I would like to call to order the city council study session on July 14, 2026.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Deputy Mayor Bushnell.

Present.

Councilmember Diaz.

Councilmember Heinz.

Councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Rumba.

Here.

Councilmember Sidalgay?

Here.

Councilmember Scott?

Councilmember Walker?

Here.

Mayor Ibsen, absent.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Our first agenda item is the middle housing pilot program update.

And I would like to call on PDS Director Peter Huffman to begin the presentation.

It looks like we have Director Flowers here as well and Corey and everybody else.

Yeah, good afternoon, Council and Deputy Mayor.

Thanks for having us this afternoon.

Yeah, with me to my right is uh Philip Gao, who is the manager of pre-application services, application services, excuse me, in planning and development services.

Uh next to Philip is Corey Newton, who's assistant director of the new EPW department, environment and public works.

And then next to Corey is Tacoma Public Utilities Director, Jackie Flower.

So this is going to be kind of a joint presentation.

We're all going to jump in and I hope what it does to you is it illustrates that this uh middle housing program is a true partnership across departments and utilities to try to make this work the best we can.

So next slide, please.

So today uh what we're going to talk about is what is the program.

Um it's been a while since we briefed the council, and there are some new council members.

Um it was uh in October of last year.

We came to the council and introduced the council to the process.

Uh we're going to talk about why we're doing this, um, what we've seen so far in the six months that it's been in place since January, and what are the next steps?

Next slide, please.

So what is the program?

The program really uh started for, you know, it's a real push to implement home and Tacoma.

Um if you recall, one of the big focuses on HOMA Tacoma was to look at what we call middle housing.

Uh so we've had pretty good success in the council's leadership on detached ADUs and seeing a lot of detached ADUs.

Uh we've been pretty successful in seeing duplexes and triplexes.

But what's missing in Tacoma and what's missing nationwide is what in our planning world we call middle housing, and that's typically considered about 10 units up to 20 units.

Uh once you get past 20 units, which we've seen quite a bit in Tacoma, you see the larger mixed-use commercial development, particular uh particularly in our mixed-use center.

So Thoma Tacoma really focused on that middle housing that you know the buzzword is missing middle housing.

And so that's what we uh focused on as part of this program.

It is a pilot, uh, so we put it in place in January, and it'll go to uh January 27, and I'll get in some details on the next steps there.

What it uh also does is it limits uh multifamily development to seven to twenty units.

That's that definition of middle housing.

So there is a limitation on the number of units.

Once you get over the 20-unit threshold, it starts triggering some uh different code parameters and requirements that makes it a little bit more complicated to develop, and it's really focused on infill housing.

Home of Tacoma is really focused on infill housing.

So based on our analysis, we can you know with seven to twenty units, you can get in that infill housing, whether it's a vacant lot or an underutilized building.

And so it's focused on uh multifamily developments with units something to 20 units.

Uh unit lots subdivisions are 10 to 20 lots, so it's tied to that too.

Again, that middle housing that's tied to um uh short plats.

You can short plat a piece of property up to nine units, so that's why that number is that.

That's tied to that.

And then the the site generally has to be 12,000 square feet or less, and that again is tied to um utility and other off-site improvement thresholds.

Once you get above 12,000 square feet, uh it kicks in, particularly some stormwater requirements.

They get more and more complicated to uh um permit.

Um and then the projects uh that are in require uh pre-application meeting.

Next slide, please.

So again, I touched on this.

Um, why are we doing this?

It's uh we've launched it in January 2026.

Um in October, we said we'd come back to the council at six months and report out what we're experiencing and what we're seeing, and so that's what you have right now is your six-month check-in on the program.

As you all know, Tacoma faces a strong housing demand, but there's also um a housing crisis and a continued cost to rise in a cost of housing um nationwide and particularly the Pacific Northwest.

So, what this really does, similar to home and Tacoma, is it provides different housing choices for people that are looking for uh different housing types, not just that traditional larger um multi-family development or the uh ADU detached ADU or duplex triplex.

Uh the unit lots subdivision is tied to increasing home ownership, which is a huge priority of the council as part of home Tacoma.

So it's focused on doing that.

And then overall, uh how to achieve those goals is we're looking at how we can reduce the time to permit these types of projects.

Now, when I say time, um we're really looking at the city's time, because we don't necessarily control how long an applicant sits with our comments, but we've really tried to focus on reducing our review cycles, and there's some approaches that we've put in place to do that.

So we're we're checking our work, we're collecting data, and uh we're gonna hopefully learn some stuff that we can uh make some improvements long term.

And as we mentioned back in October, that you know, perhaps we'll come back and in January and have a conversation with the council about not only continuing this program but look at ways that we can expand it to other development types.

Next slide, please.

So I'm gonna turn this slide over to Philip and Corey, and they're gonna talk about some of the stuff that we've implemented implemented that's different than we did before to make the program work.

Yeah, so um, what's different about uh how we're approaching this, um, we've been living with uh using the CELA as our permitting platform for a decade now, and we've not made significant changes to our permitting record.

Um and so we understand that there are different uh units of measure, metrics, data that um you know, former members of council, current council members are interested in when it comes to how do we perform for our development community.

And so one of the enhancements we made was to ensure that we can track every single review cycle.

So not just the first review cycle, which we publish online, but also understanding second review, third review.

If it goes beyond that, we understand how long that those review cycles take, but also that we can understand the time frame in between um when we have the permit versus when the applicant has it.

Um we have data that shows that uh I think for the past two years that applicants hold the permit of the permit time, they're holding the permit 50, 53 percent of the time.

So if it takes nine months, it's taking them roughly five months, it's taken us four months to do the permitting review.

But the total time to the applicant obviously is is the nine months.

So we wanted to make sure that we can track that information, speak to it much more definitively, share that information uh more transparently.

Um we also made some enhancements so that we can consolidate our reviews.

So if someone's looking at um the the right of way, they're not looking at just one component, they're looking at everything, and when the reviews for other groups come through, whether that be for solid waste or street lights or transportation, that does that does roll up into the overall site so that the site reviewer will look at that, understand the scope of what's being requested, and then have the internal conversations uh with the reviewers as necessary.

We also decided to um reduce some of the variability.

So we know that the scopes will be different.

We know that the applicants will be different.

What we try to do is make sure we have a dedicated review team.

So the core review functions for these projects are being reviewed by the exact same five people for PDS and transportation.

And that's just to understand that if a project does have run into challenges or it does run into multiple review cycles, that we understand that it's not because the reviewers are different, it's because the project has some unique characteristics, then we wanted to understand that better.

Um we also added in um an uh escalation process.

So the goal is to have it, you know, to try and issue the permit in two cycles, no more than three.

Um if it does get into uh we still need revisions after the second review cycle, it does we do have a formal process that escalates.

That is transparent.

The applicants will know that we are going to an escalation process, and that will go to I think currently our building official who oversees our building and site division.

Obviously, when we move into um uh site development and the right-of-way stormwater moves to EPW, that consolidated authority will also move over so that we can have those conversations, look at it at large and really make a determination as to uh what is necessary.

And so let forwards me to that.

And I just want to start out with a huge shout out to uh PDS and Director Huffman.

Uh Philip is kind of being modest here.

This is a huge change.

And I actually think this the way that PDS is handling the permitting for this missing middle is the future permitting model for Tacoma.

So uh just to expand a little bit on what Philip talked about.

So what you see there as that screenshot, it's just a simple screenshot of our program, but what it represents is huge and enormous.

So PDS basically takes on uh project coordination role or a project proponent role essentially.

So the utilities, TPU water, and power as well as EPW, we agreed to uh faster LOS as part of this process because there's these project coordinators basically advocating and making sure that these level of service targets are hit.

Uh not only that, again, we we all uh all agencies are all departments, agreed to work together for a new escalation process.

And I guess the combined changes of the new way of having primary task and subtask as well as the consolidated authority has a huge change for permitting.

Uh again, huge shout out to PDS for taking this on and coming up with a new model that I really do think is the future.

Yeah, I might just add one thing that I that I didn't mention at the beginning of the parameters of the program.

So any project that requires what we call a discretionary permit, um, you know, a variance or a conditional use permit or critical areas permit, they they don't um they can't apply that that does they're not applicable because those permits have statutory requirements on um public comment, appeals, etc.

So it is projects that are uh limited to that scope without requiring those, what we call discretionary land use permits.

And I will say uh the goal is to issue permits with three site three cycles or less.

Um I'm pushing the staff to get to two and so two months, um, maybe three months, you know, is what we're pushing at.

Again, we don't control how long the applicant um holds on to our comments, but we are proactively following those applicants to make sure that we are engaged with them so that if we're not hearing back from them, what's going on, you know, what can we do to clarify the information and things like that.

So those are some of the proactive changes.

And I wouldn't say changes, but you know, when you get into a big project um and you got a lot of big projects, sometimes the um the ability to uh work so closely with the developer because there's so many different developers and designers and architects and engineers involved in that project, it gets just much more complicated.

So we're hoping that these projects are small enough that we can have that direct proactive um communication um in with them.

And like I said, and Corey said, we're hoping that this will be a model for the future and that we can continue to emulate not only for these projects but other projects.

So that's the the lesson we're gonna learn here.

Thanks, Philip.

Okay, next slide.

Uh so what are we saying?

So uh we actually have six projects that are in the system currently.

They can't uh they were all submitted the weekend before transportation impact fees went into effect.

Um all but uh one have been routed for first review.

So they're all in first review right now.

So we don't have a whole lot of information to report back right now.

We will have more later.

Um but there's it's a good split.

There's three multifamily uh structures.

Um that's basically a single structure with you know 17, 820 units.

Um the other ones are town homes unit using the unit lot subdivision process.

Um, and so those will be uh you know eventually subdivided into individual lots for homeownership uh opportunities.

Um have uh first review completed this month, if not early next month.

Um we do anticipate that these projects, assuming they take uh two or three cycles, would be issued in Q3 of this year, with maybe uh one or two in Q4.

But we do anticipate by the time we come back to you next January uh we will have better data.

We will have data that will speak to all of these, uh all six of these projects, plus whatever else we have in the system.

Uh next slide.

And the next slide is just showing you um some renderings of for these projects, so you have an idea of what we're seeing uh coming through the system.

Um obviously, this is not the final design, they have to get approved and reviewed by staff, uh, but that's what we anticipate they will look like uh at this time.

And I might add real quick, this is very similar to a lot of the home and Tacoma product that we've been seeing outside of this program come in for application.

Um they're starting to come out of the ground across the city, um, and you'll see more of them as the summer progresses.

But I will, you might say, well, that's not a lot of projects in six months, but you know, the economy is slowing down, and overall we are seeing permit volumes slow down.

So we're happy to get these six in.

Um the joke that we have, and I gotta give a little push back to my public works uh environment public works friends, is a lot of the folks who came in, they came in at the very last uh day of May, and we asked why, and they were trying to beat impact fees.

So that's why we've got so many of them.

But we're hoping to get we're hoping to get more as the year progresses and have more information for the council in January.

Thanks.

Next slide.

So as Corey mentioned, none of this could have happened without collaborative partnerships with our um permit customers internally and externally.

So I really want to put a big thanks out for uh environment and public works department.

It's gonna get me um a while to get used to saying that.

Um and uh Tacoma Public Utilities as well as the development community.

We've had some really good partnerships with some of our development partners in working with them and looking at how we can model the program and some of the next steps.

Um we've you know, early coordination identified um issues before construction.

Um, you know, again, uh that should be a no-brainer, but the real emphasis is on these sides of houses, these types of developments, and we're really figuring out what kind of the barriers are to that coordination and some of the process improvements, the technology improvements and other things that we can implement to really facilitate that coordination, not only internally but externally with the development customer.

If we resolve resolve challenges early on in the process, and that's where the pre-application meeting is so important, we can really uh reduce costly designs downstream, and that's one of the big issues that we see in a lot of these smaller projects is um you know it's a new code and people come in and it's you know, infill is not something that you see a lot of, and so it's kind of complicated, and you find surprises that you don't see there.

And so the more we find about the site, more that we find out about the project, the more communication we have on early on, we can really help the developer understand some of the issues that are going to come up.

We don't necessarily design the project for them, but we really facilitate it as opposed to regulate it.

And then, you know, look at you know director flowers is here and others, uh, myself, the city manager, um, leaderships committed to this improving, but you know, permitting.

It's a you know, it's a value of continuous improvement.

It's obviously a very important priority of the council, um, and it's a priority of the community because you know, even as planners and what some people call us regulators, it's no fun if you don't see stuff built.

And so we like to see stuff built, and we take a lot of um pride in seeing the built environment of Tacoma change and not only see it change, but change for the better.

And so we're really committed to continuing this effort moving forward and learning from it and making it better.

Uh and then, you know, like I said, it's really looking at faster permitting.

And if what we can learn here, if we can learn how to do this, then we can replicate it.

And we can look at some of the issues that we have.

Uh, and you know, you'll be seeing coming up in um future budget discussion some technology improvement proposals and some other approaches that uh my department is going to be looking at to look at ways that we can use extra outside resources to look at different technologies and different ways that we can learn from other communities and learn from our own processes and how we can improve it.

Next slide.

So, looking forward, uh, we've got part of the program is called a uh certified applicant program.

We Joe called it CPA.

Um, and that's basically someone who um achieves sort of a level of consistency and uh I guess predictability and can demonstrate that they have had a good track record in getting um projects through the system, meaning that when they show up at the door, they are very well qualified and very quickly complete applications.

And then they would get um they would get a uh certificate certified application program status, and then that would fast track them.

They would get in a different queue, and that would fast track them.

And so we've been working with various developer partners that we have, but we have a very good track record, and we're hoping to launch that fourth quarter of this year.

We're also working on pre-approved townhouse plans.

We're a little bit behind schedule on that because we've had a little bit of, I won't say challenge, but it's taken us longer to negotiate the contract with the consultant that we've used, and we're basically building off of the work that we've done with detached ADUs.

Those of you that recall, we have pre-approved detached ADU plans.

And so we're building off of that scope and that consultant and that scope of work.

And then we'll come back with an update in January first quarter 2027 with a program evaluation and should we talk about some of the data that we see and what next steps are.

So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Director Flowers for a slide on TPU improvements.

Thank you, Peter.

Good afternoon, Deputy Mayor.

I guess I don't need that any closer and council members.

It's a pleasure to be with you here today to brief you a little bit on what is happening at Tacoma Public Utilities with respect to missing middle housing.

So while the slide really speaks to some efforts in Tacoma Power, I do want to share that both Tacoma Power and Tacoma Water are fully engaged in the processes that have been described prior to my conversation, and they are eager to find ways to enhance and streamline our processes.

And I'm going to look to see.

Wanted to give the staff shout out if they were here.

So I know that power recently moved to Excella.

That's probably a change that you all have been eagerly anticipating for many years.

But we're excited to have the access to the data that is a product of being in Excela, and it really will help us fuel our continuous improvement efforts.

And with the help of ITD, we're going to get water into Excel soon.

So we'll be excited to have kind of a one-stop look in the software.

So what you'll see in here is a little bit of background.

You can see we continue to have a backlog of work for new services.

And you know, while the number 45 permit reviews may not seem like a lot, you know, unfortunately with electrical work, it is very detailed.

You have to look at transformer loading, you have to look at flying capacity, you have to look at whether the poll can hold things, etc., hold the struct hold the additional attachments.

So it is a little more complicated.

And part of that has been our staffing level, turnover in staffing, and in some cases, maybe a need to clarify processes.

So I just want to be clear that we understand we have some challenges.

And you're you're probably hearing it, you're probably familiar with it.

Um but I also want to express our commitment to that continuous improvement and working to really enhance the experience of those that are going through the permitting process.

We are applying our customer experience North Star to our developing development community that is applying for these.

We would like them to have uh a positive experience.

We want to work to prevent any delays in permitting on our side and and both for permitting and new services.

Uh I wanted to share with you the staff, um, Chad Edinger and SEMAGOSH have been really creative in how they're approaching some of these processes.

So as you can imagine, this team does everything from single-family home to large multifamily complexes to commercial industrial.

So there's they do a lot of of permitting and would just say that as they have worked through this process when they see they have a queue of DADUs, they're doing what's called DADU sprints, where they're basically assigning all the staff to work for two weeks on DADUs and see how many they can get done in that two-week period.

So we're we're trying to be you know responsive to those you know, smaller developments that are that missing middle and DADUs in particular, not have those stuck in the queue behind a very large complex process.

And so that level of um adaptability and agility is really what it's gonna take for us to you know continue to refine our process.

The team is also establishing benchmarks for what they want to see in terms of number of projects by staff and that they are they have worked to repurpose some open positions to improve efficiency and productivity, um, and they're working on other processes, simplifying and refining our new new services application to prevent problems in in the process, improving how we distribute work among team members and constructing consistent training material.

I also pulled up the director work plan.

And in particular, for my customer experience initiative, they have added to complete journey mapping for new service, new electric service processes to include opportunities for improved collaboration with general government permitting, target reduced process times for new residential services associated with the 20 units or less, and work to reduce the application time from when the agreement is signed to you know complete by the customer and by our review staff.

So the board heard you know the council's um initiative at the end of last year and added that to my work plan and have have clearly signaled that it's important that TPU is engaging in a way that's supportive of this process.

So I'm happy to be here representing the team, you know, and again, the water side is equally as engaged and just want to thank Chad and SEMA for all of their great work on this effort.

And that concludes our presentation.

Um so I just want to thank Director Flowers for being here.

I think that's just absolutely wonderful, and I really appreciate all the collaboration with the all the utilities and the other departments in making this um a success.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

I know there's a lot of work that went into the background on this, so just appreciate everybody's and uh getting together and making things happen.

So pretty exciting.

Um calling questions, Council Merlin Palmer.

Thank you.

Thank you for this presentation.

Um I'm just I'm ecstatic that Tacoma's leading in this work, and thank you all for all of the hard work you're putting into this.

Um my first question was going to be about you know developer feedback, but it sounds like you all have done a lot of work reaching out and staying in communication with those folks, so that's fantastic.

Um I had a question about how if this program is affecting other applications that are for like bigger projects, has it had any kind of because we're focusing in on this work, has it had any kind of uh adverse effect to that work.

Um, I don't uh at this point I would not say we have an adverse impact.

It's just we have the we've um reallocated resources so that all the projects are being um funnel through this group for middle housing specifically.

They still have other projects that are non-middle housing projects, and then we have the other review members of their teams that are continuing to work on other project scopes.

So there's no we're not we're not uh it's not to the detriment of any other project that we're focused on real housing.

No.

Yeah, and I just might add uh this is really an expansion of a successful program that we've already had in place of um you know single family up to six units or less.

So we've started approaching those projects differently and considering those differently, not only in Excella, but how we reviewed them.

And we've had great success in that, and we've got some really good feedback from our development customers.

And so what we just did is we expanded that approach to this.

It gets a little bit more complicated when you get into a bigger project because depending on the size of the project, it gets into different construction types.

Um, especially a lot of the stuff that you see being built around Tacoma is what they call five over two construction, so it's wood frame, five five stories of wood frame over two stories of concrete.

So it takes a different sort of review team to do those, but no, we have not sacrificed any of those reviews to um staff this program.

We have seen though, as I mentioned, we have seen a slowdown in permitting, primarily due to the economy, and so we're watching that.

Um so as we get back to you in January into the future, we're gonna look at our capacity to perhaps do things differently in different permit types.

Like I said, though, once you get over a certain construction type, it becomes really complicated from all of all of us sitting at the table to reviews.

That's great.

Um I think you kind of went into my next question a little bit.

You said that there was something, uh is it like a separate program for the up to six units?

Yeah, it's a it's a separate program, but it's the same model, and it doesn't take as much because they're smaller projects.

It doesn't stay take as much staff capacity.

Okay.

Because I was looking at like the current projects, and most of them seem like they're on the higher and like more towards the 20 units and not necessarily towards the eight units, um seven or eight units, and so is there is that because most of those are are doing like the six unit you six unit or less, or is there opportunity there?

Um it's primarily what we've heard from the developers is it's economics.

The more units you can get on the lot, the the better the project works out for them.

So if they can get up to 20 to 18 units, they're gonna do that.

We are seeing as a result of home and Tacoma that don't necessarily uh and haven't used this program, a lot of those smaller projects, they're difficult.

You would think they're not difficult, but they're they're infill projects.

And um Jackie and Corey can speak to how from a utility perspective, they get complicated to serve.

And so people are starting to learn that in Tacoma and what it takes to do those projects, and it really does kind of take somebody who has a lot of experience in that infill.

And um, and so what we're seeing here is the larger projects that frankly are a little bit simpler to build on that higher end and the economics make more sense for them, especially with interest rates and construction costs these days.

The more units you can get on the lot, and that's that's the way it is on any any density or any project, but they're really trying to maximize that on these lots.

Thanks.

I'm a huge uh supporter of owner occupied development as well.

Um I'm hearing that that could be maybe more challenging than some of like these these 16 to 20 unit uh projects.

But I guess I'm wondering if if there's a way to kind of focus in a little bit on those folks who are wanting like to who own their properties or you know um have a mortgage on their properties and are wanting to develop that into uh units for themselves and their family or their aging um aging parents.

Um I'm wondering if that is a way to kind of get some of these projects that are on the that lower end uh as well to participate in the in this program.

Yeah, the the unit lot subdivision is uh a new state mechanism that's a big part of home and Tacoma.

Um and so I believe um we have to come back to the council next year and change some of that.

Um and so we'll be updating the council on that and talk about the homeownership and some of the council members who are um involved in the home and Tacoma project.

There's bonuses in the zoning code to facilitate and um uh incentivize home ownership.

But and those would those would apply.

Those would apply if you're in this program.

Uh and so, you know, like I said, we do see some unit lots subdivisions, they're on the larger side, they're not on the smaller side.

And again, what we've heard from folks who are applying for those, because we asked these questions just like you asked for the data that we're collecting, is the economics.

Um it's really tied to the economics of the construction cost, the land cost, the construction cost, and then the um price point that they can get for that home.

Um, but we are seeing some come in on with the afford with some are playing with the bonus.

I don't have the home and Tacoma data on my mind uh off the top of my head, but they are coming and talking to us about utilizing that bonus so that they can get more density and have a portion of the homeownership units be affordable.

Yeah, I'd love to continue this conversation.

I think I I'm excited too about the certified applicant program.

Um I'm wondering if we are considering some of those folks who might qualify because they're trusted and have have proven uh have proven track record, if they would be able to sponsor like other uh like newer developers under under them.

Yeah, I mean we're I mean that would be it's part of our evaluation and conversation with those developers uh or those applic those designers is what what is a fair way to kind of provide them with an incentive to come to the table or come to that with uh submit an application that is fully designed, that has all the analysis, has all the calculations, has everything that is needed, and if they don't uh inherently meet the code that they bring an analysis and have a conversation with the staff about why they think that's an alternative is appropriate as opposed to what sometimes we experience with newer designers or you know, designers who are um probably not as they don't have a complete design, is we go through a few rounds of negotiations, and that that really does create a lot of uh strain on resourcing both on the city side and the applicant side to try and get through a permitting process when we're kind of designed by review in some in some cases, and it's not a really efficient approach.

Um so if there's different ways to encourage uh newer designers to be uh to be party to this, I think that would be great.

I think that's just a good uh a great point, and we'll have a conversation with those applicants about that.

Yeah, and if I might add council member, that's that's a really good point.

I hadn't thought about that.

Um I think there's a there's probably a way that we can I'm not quite sure we could get one of the CPAs, the certified um applicants to mentor somebody, because you know, time is money for the private sector folks.

But there's certainly probably a way that we could work with them.

Um the city could uh come up with some uh tutorial materials, if you will, and we could publish that ourselves and maybe depending on the capacity, go through some training to folks to say that uh you know, here's what it takes, and here's sort of a um a handbook, if you will, or a roadmap to get there.

Uh but it really will depend on obviously uh an individual's resources and their willingness, frankly, to go through the steps and you know, check all the boxes, if you will, to achieve there.

But that's a really good good idea, and uh we'll explore that some more.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sadolgay.

Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um thank you for for the presentation.

This is one several of us over here on council have been looking forward to.

You know, for the uh for the benefit of those listening, I just kind of want to take a step back and talk about where we are today versus where we were just two years ago when I got on council, right?

So today we've we've done a slew of policy updates, home and Tacoma being a massive one and effectively rewriting all of our land use for non-mixed use uh residential across the city.

We've seen early results of those leading to you know an increase in permit applications.

Um the next step is how do we sustain that increase and how do we make sure that they're being built?

Right.

We only on the being built, we have not the you know, our our authority and our power around being built uh aren't as great as many people believe because in many ways it just comes down to dollars and cents and does it make sense today to build?

What we can control is you know what is the experience in going through that process, whether you're a developer, whether you're a single family homeowner.

Um so I think it's really important in a world of trust transparency and um uh of your government to be intentional about thinking about how we can reduce those pain points.

And an often pain point is this bureaucratic process in which we have to go through, they told me X and I went back and they said I'm still wrong.

Right?

Like that's ultimately one of the most common um concerns.

And you know, we don't live in 1952, right?

Where you went to a window, you paid your hundred bucks, you may or may not have even had to give them a plan in some jurisdictions on what you're gonna build, and you go and you build it, right?

Because a lot of times, you know, I've I've been to doors and people are like, hey, you know, we used to be able to build so much in this country.

I'm like, eh, but was it what we really need?

Or was it just whatever someone wanted?

And so over time we've added a lot of regulations, nearly every one of those regulations is written in either someone's life or a strong desire from community.

And our job as a city is to understand how to make that as efficiently as possible.

So again, that's that's a long way of saying it's really important that when we have huge policy FDs, we consider how it affects the entire organization.

And so I also want to say in that that when we're looking at large-scale operational efficiencies, it's not just permitting department, right?

Because we have TPU involved, we have public works involved, we have environmental services involved, um, we have many different departments, and we want to make sure that the interaction between every department and the collaboration between every department is achieving a policy goal that we've all agreed to on council over here, which is accelerating the pace of developing homes because that is an absolute acute issue.

And I really appreciate you talking about collaborative uh partnerships.

I do have some questions.

I'm going to leave the unit lots subdivisions, I'm sure Councilmember Heinz will have comments around that since we actually had a meeting on that.

So I want to ask as we move forward on a higher level, how do we institutionalize this idea of ensuring that we are reducing timelines or keeping timelines that are within our control as tight as possible across departments?

Like what is the plan in how we institutionalize this?

Well, I would uh I would say that that institutionalization has started to happen.

Um and it really happened, in my opinion, starting in two thousand thirteen when planning development services was formed.

So the city manager at that point permitting was fragmented.

Um at that point um the old public works department, which was primarily the permitting agency was being um broken up for a variety of reasons, and so it got even more fragmented.

And the the city manager at the time came from San Antonio and part of his as deputy city manager was overseeing development.

And they had what he called a one-stop shop where uh and he actually went down in San Antonio and visited it, and it actually had one building um with all of the different reviewers and different departments embedded in it, and that's where that term embedded comes from.

And so that was his vision, and so planning development services started out that way, where it was not only planners and engineers, which was traditional from a building side of thing and inspectors, but it also started bringing in environmental service reviewers, stormwater reviewers, as well as it started bringing in uh transportation and traffic reviewers.

And they work as a team.

Um work under to some degree one management structure, but due to the fact that oftentimes once you get above certain um decision making points, uh the directors have to get involved, um and others get involved.

So it it it was a s it was a a matrix organization made up of embedded staff from all those different reviewers, and out of that, based on a consultant that I hired, we decided that one of the issues, even though we were in the same department and the same city was technology.

SAP was not working for permitting, and being able to review and track permitting and staff touch points and time staff touched on it, and so we purchased Exella, which went live in 2016, and ever since then that collaboration um has been institutionalized.

Okay.

I think there's a lot of work to do on that, and as Director Flowers said, um power and water going to Accela will help that.

FIRE has now gone to uh Exella and public works like code enforcement moving into PDS has also helped with that.

And so we're all getting on the same technology platform.

Just just to interrupt you, I know what a CELA is, it's basically a workforce management.

It's a permitting workforce management tool that's specifically geared towards permitting reviews.

We were one of the first in the state.

It's a it's a a cloud-based system.

We're one of the first in the state to purchase it.

Now a lot of jurisdictions in Washington State and across the country use Exella.

Um it's really sort of helped us get to that next point.

Now, when we talk about this middle housing, I think the institutional licensing that needs to go forward is there's all these different authorities, rightfully so.

You know, the the there's the building official, there's obviously the um city engineer, there's the environmental services director, there's the director of they all have different authorities over different code requirements.

And what we have to figure out a way is how do we push down those decision-making points under those authorities so that there's a comfort level that that gets down to as close to the management level or a supervisory level that we're comfortable with.

It's a risk assessment, it's training, and it's all those things.

And then there has to be these sort of communication protocols and service level agreements that when you go over a certain threshold, it kicks up.

And all that has to happen fluidly, and it can't take weeks or emails to happen.

So that's the institutionalization.

It's gotta be, it's gotta be account track it, accountable.

We gotta be able to like have levels of service, and then people have to feel comfortable letting others make decisions for perhaps what they feel should be their decision.

And those are cultural things, but it's also training and it's also technology.

And what we have found in PDS is when you get those folks all sitting together, they're not separated out physically.

They're not support supported by other supervisors or managers, they're not getting drug off in other work priorities.

I mean, you heard Director Flowers say that same group that reviews permits, they review a lot of different stuff.

So it's it's capacity, it's staffing resources, all those things.

And that's what this program, what we've experienced, um has really sort of been the constraint point.

And so what you know, there's a commitment by everybody to try to understand.

First thing we need to do is understand the specifics of that.

And then once we understand the specifics of that, because I'm just giving you sort of we have data, but it's anecdotal data, and it's what I've been experiencing.

Once we have that data, then we can really dive into it and say why is this happening and how we can fix it.

And that's the institutional part that we're working on now and needs to happen in the future.

It's a long answer to your question.

It's a long answer, but it is an answer that I think the public needs to hear from you because it has been uh a common theme that we've gotten either from developers or or individuals, uh, at least I have seen um uh in my district, in what are we doing to you know uh get more efficient, right?

Uh just internally.

So I appreciate that.

I last couple of real quick uh things.

Um, as we talk behind the scenes, there are things that we're incorporating into our state uh priorities, our state law update priorities that are related to this.

Uh you know, uh I think we are taking the lead um in this entire state in in increasing middle housing.

Um, but there's still things that, you know, on a state level, uh not everything is a one-fit uh size fits all solution, and and we're some of the early adopters that get to tell people, hey, we need to update things.

So we're taking that into account.

Um I do also want to point out that um as uh to the rest of the council, we should really um uh understand what the local impacts of the housing bill that just finally got itself passed, I suppose, uh on a federal level.

Uh for those that don't know, the one I have my issues with Congress because it doesn't do much, but they actually did put together a bipartisan housing bill that our president decided not to uh sign, but apparently if you don't do anything, it just goes in and on Saturday morning it came in.

We should also consider uh that on a on a higher level as we talk about uh improvements on on the lowest level.

I do have one specific question as it may potentially um uh relate to the budget.

I know we're doing uh pre-approved townhomes.

Um we haven't started that um we haven't spent any money yet on that, is what I kind of got.

We haven't okay.

So the question I would have uh for city manager is you know what is the potential savings of potentially pushing that off?

And the reason I mention it to the rest of council is the state is taking up the um potential of uh doing pre-approved plans on a state level uh in this uh coming um uh uh legislative session, and should we think about if that happens to just go with the state and push this off and if we did that, does that save us anything on on a difficult budget or or not?

I don't think that's an actual question.

I guess that's just a request from but if you have color around that, you're more than welcome to add.

I I I can't recall off the top of my head how much money we have budgeted for that, but I can get back to you on that.

Yeah.

That's you know, if it is a meaningful amount, maybe it's something we consider if it's not, it's something we can push forward, but the state is considering that and uh want to talk about that.

I could talk about this for way too much longer than I already have, so I'm gonna yield the rest of my time.

Thank you, Councilmember Sonol.

Okay.

Councilmember Umba.

Hi, I don't think I really have much to add except for um I want to thank you so much for all this work.

Um I really appreciate that planners are sort of the ones following the process.

That just makes so much sense to me.

Um because we're really the ones that I'm not one of them, but when I was one of them, the one that like can kind of rally everybody together to get a project done.

So I really appreciate that.

Um it's not like a new thing, it's but it I appreciate that we're doing that.

Um my question is really about home ownership, and it was brought up before.

Um I feel like it's its own beast because these projects are really important and we want to see more home ownership.

Um but we need I I feel like our system is set up for bigger projects, like for a single family house.

And so I I um was hoping that possibly there's a conversation at some point about looking at those as different and possibly what does it mean to for people to have like their own garbage cans if they're a single family house that's home ownership.

Um I just I would love to see I know that means kind of maybe looking at some of our systems and doing things differently, maybe having a different size garbage truck, but I mean obviously it's possible because Murray has different sized garbage trucks for down in Browns Point and Dash Point.

I mean I see them because I live out that way.

But um I'm just I know that that could be some of the hang up on some of these projects.

And um when they're located in neighborhoods that are mostly single family, like in Northeast Tacoma, I really appreciate us understanding being similar does matter in some way and blending into the neighborhood.

And I think they're being really intentional about how they're building the houses so that they look more like single family, the same style.

So I'm and I know that's something people talk a lot about.

How did things fit in a neighborhood?

So I'm hoping that some of the services can fit with the neighborhood.

Does that is that possible, something we can talk about at some point?

Yeah, let's let's explore that.

I think there's there's also opportunities not only with our development partners but um CED or other departments to look at ways that we can um isolate and facilitate the homeownership aspect of it.

Yeah.

Um more beyond just development.

But yeah, let's let's I'll explore that and we can get back to you.

Yeah, I really appreciate that.

Um I I know that some of this stuff can be administrative, um, which is some of the flexibility that we've uh uh provided for.

Um so I really appreciate us having that might be some of the sticking points for getting some of these going.

So thanks so much.

Councilmember Hines.

Thank you, everyone.

And thank you all.

Um I think it's important for the in this conversation to start with the zoning code that was adopted in 1952.

No, I'm that's a joke.

Sorry.

We're not gonna go back that far in time.

Uh no.

Uh I yes.

Start with the start with the first Og and Rog lived in a cave and they decided to build a house together.

Anyways, um the question I would I have one question I really quickly um or comment.

One, I'm I'm really excited about the focus we're taking on housing as an angle.

Um I think you know, one of the challenges when you have a large city like this is every department has its own kind of area, what they look at, right?

You know, it's all the waste is like where does a trash can sit on the lot?

You know, building code is looking, is the building fireproof?

You know, fire is looking at is it fire life safety?

Powers looking for how do we make deliver power to the home in the safest, most effective way.

Um and every little department kind of looks at it their own way.

But what I've seen today and what I'm really proud of is it seems like we're all coming together around the idea of how do we get more housing built and maybe less focus on our individual pieces and more about how all the pieces fit together.

So I want to thank you, Peter and Jackie and everyone who's involved with this process.

But I I am seeing it more and more.

I'm hearing it through conversations that we are we're focused on moving the needle on that.

So I'm really excited about that part.

Uh question would be are we tracking permits year over year?

We keep saying they're slowing down.

We keep saying we've got this kind of uh pre uh pre-impact fee, pre-STC charge boom.

And then now it's and I'm hearing people tell me I'm not building anything in Tacoma anymore now because this has been put in place.

I don't know if that's true or not, but it would be great to have some data.

Are we tracking that over time or looking at those things?

Yeah, we track the number of permits as well as the value of permits, and so we'll probably have some data for you know at our next home in Tacoma check in.

My my question would be because we can't run the we can't run the experiment without in a different way.

Right?

We can't go we can't say, okay, you all don't have to pay these fees and you do and look at the differences.

We can't uh we'd be great to look, maybe can do are we able to look at the county's data?

Because the counties has these things already.

And so if you know if if we're if we're seeing a drop-off and the county is seeing consistent demand um that may ask open a question.

But if we're seeing if the county, if both of us are seeing a drop-off, or at least in some of these housing types, it might be some a question for us to be looking at.

Yeah, I mean we we track whatever data that we can get access to at the county level.

It's a little bit harder.

Different you know, different data points, different permits and different development structure and code.

So but yes, we can track that and do that comparable as well as other smaller jurisdictions, our benchmark cities.

Yeah, I that I'd just be I think it's in whenever there's a major change.

I mean status quo bias is a real thing.

People, you know, whether the change is good or bad.

There's a initial response to the change is usually always often bad.

Um but I'd really love to be able to separate the data from the anecdotes from the actual data, what's happening because I know that based on what I just said there, uh there will be people calling me up and saying that, and I want to be as prepared as possible for that conversation.

Well, this is a policymaker and it's someone to respond to them.

Um I think the only other question, and maybe this is from from the from the building side of the conversation.

At what point do we jump from the inner uh international residential code to the international building code, you know, the commercial code.

When when's the jump happen unit-wise?

Uh councilmember, I can jump in on that one.

So for the most part, it's uh two units and then so like a duplex and then townhouses, those are all IRCs, so like IRC style townhouse.

Uh everything over that really is commercial IBC.

Um I might also take a moment just to jump in on one of your other comments.

So I just want to highlight what you said because uh I think it was really important.

Um so what PDS did as part of this missing middle pilot is is pretty impactful.

And what you said is previously departments kind of did their own thing.

They're kind of an ex expert in their own thing, wasn't really coordinated as part of this effort.

This is exactly what kind of Councilmember Rumbaugh and yourself have both said is there's a coordinated PDS point of contact that's really adding in that extra layer of account building and make sure everybody's hitting their targets and making sure that uh nothing's delayed and and everybody's accountable to their level of service commitment.

And then Councilmember Rumbaugh, real quick just on the solid waste services, just to add a little more detail to your comment.

Uh we we do um, you know, as part of the missing middle effort, uh two things.

One, Director Chavez delegated authority to streamline decision making for these specific types of things.

And then he also authorized uh solid waste management guide, which does allow for multiple services on one lot.

It also allows for shared services for solid waste as well as wastewater and stormwater.

So pretty uh big effort there to consolidate authority for that.

Um so yeah, thank you, Councilmember.

I just asked that question is one of the things that I have been made aware of is just when you look at housing development, the cost to build a residential product is much cheaper than a commercial product in lots of ways.

And so when we start looking at why are we seeing lots of duplexes in townhomes, there is a key component of that, which is you can build those out of the residential code.

You don't need to sprinkle there's a bunch of pieces that come once you get bigger than that.

And so it's something up something else that's not part of this conversation, but I I'll probably ask more off the line is like are we tracking the differences between product projects that fall into those categories?

Because as you're noticing, there seems town homes seem to be very popular all of a sudden, but I think it's probably because of some of the building code requirements more than anything else.

Um the one comment I forgot to say, and then I'll say and then uh close out was um director flowers, thank your board for taking this seriously.

I know we've talked to a bunch of your board members about this and about the process around how do we align TPU in the city around some of the building codes, and I know they've taken it seriously.

So I want to just thank them for that too and pass that on.

Uh and then I think the last one to go back to Councilmember Palmer's point, I'm really excited about the certified applicant program where people can come in and that they're trusted parts of this.

I I do think it's something I've said before is I you know I'd really like us to get to the point where we're you know democratizing development in some ways where we're making it easier for anyone to do it.

There is a component where someone who's done this process a hundred times has figured it out, navigates it and just uh wash rinse repeat and go over again.

What I'm really hoping comes out of this is that if I'm just a random homeowner off the street or uh someone who's looking to build a place for my mom to move into or my kids to move into, that it's it's an easy clear process, and I'm I think this is gonna get us closer and closer to that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional questions or comments?

All right, I'll just say Ditto, we'll really appreciate all the work.

A lot has gone into it, and I'm really excited to uh see what the feature holds for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next up, we're moving on to other items of interest, and our second agenda item is a city council consideration request amending the city council rules of procedure rule number eight.

I would like to call on Councilmember Rumbaugh to begin her presentation.

Um thank you so much.

Uh all right.

So everyone has my CCR for council rule eight changes, and this is something that is in our policies and procedures for the council.

And I'm just I'm excited to bring forward this proposal to update the council rules of procedure.

Um I I just want to start off with why it's not wasn't included in what we were doing with OSAC.

I think I need to start there first and kind of frame that.

And um this isn't going through the OSAC rules update process.

Um I appreciate all the work that OSAC has been doing.

Um, but this proposal comes out of the community forum rules change that council approved ahead of the other proposals.

And I shared this at the time and was told I should bring it forward separately, which is what I'm doing.

And I'd encourage everyone to see and prioritize this item in the same way council prioritize moving forward with changes to community forums.

So I want to just walk you through just some ideas of why I started this.

This idea stems from our conversation about community forum.

I shared ideas on how we would could structure that with the council at the time, and while they weren't incorporated into the proposal that council adopted, I do think they continue to have merit.

Council has heard from many in the community that their voices are underrepresented in council meetings.

And what I heard was a desire to find more formal ways for groups and organizations to present to the council.

Our community forum is not set up for groups to present, which is clear because they try to do that, and then they have to talk, like each person has to talk, and it just is not a cohesive conversation.

Um and so this proposal will allow several groups and sections of our community an opportunity to share presentations on issues or concerns that benefit the wider community.

Um applying to present would be open to the entire community, and presentation requests will have to be approved by the city council.

Presentations would be limited to 15 minutes of a presentation a month, so we'd only have one a month.

Um and then I want to thank my co-sponsors, council members Palmer and Walker.

I really appreciate them both.

They were very interested, and then um they both had really good ideas, and I did talk to a lot of people on our council who brought forward things they cared about, and I made sure I tried to put those into this too.

Um and then I I am bringing this forward for first reading on July 28th and second reading on July August 4th.

But I'm sure you kind of like to go through and look at the changes that are being proposed.

So you should have a copy of it here.

And um, if you look at the rules changes, this like I said was already Rule 8 under miscellaneous public requests for presentation.

Um there's like the little red changes in here.

And I've just gone through and made some changes that I think made sense.

At first, this was something that was a little bit more obscure.

Like we were doing these, but it didn't have really a formal process.

It came through the mayor's office.

Um they we've had these.

Um we did one with UWT earlier, and Linda, my assistant, was really she was really she knew about this.

She's like, Oh, we already do this, council member.

But it wasn't really set up for community.

And I really feel like um making it more formal is good, and it's gonna be the city manager staff is um should compile and share all presentation requests to the city council.

So they they would come through, this is gonna go through city staff, and Ben, I can't remember who's actually going to is it gonna come through the city manager's office or where will they come in?

There was a question about that when I was doing this.

I will actually probably have to get with Linda on that one, but I think it would come through the city manager's office to compile them.

So people would people would be interested, they would submit to do this.

We would have a form on our website that they could fill out, and then it would come into the city manager's office.

Um so there's a whole process in here that involved um administrative services, and I really want to appreciate the city for working on this because it wasn't just me who did this.

Um any member of the city council may bring forward a presentation request for discussion, and city council will determine if the proposed presentation meets the intent of this policy at a study session or committee of the whole meeting.

So we'll be deciding whether or not we want them to go forward.

Um the presentation shall not exceed 15 minutes before it was five minutes.

I really feel like people need longer to share some of their ideas.

And the council will not entertain more than one presentation per month.

That was a real concern.

We didn't want these to take up too much time, but right now let's start with one um a month.

And if that seems like it's not enough, we can come back and talk about making changes if people feel that's not enough.

Or if you say 12 a year council member, that just seems like too much, we can talk about that as well.

And I'm up to any other edits that you might have on this.

Um we can take the council retains the right to decide if the presentation will or will not be permitted, and council will determine the presentation date when they approve a presentation request.

So it's not gonna happen right away, but we're gonna make these, we're gonna allow people an opportunity to bring things forward.

I don't really have um any ideas of I think that I don't have ideas of groups right now that I would like even reach out to, but I also feel like that's part of the intent is that we allow just all the different organizations in town to a chance to speak um at one of our council meetings.

So if there's any questions, let me know.

I I'm open for any ideas you have.

Thank you, Councilmember Rock.

Councilmember Scott.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Rombra for bringing this forward.

Uh I have just a couple of clarifying questions.

When we limit it to one per month, that's pretty straightforward.

Are we like so could a limit on how many times a individual organization could use this format?

Like, can they only do this once a month or once a year?

Can do it once a quarter, um, or is there no specification on that at all?

Uh that's a really great question.

And I didn't have a limit on one organization not being able to come back again.

Um it would be up to us as a counselor to decide who you want to put forward for a presentation.

So I didn't do a limit like that.

Is that something you'd like to see?

Um I don't know, maybe.

I've I've I think you know, if we um I'd like to think that people will leave space for others.

I could see a in like depending on the council makeup, depending on the topics, depending on the organization, I could see it being something that is um you know, one group has more access, maybe they got their thing in first or or so on, they're just more used to kind of navigating the process.

Um I think sometimes having some parameters around that up front is better than trying to create them after the fact in case in the in the instance that somebody does try to.

I don't want to say they're abusing the time there, but I just just in case.

And then my my other question is um is your intent during this, like during community forum, it's not a back and forth.

Obviously, towards the end of the meeting when we have you know council comments, we can respond to folks, or we can ask clarifying questions in the moment.

Is this one of like in this situation?

If after somebody gives a presentation, is their time also mixed in with this for us to respond to them to ask any questions in that moment, or would this be another situation where at the end of the meeting we can chime in as as desired?

Um I really appreciate that question too, because I felt it was open-ended.

I felt like people should have an opportunity to have a back and forth with council.

Okay.

So I I thought it was a presentation, so we could ask questions if we wanted to.

Since they'll be at the microphone, and yeah, that was probably the difference between community forum as they have an opportunity.

Um I think that that's probably something we should we can maybe we need to put that in here, or I may do you want to leave it um more esoteric.

What do you think?

Um I always just think it's good to have like whatever whatever the person the group presenting and whatever we as the council uh should be expecting.

I think it's always good to just have that put in there.

So why don't I add something about that?

And then I think we should add a thing that says maybe um people like groups are welcome to present once a year, once annually.

Yeah, I mean, and I don't know that once annually is is the number.

I just wanted to make sure that we were um just making it as accessible as possible to as many organizations out there as possible.

Okay, I appreciate both of those.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good questions, Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank uh Councilmember Roma for bringing this forward.

I think that this is uh just another mechanism for us to be able to be in communication with our community.

Um that's really not you really taken advantage of right now, and I think this change does what that it brings uh attention to this as a as something that can be used.

Um but I think um extending from five to fifteen minutes also just makes more sense.

Um it's not very easy to get a ton of information in there within five minutes.

Um to council member Scott's uh suggestion.

I think that um it makes sense to look at like okay, is there some kind of criteria where we're waiting, you know, if there is competition for time and um uh are we looking at um have they presented before and if they've presented before in that year, then we're not gonna limit them from presenting again, but they are gonna go maybe to the back of the line for that year.

Um so having things considered when in the in the decision making process that way makes sense.

Okay, so do you think there should be something in there that says if you've presented before like we're trying we'll try we're trying to make sure as many people can present as possible or different people can present.

I just I'm trying to figure out.

I hear what you're saying.

I just want to know do we need to add something to this, or do you think it's better just to leave it a little loose and we might just decide to do that ourselves administratively?

Say add it.

Um I think it's uh it it just may like we want to be again as clear as possible, and I think you're you did a great job of that by adding so much more uh detail into what this was previously.

Um I think that people who understand that this is um that they they have a chance to get in, and that's not it's not just for certain folks.

Um, that could encourage folks to uh to uh submit their presentations.

Um so I think we want to encourage this as much as possible and make it as accessible as possible.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any additional questions or comments?

I'll just say uh thank you, Councilman Rob Romba, for bringing this forward.

Um, I'm supportive.

Um, I think it really gives another opportunity for folks to engage with us, but also think for us to be able to engage with our community in a good way.

Um as been mentioned, uh, I think any folks that are presenting, it should be clear to them that you know, if they do present, they that it's it's possible that they would have questions or follow-up.

Um that uh just so they're clear when they're show when they're when they're doing presentations that they might have to ask ask what answer questions.

Um that's different than community forum where it's just kind of a one-sided thing, and I think that might be kind of new for some folks.

Um, any additional questions or comments?

Nope.

All right, thank you so much, Councilor Ba.

All right.

Uh, next up we have our item number three, which is uh council consideration request opposing initiative measures number IL 26-001 and IL 26-638.

I'm gonna call on Council Member Diaz.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I am bringing forward a CCR to ask for folks' support in expressing opposition for the passage of initiative measure number IL 26-001 and initiative measure IL 26-683, which are both coming forward on this November's general election ballot statewide.

Um, as folks might be aware, transgender individuals are facing a lot of scrutiny and attacks at the national level, and Washington State is unfortunately not immune to that.

So these are two initiatives that are gonna be on the ballot that attack that community and quite frankly our children from various angles this fall, and so we thought it would be really pertinent um the co-spensors and I to bring this forward for the city to weigh in formally and express our opposition to this passage of these initiatives.

I think the community um has been very clear with us in when we do all sorts of visual representations of how we support the LGBT community and particularly our trans community, that we also take actions when there's actions to be taken.

I think this is a great example of an action that we can take.

Um, just to go over a quick overview of the two initiatives so folks understand what exactly is being proposed in the initiatives, and um I welcome any other questions folks might have about what the content of the CCR might entail.

Um 26001 will force schools to hand over sensitive information about child abuse victims to their parents that contains inadequate safeguards and circumstances where those parents may be also abusers.

This initiative does not allow disclosure to parents who are under active criminal investigation for abuse, but does not consider circumstances outside of an active criminal investigation, including the complaint stage, or when parents have been charged with or convicted for raping, assaulting, or otherwise harming their own child and mandates their access to sensitive information, including private social work and school counseling records, which would put kids at greater risk.

By removing record protections, IL 2601 discourages students from facing domestic violence, sexual abuse or bullying from seeking help from trusted school counselors who would be required to release the students' record confidential information to parents and others.

Um it would also require schools to out LGBT kids, um, as folks know, kids spend a lot of time in school, and often parents are um teachers, I should say, are really trusted leaders and parent and parent-like um just um adult figures in kids' lives and forcing the teachers or other folks, administrators in the schools to out kids who might not feel safe talking about their um exploring of their identities or their known identities to other folks is pretty gonna be pretty harmful to our youth.

Um the other initiative, IL26-638, changes the law to require medical sex certification as part of sports physicals for all girls and bans parents from using birth certificates instead of that.

It would force tens of thousands of Washington girls each year to undergo actual literal genital exams just to play sports.

Right now, students stay fully clothed during sports physicals, but this would change that only for girls.

Boys are completely exempt from this requirement, and only girls will be subjected to medical sex certification and genital exams, putting another barrier between girls and sports, which we as a council have taken many stands of how much we want more girls in sports.

Um with that, uh pretty gruesome picture of the gross things for us on the ballot.

Um, I want to thank Councilmember Scott and Councilmember Palmer for co-sponsoring this request with me.

Um it will be on our council uh calendar for a vote on July 28th, and I anticipate we'll should probably hear from some folks in the community who are pretty excited of us um bringing this forward.

I think we might be one of the first cities to be doing so.

So I think it's a great position for us to be standing with our our neighbors and our girls.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Diaz.

Appreciate your leadership on this.

Uh Councilmember Rumbaugh.

Um thank you, Deputy Mayor, and I want to thank Councilmember Diaz for bringing this forward as someone who is sexually abused as a child by my dad.

Um, I want to say that um I don't think I would ever have played sports if this had been a law.

Um, to go through a exam like that to play sports is just ludicrous, and I oppose both these measures, and I will be signing whatever we bring forward.

Um, as well as the fact that my dad sexually abused me, this stuff that's under the school part is very disturbing.

And this is this is um just I don't understand where these people are coming from, but as someone that has experienced this kind of thing, um this is just re-traumatizing over and over again.

And we do not need to do that to people in our community.

So I hope that can't wait to sign this these letters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Scott.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I just wanted to say thank you to Councilmember Diaz for uh bringing this forward and and uh allowing me to be a co-sponsor and um and bringing it to the the full council.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you, Ditto.

Thank you for taking the lead on this and protecting our kids and especially our girls.

Happy, happy to sign on.

Thank you for allowing me to sign on.

Thank you.

Councilmember Walker.

Um thank you, Deputy Mayor, and yes, mostly just Ditto, thank you for bringing this forward.

I think um not only showing our um support for the no campaigns, but also educating folks because there's so much misinformation out there.

So even just this little statement is valuable to get out there in the world.

So just encourage folks who um can to share the information far and wide.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh seeing none, thank you so much again, Councilmember Diaz, for your leadership on this, and very, very obviously in support of against these.

Uh so um verbiage is hard.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Um with that, uh, next up we have our committee reports.

Do we have any committee reports to share?

All right, seeing none.

Item number four, agenda review and city managers weekly report.

I'll call on Deputy City Manager Allison Griffith.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council for your awareness this evening.

There's one ceremonial on tonight's agenda that's recognizing Sparta Tacoma.

There are no modifications to tonight's agenda.

There are two opportunities for public comment this evening.

Excuse me, Deputy Mayor.

I'm sorry about that.

The first is under regular public comment regarding motions, resolutions, and ordinances on tonight's agenda.

The second opportunity is under community forum regarding items over which the city council has jurisdiction.

Please let us know if there are any questions before tonight's agenda.

And for your review attached to the study session uh is the weekly report to council.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

All right, thank you so much.

Councilmember Romba.

Um I just want to call out our staff really quickly.

I got a card from constituents, which you know you rarely get anything really positive, but it's a whole bunch of thank yous to our staff.

They were thanking me, but they're really thanking our staff for the work they did to fix the alleyway by Lowell Elementary.

So I want to call out public works and all of the great work they do.

There's Ramiro back there.

I just want to say they reached out to me and I reached out um through my assistant, and I just thank you so much because they are so happy.

So if I can bring a little joy and we brought a little joy to a little neighborhood that's been dealing with uh a school c a school being built, I appreciate you.

So they appreciate you.

And if you want to see the card from you and share it with everyone, you can.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

All right.

Uh next up we have an executive session pending and potential litigation.

I'll entertain a motion to convene to an executive session pursuant to RCW forty two point three zero point one ten, print one print I and R C W forty two point three zero point one ten, print one print I print I and print I to discuss pending and potential litigation not to exceed thirty minutes.

So move.

Second.

Seeing none all in favor of entering executive session, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion is adopted.

Uh there will be no further business once we return from the executive session.