent agree with that.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think that um my question just um was answered.

So thank you, Councilmember Bushnell, for asking about that.

Um, what I was hoping, Deputy Mayor, is that you could talk about a little bit of the history that I don't think is reflected in the document, but I think that came through with Carol's description of the best program and what you just said, like that to me is huge is what is the infrastructure, how we make it happen versus what is the resources.

So I would um support what council member Bushnell was talking about in keeping things flexible because I think we are as a city getting so good at these cross-departmental solutions um in all sorts of ways, and so I don't want those to be any different as we move it forward.

So thank you.

All right, council member Hines.

Oh uh thank you, Debbie Mayor.

Um, no, thank you very much.

And for all your work on the best program and things like that.

I I'm it's a program really excited about.

I guess my question is more of um this is gonna go in the TMC.

So is this like is this one of the first kind of programming or TMC ordinances we've adopted that we're committing funds to pay for things?

Um normally those don't go in the TNC, they just kind of are part of the budget development process.

So I just love to maybe talk through your thought thinking about why this lands in the TMC.

I can't speak to the history of the TMC.

Um, maybe uh uh Chris Kris or maybe city manager can.

Um but what I can say is that we have programs that are like this, but they come from different pots of money.

So um this one comes from fees, so it lives in the TMC, but we also have uh things like Tacoma Creates and the other different revenue buckets that we do pull from and we allocate specifically before because this is a fee, this is how it is set up.

So it'll be um it it will be pulled in the same way that we intend to do other fees in the future that we are kind of considering right now.

So gotcha.

Okay.

But historically, I wouldn't I I can't speak to all of anything we've done before.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mayor Woodards, if you wouldn't mind, I'd just um just chime in here just for a few comments um to that specific question.

Um the CCR, you know, in from my perspective from an administrative standpoint, does three things in prescribing um with in codifying this within TMC, you know, we have other programs, um, one percent for the arts is a great example of that.

Um, but there is a balance act here because there's a conversation that's really with you all on the policy level from the standpoint of uh restricting your revenues uh for programming is something that is um seldom done, but at the same time, this does not necessarily do that.

This this essentially directs this to be adopted uh or proposed to be adopted in future biannual budget starting with 2728.

Um of the things that I do need to highlight, and um I don't want to put my fingers on the scales, is um uh the way that this is kind of threaded through is to give council the opportunity and to assist council um successive council starting in January uh for the 27-28 budget.

Um this will be a reduction exercise as well.

Um we this is about a fifth of our revenues that comes from business licensing in the general fund.

Um, and with that, we are oversubscribed.

We don't have enough revenues uh to with the ongoing escalation.

But I also think the balance test, Deputy Mayor, what you've proposed here is you want to see a dedication even with that reduction exercise, and I think that's what I'm receiving loud and clear here that the business community needs support.

But I do need a uh exercise that the first exercise for next biannual budget starting this year for 275,000.

Uh, that may be somewhat um uh an easier exercise, but in the coming years, as this grows potentially to a six percent restriction on our business licensing revenues, that will be a harder exercise for councils, but we are leading to this program to get into abundance to support the business community so that we can grow revenues.

I think that is the balance that's being uh threaded here.

Hopefully, this answered, and also provided some additional context for you all to consider.

Uh okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Is the operative word here can in this because it says okay, includes proposed budget planning plan and can be implemented, right?

So it doesn't say will be or shall or shall, because you can't we can't I can't pass something that's gonna bind the council ahead of me into spending money in a certain way, correct?

Councilmember Heinz, that's correct.

This council can't bind a future council to a budget decision.

And state law also controls the budget process, so all budget decisions have to go through that statutory process.

So just so for Deputy Mayor, so this would just mean that next year the city manager would put together a proposal, so be required to put together a proposal that would show us what this would look like, and then we would decide if that was what we wanted to do or if we want to make a different decision.

Correct.

And I just want to um because uh city manager wasn't here at the time when we um increased our business license fees, um, and we doubled them in one year.

And the reason why I asked us to double them was so that we could do dedicated program.

And when we brought it at that time, it was just a proposal of what we could do.

And now we're here at the time where we know that businesses are asking for it.

We know that we need this money for them to do specific things that are outside of just what what we believe what the city manager, what we believe is important to them, and they have very specific needs that came from a survey that we did with everyone that filled out a business license application.

And so um uh that additional three percent that we went above the original uh three percent that we proposed was specifically dedicated from this.

So before we think about um uh a reduction exercise, we have to think about how much we increased it um in one year.

Yeah.

No, I I agree.

I as being here at the time.

I just want to do that.

That was really hard to give him to give city manager a point of reference from where we came from and how we got here.

Yeah, no, and and I definitely remember being here on the council at that point in time, and um in sharing, you know, I the idea that um our business license go to our general fund, and some of the biggest concerns come out of our general fund is like policing or public safety dollars, and that's why they were really valuable to help pay for those things too.

So um definitely remember that conversation.

So thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, and if I if I have any further questions, I'll follow up with you.

Got it.

All right, do we have any other questions?

Deputy Mayor.

All right, seeing none, and we'll move on to our fourth agenda item, which is a CCR.

Go grit go sponsorship.

And I'm gonna call on council member Scott.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I am excited to be bringing forward a CCR request um to support a new program in Tacoma called Go Grit Go Football.

Uh Go Grit Go Football is hosted by a nonprofit called Goose Girls and is designed to uplift and inspire young women through the sport of football.

The program will provide multiple skill clinics in Tacoma that teach football fundamentals to girls ages uh eight through eighteen, along with leadership and mentorship workshops, guest speakers from the Tacoma Grant Professional Women's Football Team, which is a tackle team, just so you are aware.

It's super cool.

Um, and team building and community events as well.

Uh the program is also designed to foster cultural inclusion, celebrate diversity, and promote unity for young people, both on and off the field.

Our council contingency funding would ensure participation in the skills clinics is free and helps uh provide training resources, marketing and promotional materials, food and drinks, instructions from professional coaches and teachers.

Um the program will help advance several council priorities, including improving health outcomes and increasing the number of quality out-of-school time learning opportunities distributed equitably across the city.

In addition, Goose Girls will place the city logo on event posters and citywide promotional materials.

I'm especially excited about this program because I know how vital sports can be for our young people.

Um I know that I've played sports, a few other people have played sports, and uh we have councilmember um Hines, who also coaches.

Um I actually just got a coaching gig myself too.

Um but uh oh oh he played it.

He played, he played and he coached.

I know.

He played, I'm I didn't mean to underestimate that.

I went to him with many of us played, but I I only knew him being the singular coach.

No shade or disrespect to my fellow uh council member over there.

Um, but uh sports really offer a unique opportunity to engage in teamwork, to learn leadership skills, and gain confidence.

Unfortunately, young women are twice as likely to drop out of sports as boys are by the age of uh 14, limiting their ability to develop life skills and build their self-esteem.

Go great go will not only help get young people active, it will help provide our young people with a safe and empowering atmosphere with positive role models.

Um this council contingency fund request is for $10,000.

And I want to thank Mayor Woodards, Deputy Mayor Daniels, and Councilmember Walker, uh or Bushnell, I think.

Sorry, uh, for joining us co-sponsors.

You know, sometimes you're just reading what's on the page.

Um for joining us co-sponsors, and we plan to bring forward the vote on December 9th.

So, I mean, and I know that a lot of you have uh a few of you have have asked um about if there would be any opportunity for us as council members to maybe go and see any of the clinics, and I am working to verify what those dates are and if we can.

So if you are interested in that, I'm happy to update you when I know.

And if I know that obviously there are a few people who might be interested in also being co-sponsors, so if anybody else wants to sign, I'm happy to do that as well.

So thank you, Mayor.

Um, Councilmember Scott, you have two sign-ons right now.

Would you be open to a third?

Yeah.

Wonderful.

I'd like to nominate council member Heinz as the only person sitting at the sitting at this table who actually played football and coached football.

You did both.

Would you be amenable to that?

I sure would be.

Councilmember Hines, would that be okay with you?

Okay.

In that case, please take anybody off that needs to get taken off.

I want to see that.

Just the helmet, or are you gonna come in full?

Oh, okay.

All right.

I it'd be interesting to see if you could still fit his uniform from what he played in college.

I think it's too small.

It's too big now.

He's like a legitimate.

Oh, gotcha.

All right.

That was my concern.

I'd we'd like we we want to take a measurement before we say whether or not that's true.

But all right.

Well, we've lost the plot.

Um happy to have uh council member Hines as a co-sponsor and excited for that helmet on the dais.

And uh again, I'm happy to uh answer any questions as needed, but I will also update anybody on uh any opportunity for us to go and hang out with uh the young women that are gonna be learning it throughout these clinics.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Scott.

Um uh council member Walker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Councilmember Scott.

Always excited to support um programs for young women.

Um sounds like a great one.

I'm not familiar with it.

Are they where are the practices located?

And my real question is about getting um the players from school to programs and if transportation could be included, or if we could loop in um support from Pierce Transit or something just to address that piece of it.

Uh I'm not certain on the like transportation transportation stuff.

I know originally we were working with the boys and girls club to potentially host it there, but I think that may have recently had to be changed for some various reasons.

So I will I can confirm if if they have uh followed up on where those locations would be.

Um just to make sure that if there are transportation needs, we can look into that as well.

Okay, great.

Great.

All right, seeing no further questions, we'll move on to item four A, um, which is propositions number one and two for the Tacoma Public School District.

So just want to let you all know that next week I'll be bringing forward a resolution.

Councilmember Walker and I will be bringing forward a resolution for consideration.

That would express our support for the passage of Prop 1 for the replacement of an expiring levy for the K-12 educational programs and operations, and Prop 2, which is replacement of the expiring levy for K-12, K through 12 technology improvements and upgrades.

It will be on the February 10th ballot, um, put there by the public school uh district.

Do you all know that our young people are our community's most important asset and supporting TPS props propositions is vital to investment in their safety, well-being, and future success.

This ensures that they have a strong educational foundation and that they have one that they need to thrive and continue contributing to the future of our city.

These propositions would continue existing funding for vital programs and supporting our partners at the school district aligns with our strategic priorities for our community.

Um this item will be on the December 9th City Council agenda.

So with that, I will take any questions.

Councilmember Diaz.

I don't have a question on this, but I have a walk-on.

Oh, after this one.

Okay, great.

Gotcha.

Councilmember Rumba.

I don't have a question.

I just want to tell you, I was at the North End Neighborhood Council last night, and they were there talking about it.

And I just want to tell you I so support it, proposition one and proposition two, and us doing anything we can.

I'm looking forward to whatever you bring forward, but for us to support it, and I just want you to know they're doing their work.

Good.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

All right, uh city attorney.

Yeah, I'll just remind the council that the only time that you can talk about supporting a matter that's on the ballot is at the resolution tonight.

I think it's next week.

Or when it's next week.

And so if you want to express your support, it should be during or uh lack of support, it should be during the presentation of that resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, uh city attorney.

I thought I was in total, it was Councilmember Rumbaugh, so I'm okay with that.

No, no.

Um, are there any other comments concerning Prop 1 and 2?

All right, seeing that I am going to um call on Councilmember Diaz for item 4B.

Thank you.

Um so um just to time travel really quickly.

I want to remind the council that we adopted back in February um resolution 4141627.

Um, which Councilmember Sidalgay and I co-sponsored, I'm sure we had other friends on board, um, that helped us establish an expansion of the Keep Washington Working Act within and really codify that kind of language into the city um policies.

That resolution um stated that no city funds, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel would be used to investigate, enforce, cooperate with or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal policies that target individuals in Tacoma solely on the basis of race, religion, immigration, or citizenship status or national, national or ethnic origin.

Since then, um a lot of life has happened, and I've spoken with many people in Tacoma who have very specific concerns about how U.S.

ICE um Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses publicly owned property around the country for staging before doing their immigration enforcement activities.

Um several local governments across the country have clarified their own policies to prohibit ice from using their property for staging.

So I'm bringing forward a council consideration request to introduce a resolution directing the city manager to review and assess the potential for legislation to prohibit ice from using city property for the purposes of staging and other activities related to civil immigration enforcement, and including a legal analysis of the possible enforcement options and necessary signage as well as any other legal considerations and to help create a plan for identifying city-owned property that could be used for enforcement operations staging purposes for signage purposes if signs are deemed necessary, as well as any other implementation considerations and trying to expand essentially on resolution 41627, this specific piece of not allowing ICE to stage on our properties.

Um and I want to thank Councilmember Sidalgay and Mayor Wooders for co-sponsoring the request, and it will be in this week's coming packet for consideration for vote next Tuesday.

So just wanted to make sure folks had some more time to um check it out, consider it and ask any questions either now or going forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, um, council member uh Diaz, and I am happy to um to sign on to this, and I think it's important um that as um as ICE ramps up its um its actions um that we are making sure that we are continuous continually evaluating um what what what laws we have in place to make sure that our community um is as safe as they can be in the ways that we have jurisdiction.

So thank you for looking at this.

Thank you for your continued eye on this this on this specific e issue.

Councilmember Walker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just wanted to say the same thing.

Happy to support this.

Um thank you for doing the work to bring it forward.

And I think um both important that the policy gets in place and also communicating with the public what is in the hands of the city and what is what isn't, and making sure that we're taking action on the things we can.

So thank you.

Appreciate your leadership.

Councilmember Sidalga.

Uh I also want to thank uh Councilmember Diaz for her leadership on this.

I think this is a natural uh progression based on what is happening um in district four.

It's uh obviously one of the the loudest things I heard uh was um concerns around um this topic.

And I think it is prudent for us to uh do our due diligence and understand what our uh uh legal um options are.

Uh in protecting people.

It's the least we can do based on um just the sheer amount of uh of outreach that's been done to me personally.

So thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Sidalgi.

Are there any other questions or comments?

All right, well, then I'm gonna move on to item number five, which is agenda review and city manager's weekly report.

City Manager Kim.

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

Uh, two ceremonials on tonight's agenda.

The first recognizing council general, uh Zhang uh Jiamin of the People's Republic of China and San Francisco, as well as recognizing the Tacoma de Vale sister cities committee.

Uh no proposed changes to tonight's agenda and one opportunity for the public to comment under public comment regarding motions, resolutions, and ordinances on tonight's agenda.

Madam Mayor, that is my report.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, City Manager.

All right.

I will now entertain um I will entertain a motion uh to convene to an executive session pursuant to RCW 42.30.

And RCW 42.30.1101 G to discuss but touch a little gation and to review the qualifications of an applicant for public employment, not to exceed 15 minutes.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor took a venture an executive session signify by saying I.

All those opposed, the ayes have it.

Once the executive session concludes, um, there will be um there will be um no further business conducted except to adjourn the meeting.

Um and with that, we stand in recess for executive session.