City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you very much. Uh, I'd like to call the Lakewood City Council meeting of March 16th, 2026 to order. Miss Schumacher, could you please call the role? Council member Brandansteader here. Council member Laurisa has been excused. Council member Lindholm here. here. Council member Talbo here. Deputy Mayor Bell here. And Mayor Boi here.

You have Thank you very much. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you very much. So, tonight we have the pleasure of a business showcase for Lakewood Autobody. So, would Mr. Andy Mueller please come on down to the podium and and uh I will read in uh we'll tell you all about Lakewood Auto Body. Hi, Paul. Nice to meet you. Thank you for being here tonight. Lakewood Auto Body has been family-owned and operated here in Lakewood since 1964. It was founded byraton Mueller who brought his early passion for rebuilding cars from San Diego to Lakewood after serving at Fort Lewis Lakewood auto body uh continues to serve the Lakewood community through youth through youth program sponsorships and by providing quality trusted service. Mr. Mueller uh congratulations Mrs. Mueller. Welcome. And I'd like to say a few words. Would I like to say?

Yeah, we do. Please. Oh, geez. It's just a make a good effort. Uh, I must say my father would be probably pretty proud of the situation. He uh I could tell you Pacific Highway when he got here was pretty much a dirt road. I5 wasn't even thought of. Um the across street used to be a little stakehouse. Uh when Gallop and Gertie happened, he watched Pacific Highway kind of do the role. Um, and then the progression of vehicles these days, I must ask if you can make them not so safe. Um, there's not so many crashes out there in these days. So, if we could get a, you know, maybe when roundabouts disappear a little bit, but, uh, at the end of the day, we would like to say thank you as to the community very much. So, thank you.

Thank you. We'll come down here for a picture.

I'd also like to note that most businesses don't last as long as the one your family owns. uh a number of the city council members were not even alive when uh the business started. So that's even more remarkable I think. So anyway, a couple of us were. So Bear. Yeah. Imp mayor, before we move on to the next item, we do have the video to of the business showcase to share.

Got the next line.

I forgot my next line. We do have a video. My name is Michael Campion and this is Lakewood Auto Body. Well, dad started the company back in 1964 uh when he was stationed up here. He really liked working on cars. He'd been doing it since 1955 down in San Diego. He was one of the original customizers and got shipped up here, found a spot, and started doing work for people. Lakewood Auto Body has sponsored just about every sporting event type for kids in the area for the last many decades. We do baseball, soccer, Cub Scouts, all the different activities for kids. We just appreciate the community supporting us for all these years and we hope that they continue to do so. We'll do the best job that we can to keep them coming.

Thank Thank you very much for all that you've done for our community and your success through all these years. and we wish you success in future years also. Thank you. Oh, we can do it again.

She's the found Hey, welcome. What do we want to do? Should we do another P? Goodbye. Thank you very much. Next is public comment. Public comments are accepted by mail, email, or by live, virtual, or in-person comment. Send

comments in advance by mail or email to Briana Schumacher, city clerk at 6000 Main Street Southwest, Lakewood, Washington 98499 or B Schumacher at cityoflood. us. Comments received up to 1 hour before the meeting have been provided to the city council electronically. Miss Schumacher, do can you read the names of any of those who have submitted comments in advance? Mayor, we received written comments in advance from Trisha Parsons.

Trisha Parsons. Okay. So, we have received that. So, please announce uh the audience may comment on items relating to any matter related to city business under the public comments period. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. If you'd like to provide live virtual public comments, you will need to join the Zoom meeting as an attendee by calling telephone uh 12532158782 and enter meeting ID 8687263 2373 or visit zoom. us and enter meeting ID 868-7263 2373. Upon entering the meeting, please enter your name. Use the raise hand feature to be called upon. For those participating by calling in by telephone, to use the raise hand feature, press star 9 on your phone. When you're unmuted, please provide your name and city of residence. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes to speak. Outside of public comments, all attendees on Zoom will continue to have the ability to virtually raise your hand for the duration of the meeting, but you will not be acknowledged and your microphone will remain muted except when you are called upon. So, I'd like to start tonight with the Zoom. Do we have anybody online? Miss Schumacher.

Mayor, first we have Tisha Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop, the floor is yours. Can you hear me? Oh, hello. Yes, we can hear you.

Uh, hello. I just wanted to make a quick public comment um regarding sidewalks. Uh, I've noticed that there have been a lot of uh sidewalk projects around the city that have uh required oak trees to be cut down and other trees, too. Uh but you know they they make the sidewalk and then you look at the sidewalk you know every day for for years after they make it and uh you don't really see people walking on a lot of the sidewalks and it really makes me wonder you know trees are one of the most important things we have in this city and uh is it really worth it to make sidewalks in areas which were already pretty okay for pedestrians to begin with when hardly ever anyone is even going to use the uh the sidewalks that they make. So, it it seems like a kind of a questionable uh use of funds. And um I just want to point out that it doesn't seem to me I mean maybe they're they are doing this but to my knowledge uh before sidewalks are made there don't seem to be any um studies on uh how many people are actually um pedestrians in that area per day per week beforehand. So, um, yeah, it might be a good idea to do some research on, uh, whether or not sidewalks are actually worth making before one destroys hundreds of year old trees to make some concrete that nobody's going to use. Um, that's all I wanted to say. Uh, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Is there are there any other callers online? Miss Schumacher, mayor, there are no other virtual attendees at this time.

Thank Thank you very much. Uh then we will come in person. You have three minutes. The first uh speaker I have on the list here is Miss Linda Smith. Miss Smith, you have three minutes. Good evening, mayor and council members. How are you this evening? My name is Linda Smith and I'm here on behalf of the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce to express our strong opposition to a BNO tax targeting the warehousing industry. Since incorporation, Lakewood has intentionally chosen not to impose a BNO tax on business. That policy has given our city leverage to be more attractive for investment, job creation, and economic growth. Our business community is facing an unprecedented wave of new costs from multiple levels of government. Locally, many businesses were hit with substantial increases under West Pierce Fire and Rescue's new fire benefit charge. While the new system was intended to be more more equitable, the shift to a formula based on building size, use, and risk resulted in dramatic cost increases for many commercial properties, especially Lakewood Industrial Park. For many employers, especially small and mid-size businesses, uh these cumulative impacts are real and immediate. Unlike many other taxes, the BNO tax is levied on gross receipts rather than profits. This means businesses must pay the tax even when margins are thin or when there are uh or when they are operating at a loss. I don't know why I just got so nervous

here. Um, a BNO tax effectively penalizes job creators and investment at the very moment when Lakewood should be encouraging economic growth. While the chamber does not support tax increases lightly, the.1% public safety sales tax spreads the responsibility broadly across the community, including the visiting public. a 1% per one uh per $10 spent um has an impact on individual purchases, which is relatively low. While the chamber recognizes the city's legal obligation to fund indigent defense services, we believe that careful prioritization, efficiency, and cost management must remain part of the conversation. Lakewood's success has been built on a partnership between the city and its business community. Let's not abandon the policy that has helped our city grow. If public safety protects everyone, then everyone should share in supporting it, not just the employers who already help power Lakewood's economy. Strong businesses create strong communities. Policies that protect and support employers ultimately benefit every resident of Lakewood. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Smith. Mr. Chris Kaufman, Chris, you have three minutes. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, I'm Chris Kaufman. Uh this is a followup to a program we had a couple weeks ago on recognizing the uh transition team

folks and uh I was privileged to be part of that. I wanted to follow up and recognize three additional people that uh uh cannot be here for that recognition. Uh my background, I've uh lived in Lakewood for uh 55 years intentionally and I did chair the public works transition team um prior to cityhood and uh my late wife and I did work uh on with uh with Bill and a number of other people on uh getting the favorable vote for cityhood over 30 years ago. go people I want to recognize are are first Bill Larkin. He was one of the 22 people on my transition team public works and uh Bill was the roads engineer for the city of Tacoma and uh he later uh when the city of Lakewood got into a position to have a public works section was city engineer. So he was our first city engineer. Uh next I want to recognize Ed Starird and Colonel Starboard had a significant background uh in the core of engineers. Uh and including district engineer and uh his last Simon in the core was with the I core here at Fort Lewis and uh he and his family settled here and and some of you may or may not remember he had of his five kids. One was named Kate and she was a good basketball player. So people tend to remember Kate, not necessarily Ed, but Ed was a pretty good kayaker, too. And I managed to get him to agree to write our report. And I think it was he did a tremendous job. We had a lot of lot of

information that we gathered with 22 people over a few months on the transition between Tacoma and its public works and the county uh and its effort in this area. And last, I want to recognize uh my wife at that time, Sylvia. uh she handled two transition teams, the parks and the health and human services. And uh again, they put together excellent reviews and and uh reports. I would recommend the reports to you. Uh I got out with her a little bit and the status of our parks before cityhood was abysmal. It really was. and what the city has done since city hood is is remarkable. Appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kaufman. I note that documented the sad shape. What's up? Thank you. Up next is Ms. Haley Ivy. is Ivy.

Hello. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Thanks for having me again. Um I am bringing up again Celely Lake in Edgewater Park today. um as an a mention of the all-encompassing problem that I'm seeing with Lakewood. And I do have to start by saying uh I love being a resident of Lakewood so far because of the trees that I get to see around me and because I go to these parks, Edgewater Park specifically. I get to see Lake Stacum. I get to see the sunset. I get to hear the birds over there. So when I say that, I am declaring that the Lakewood Parks are in a state of emergency. We are so overdeveloped as a city that any more development is extremely close to ridding the the entire town of Lakewood of its already severely diminished natural areas. Um so last time I had talked about Cel Lake um because the educational sign put at the beginning of the trail head says how you can help protect the Chambers Clover Creek watershed. It is to preserve the natural vegetation and to reduce paved services which is the exact opposite of lake what Lakewood is doing unfortunately. Um and I bring up these parks in protest of their current conditions because if Cel Lake is considered to be a crucial um wetland for Lakewood then why are there shopping rusted shopping carts in there? Why is there garbage of all sides on the sides of the trail on the trail with ducks and birds just hanging out with all this trash? The trees are completely choked up with ivy. It looks like the apocalypse at this park. And I I just don't think anybody's really catching it that can help us do something about it. Um and so then brings me back over to Edgewater Park, which I go to every day, which is also covered with trash. There's trash along the water's edge. Um, there's no real place for the ducks

and geese to go anymore. So, they kind of just all poop in the same little sliver spot at Edgewater Park, which is really just a sign that they don't have very many places to go because all around all of the lakes in Lakewood, it's all private docks. So, we have Edgewater Park as being uh undeveloped considered. Um and so there is the shoreline master plan program hearing coming up which also states in chapter 1A um it mentions control of pollution pre prevention of damage to the environment and to protect natural shorelines. So when you are leaving these places in disarray with garbage and overgrown invasive species and then with this hearing on Wednesday, it's talking about paving over Edgewater Park with a walking path, which if you go to Edgewater Park, it's not very big at all. Just adding more pavement. So why why I I I just plead with Lakewood. What what is the obsession with development over the lakes and the woods? Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ivy. Miss Helen Wagner. Welcome, Miss Wagner. You have three minutes. You can pull that down. Thank you. Uh oh, it's working. Okay. Tree code. It is a great idea. And since it has pages and pages, long, dirty pages, it looks as though it should protect our trees. However, the document is merely

cosmetic. If it were not so, we would not find it necessary to defend each large Gary Oak whenever a developer wishes to cut it down. The most obvious thing that I notice is that if someone wants to build, it is very easy to circumvent the most basic rules that is designated to preserve trees, especially oaks, in order to fix things for humans. that the chances are that long after the project in question has been removed to make way for the next construction, the tree in question would still be alive, probably even after our grandchildren are gone. We need to remember that trees are living things. I notice that there is a formula for how many significant trees per acre may be felled per year. Is that preserving the canopy? Any way you look at it, the trees lose. There are so many ways to sneak around the basic goal, tree preservation, that boggles the mind. We need to cut the nonsense, stop putting business ahead of environment, both trees and ecology in general, and develop a system that is mindful of the benefits that trees provide. After all, those benefits are stated at the beginning of the tree code. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Wagner. Next up, I believe that's uh James Dunlop. I believe that's your signature, Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop, you have three minutes.

Uh James Dunlop, Lakewood resident. We all agree that public comments are an important Lakewood institution. And as a foreigner, I appreciate the United States's First Amendment and my ability to say largely whatever I like within the three minutes given to me by the city of Lakewood. However, most Lakewood residents don't make public comments. And if you look back at the minutes since 1996, you see that more often than not, there are only one or two public comments per city council meeting. In fact, the only person you could rely on to make a public comment was Dennis Hogan. When he lived in the area, he turned up in person and often he moved and after he moved to South Dakota, he continued to call in with his thoughts and diet tribes. Then the comment stopped. This is because Dennis Hogan died at the age of 82 on December the 19th, 2025. Maybe this is common knowledge, but I only just heard the news. On most subjects, I disagreed with Dennis Hagen, though there was no doubt that he cared very much about his country. The themes of his comments included mass immigration, the brilliance of Governor Christine Noim, the fentinel epidemic, and the parlor state of America's education system. According to one source, he was so keen to make his point that at least on one occasion, he came to a council meeting with a TV set in tow showing reportage from Fox News. Dennis Hogan was born on August the 15th, 1943 in Minnesota. He grew up on a farm and he was used to a world of tractors and horses. He studied theology before moving to the Puget Puget Sound area where he had a business installing

septic tanks. Then he worked in real estate before becoming a long shoreman at the Port of Seattle until he was well into his 70s. Clearly, he was a man with an incredible work ethic. In terms of political engagement, Dennis Hogan should be an example to all of us. He expressed his views with conviction and clarity and he believed, I assume, that it was important to be heard. We should follow his example and take every opportunity to make a public comment until the day we die.

Thank you, Mr. Dunlap. Christina Manetti. Miss Manetti. Menetti, it looks like you're down twice. So, you're going to speak for the Gary Oak Coalition for one. Yeah, it's written in the organization slot. Okay.

Um Christina Manetti Lakewood. Um seems relief. During the pandemic, when mowing stopped, an acquaintance saw that something remarkable happened at the corner of John John Dower Road in Kuster. Camas flowers bloomed. Beautiful splashes of sapphire blue. This amazing site wasn't just pretty, it was historically and ecologically significant. Camas is a prairie indicator species. Its presence tells us that the land still retains elements of the Gary Oak Prairie ecosystem, one of the rarest ecosystems in North America. For thousands of years, this landscape was actively maintained by indigenous people through regular use of fire. Burning prevented Douglas for encroachment and encouraged the growth of prairie plants like like chemists. Cameas was also central to the native food economy of this region. The bulbs were harvested and cooked as a staple starch much the way we rely on potatoes today. Entire cultural traditions and seasonal gatherings revolved around camas harvests. When we see cameas blooming here in Lakewood, which is virtually never, we are seeing a living connection to that history. What amazes me most is that these plants are still here at all. The cameas appeared after more than a century of settlement, after decades of routine mowing and the complete absence of the fire management that once sustained the system. Yet, the plants are still trying to grow. In a sense, they are telling us that the prairie is not entirely gone. It's simply waiting for someone to give it a chance. Earlier today, I spoke with the principal of Daer Elementary School, whose campus includes the Gary Oak habitat at that corner. I asked whether the area could be left unmodeed so that the camas might bloom again. She seemed genuinely interested but unaware that the school grounds contain part of one of the rarest ecosystems in North America. I'm here to encourage the city of Lakewood to expand public education

about our native habitats, what they are, why they matter, and how residents can help protect them. Please let me know how I can help. Of course, the city can also lead by encouraging less pavement, more native planting. I know that you're planting some native plants in the park plans now and stuff, but anyway, by showing residents how to rewild their yards to help the birds and wildlife that still call Lakewood home. After all these years, the camas and oaks are still trying to survive. Please help them. This is all happening on your watch. And the second comment is uh on behalf of the Gary Oak Coalition, Christina Manetti Gary Oak Coalition. We are asking you to request that the Kuster Road sidewalk project next to Daer Elementary be redesigned so that no Gary Oaks are harmed or removed. Apparently, the Gary the city staff responsible for this project has not yet been informed of the need to protect the Gary Oaks. According to the schematic I received, three Gary oaks would be cut down. Two about 12 inches in diameter at breast height and one about 4 in 14 in. I was told that one of them has a double trunk. But this is not even shown in the drawing I was given. These trees may not look large but Gary oaks grow extremely slowly about 15 to 20 years for every inch of diameter. That means that these oaks could easily be 180 to nearly 300 years old. To understand what that age means, consider the Tensler Douglas fur whose section sits in the park. Now, that fur was 586 years old and is 12 feet 9 in in diameter. That's 153 in. A Gary Oak that old would be just about 29 to 39 in. That's the size of some of the oaks that the city has allowed to be cut

down recently for the tilum path. The only reason that these oaks do not look enormous is that they grow really slowly. But the age and ecological value are just as real. And for this particular ecosystem, one of the rarest in North America, I'm saying that the third time tonight, it's even more important. Gary oaks are also a keystone species in this ecosystem. That means that several hundred other species depend on them for habitat and food. Remove the oaks and the web of life around them begins to collapse. Habitat biologist Darren Masters, whom I think you know, has also explained that Gary oaks growing close together like these often grow even more slowly because they compete with one another. He said that Gary oaks only three to four inches in diameter can already be hundreds hundreds of years old. The best available science is clear. WDFW's management recommendations 1998 states the west of the cascades Gary Oaks should not be removed except for stand enhancement. A sidewalk is not stand enhancement. State law requires that land use decisions follow best available science. There is also already a sidewalk on the other side of Kuster Road built when this area is still under Pierce County jurisdiction and it was carefully designed around a clump of oaks to save them. Engineers then understood that when you encounter Gary Oaks, you design differently. Across the world, we are watching species and ecosystems disappear at a rate never seen before in human history. The responsible thing is to protect the ones that we have here surviving. A sidewalk can be redesigned in a matter of hours. The city has its own oak protections in the code. It has made Gary Oak the official city tree. Please now ask that the sidewalk project be redesigned so these valuable oaks can live. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Manetti. Mr. Abraham Margeli. Thank you. You have three minutes. Hello. Good evening to the member of the council and the public. As you know, I am a city of resident, city of Lakewood resident. And before I start, I wanted to thank uh the mayor Buchi because he has been very kind and pleasant unlike the past. I think that if we didn't have that situation uh in our case, probably we wouldn't be here as we are. Um but regardless I wanted to ask for a minute of uh silence because of this 168 innocent little girl who were murdered in their school with their students with their teachers by being not once but twice attacked in Minab Iran.

Let's hope those who are responsible brought to justice now that this innocent case could not be brought back. I came here during the last few years that I have been coming here when there was a carnage going in Gaza asked the city council twice to ask for ceasefire never did anything this is where we end up to be and I'm afraid it's going to get worse this council this city is representing me and my city of resident I urge you to condemn this action so it never be repeated again and those who are responsible be brought to justice. Thank you very much for your understanding. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Margeli. That is everybody who signed up, but anybody else here tonight who would like to make public comments, you can come up to the microphone and you've got three minutes. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment this evening? Okay. So, at that I am going to close public comment and Miss Schumacher, we will go on to the consent agenda.

Consent agenda A. Approval of the minutes of the city council meeting of March 2nd, 2026. B. Motion number 2026-21 authorizing the execution of an agreement with SCJ Alliance in the amount of 100,000 for the Camp Murray boat launch master plan. C. Motion number 2026-22 updating the 2026 planning commission work plan. D. Items filed in the office of the city clerk. One, arts commission meeting minutes of February 9th, 2026. Two, planning commission meeting minutes of February 18th, 2026. Thank you, Miss Schumacher. Uh, is there are there any members who would like any item on the consent agenda removed for separate consideration? Council member Brandstead.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to remove item B. Item D. B. B. Okay. B. That's motion number 20 2621. Yes.

Okay. So, we now have uh a removed motion number 202621. Are there any other items that any other members of the council would like removed from the consent agenda? Okay, with that, could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? So, moved. It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda as uh with the removal of motion number 2026 21. All those in favor signify by saying saying I.

I say nay. The eyes have it. The consent agenda as amended is approved. So now we will go on to ordinance or excuse me motion number 202621. Miss Schumacher, could you read it in please? Motion number 2026-21 authorizing the execution of an agreement with SCJ Alliance in the amount of 100,000 for the Camp Murray boat launch master plan. Thank you, M. Schumacher. Could we get someone to move it so that we could have discussion? So move, mayor. Second.

It has been moved and seconded. Ordinant motion number 202621. Mr. Branset. Councilman Bransetter. Would you like to speak to it?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. In the request for console action, it it discusses that the contract that this motion approves is uh designed to fulfill the memorandum of understanding agreement entered by the city and the Washington military department to define site improvements and to improve the boat launch uh area for a variety of reasons. I'm concerned that the scope of work in the contract doesn't fulfill that piece. And when I look at the memorandum of understanding, it specifically talks about that the that while the city of Lakewood is going to fund and take the lead, that the u there is a section that says the city of Lakewood and the Washington Military Department will collaborate throughout the study to ensure boat launch improvements address Camp Murray operational needs and missions and I don't see that function in the state of work of the contract. The the military department is s relegated to just being one of a group of other stakeholders that will several times be consulted. But that falls short of of a a collaboration throughout the study. And I would think that our um intention is as we coming up with a with with a master plan

that doesn't have the intended collaboration throughout its development can get us to a point of where well this is a property that there is a great deal of benefit to the community and very legitimate concerns on the part of the military. department to get resolved. If we develop the plan as is outlined in this scope of work that seems to be totally focused on the city's need and the community needs and doesn't particularly address the military department's needs or engage the military department throughout rather than incidentally as a as as a stakeholder that we will we will we will end up was work that we will end up having to re at least renegotiate uh to be able to go and do that. And I would like to get the scope of work of the of the of of of the contract include more specific and ongoing throughout collaboration with the military department as our memorandum of understanding calls for. Um, and it to the extent that that would mean that we would need to delay action on this contract until it can be rewarded in in that way. That would be my preference. Thank you, Council Member Branser. Is there anybody here anybody here on staff that can speak to this? And because this is obviously concern that we we I think I'm going to paraphrase the council

member. We go through this whole process and then the guard just says, "Oh, too bad. So sad." So is this $100,000 of venture capital on our part or do what kind of underlying agreement do we have with the the state?

Sure. Sure. Well, I can speak to theou um since I worked with that um to get that passed there. And to council member Branset's point, the military department is a collaborative stakeholder throughout this process. In fact, the purpose of theou, if we're reading it, is to formally commit the city of Lakewood and the military department to implement a Camp Murray boat launch joint master plan. Um and then collaborate throughout. And to council member Bransetter's point, um, yes, the military department is a stakeholder and they are consulted. Um, but I wouldn't necessarily downplay that a little bit. Just because they are included in perhaps one line as a collaborative stakeholder doesn't mean that they would not be collaborating throughout the process. Um yeah because to the point and if you do look at some of the um items such as in the program development if we're looking at phase five task one I mean one of the items is security so to confirm security protocols allowances and limitations um and if you also to jump back to theou if you will um some of the vision keep some of the original visioning items there do include making sure that um you know the federal erized um fence par parameter um perimeter is secured. So that is referenced several times throughout theou um and is you know referenced in the scope of work for the consultants. Um yeah just to speak on theou part and sort of where that plays into things. Yep.

Okay. So both and thank you for pointing out that that line. So are there any other questions for staff? Yeah, absolutely. Council member,

my concern is in in the contract the deliverable and there are a number of deliverables and they all speak into developing the site and for recreational purposes being able to go and do that. And I don't see in calls for developing two concepts, but there isn't anything in the deliverables that calls for evaluating the particular items in theou of terms of evaluating the security impacts and limitations that that are on there and defining it. And it certainly doesn't seem to give the military department a greater role in developing the master plan than other lesser stakeholders with which we don't have anou. So, I guess I are are I guess I'd like to know which deliverables specifically implement the I the idea that we will pay attention to the security concerns of Camp Murray in developing the master plan and that we'll will have that ongoing collaboration throughout the process as theou calls for. Um, I um I understand it's our money and I understand we we are supposed to take the lead, but I think we should be true to the intent in theou of how we're working to do that. And I'm wondering which deliverables are interpreted in terms of doing what I'd like to see.

Yes. Thank you, council member. So Roxet Miles the parks recreation and community services director and so I'm managing this contract and this project I think specifically I can point to some of the deliverables that are in there uh to address your concerns but if you want it called out more directly one is within the engagement uh the military department is an essential stakeholder to this group. So it does call out the individual interviews and the role that they would play not just on the steering committee but as a primary first partner and so there's an emphasis on the consultants working with those folks who own the land lease the land and would jointly have to agree to these terms. I think some of the specifics you're talking about are within the site constraints report. So a number of environmental things are called out. They're looking at what could technically be built there, but the bigger part of the site some train constraints or equally a part of it is what's going to be allowable uh based on the current use of the lands in the ownership in the the military department role. So that site constraint is all done up front as well as the partnership roles and responsibilities before the two operational models get developed to say these are options for development that actually meet all of those constraints including the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. The two options then will have a larger vetting with the steering committee and the public. But their final deliverable beyond the master plans is actually an implementation. So it calls out a lot what would it cost to do this? Where could those funds come from? But a big part of that is also what are the terms of what it would take for the partners working together to fund this and then to operate. Right? the city can't develop that without some form of agreement beyond this MOU that says what it looks like uh the other

side of that development or even the authorization to do a development. So that would be coming back as the next step of the terms between the relationship between the city and the military department in order to do what the master plan process recommends as it's adopted in the end. Well,

thank you. My concern still is is that developing a master plan uh asking the contractor to assist us in doing that. Um, and then taking a look about how can the master plan be made to fit with the security concerns of the military department is um um I I think that that that security concerns being considered by the contractor in the development of the two options for the master plan would be more appropriate to call out to them that they should do that that I'm not reading in the draft of the statement of work and I think it could be without a great deal of words smmithing but more than I'm prepared to do or ask you to do tonight to to do that because while we can agree on on some things to do that. What we can hold the contractor to deliver is what's in the contract. And we're not particularly asking him to look at that essential element of bringing this to fruition for the community. Um and and I and I guess that maybe my question is how difficult it would would it be to edit the statement of work to include some consideration of that

without escalating the costs of the contract. So some of those parameters were already in the site constraints. So the editing if that needs to be explicited called out in more detail because that has been part of the conversation that could be done and that should not change uh the value of the contract because it's already an expected deliverable. Uh but we can make it more explicit. So could such a change be drafted to be considered for the contract to be considered at our next regular meeting. If I can jump in for a couple of questions.

The draft contract has the incorporation of theou within it itself. So that is what the contractor is required to put into place. If you're suggesting that's not sufficient enough, I would be concerned that if we have that discussion here that requires a change in the contract or in the RFQ language in the contract, we may want need to rebid it.

I'm going to I'm going to jump I'm going to jump in here though first. So, let's because we have new members. It's been a while since we as a group talked about this. So, Ms. Miles and you're new too. So, let's just try to all get on the same page here. We have been talking to the state of Washington about the the there's already a park or not not necessarily a park, but there is a boat launch there. Correct. And it's currently under the state of Washington. Yeah. The land is federally owned, but the Department of Fish and Wildlife operates it on behalf of them.

And our request, which led to the original memorandum of understanding, was what what are we what does a city explaining to the council and to the people here and to people listening what is our goal as a city? Why did we even go into this memorandum of understanding for something that was already there?

Yeah. Well, my understanding there was discussion because there is a desire to have right a boat launch on uh that end of American Lake and that while there's some access the level of development of it that makes it known and understood and really operational as a public launch uh was insufficient and that led to the conversations and so the military department agreed to be open to this conversation to come up with the master plan uh as long as they're strong contributors to what uh the limitations are that protect the security of the base in the process. So it is to develop a master plan that is amendable to all parties and to understand what the costs would be associated with that and how to approach those future improvements. And that includes what legal relationship would be part of making it happen as well as funding obligations to make it really operate as uh a boat launch that is open to city of Lakewood residents even though it will remain on federal property. They have no ability to transfer land. So it is and that's important to remember. We're going into this eyes wide open. We would like to make improvements. I ideally I think as a council I'm now I'll speak to this. Ideally we would like to make that a much more accessible boat launch for the people of Lakewood because there's a lot of pressure on our boat launches that we currently have especially at American Lake Park North. And we would like a another boat launch to con to do that. It also gives us a little bit more water access because there is actually but eyes wide open. It's not our property. It's probably never going to be our property and there are as expressed by council member Brandsteader security considerations that need to be dealt with. They could end up depending on the state of the

world torpedoing this whole thing. No pun intended. Is that okay? So, this master plan there, the National Guard, the state of Washington is aware of what we're doing right now. Yes or no? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. And they've designated individuals to participate.

Oh, they have. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, um we have a motion on the table to approve. Motion number 202621. Is there any other discussion? Council member Brandsteader.

Mr. Mayor, I would move to delay consideration of motion 2026-21 uh until our next uh official meeting, which I believe would be on April 1st. 2026. Is there a second? There is no second for that motion. So, we have the underlying motion on ordinance number 202621. All those in favor of authorizing the execution of an agreement ordinance 2020 or motion number 202621 signify by saying I. I

I all those opposed say nay. Nay. Uh the eyes have it and the motion motion number 202621 is approved. All right. So on to our regular agenda. Miss Schumacher. First, we have ordinance number 847 granting Ziply Fiber Pacific LLC doing business as Ziply Fiber, a non-exclusive franchise for the transmission of telecommunications in, through, over, and under the rights of way of the city of Lakewood.

Thank you, Miss Schumanker. We are uh Go ahead, Mr. Vargas, and then we'll

Sure. Well, good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. Looking on page 37 of your packet tonight, um you've seen this franchise before. You saw it last week. It is now before you tonight for a vote. I won't read too much into it. I will remind you of the term of this contract, though. It is for an initial 5 years with up to three 5-year extensions um for a total of 20 years, and that is commensurate with other telecommunication franchises um that this body has passed over the last two years. So this is your standard telecom franchise and it also has a fiscal impact of a 5% franchise fee as applicable. So with that I'll conclude. Thank you Mr. Vargas. Are there any questions for Mr. Vargas on uh his on the ordinance number 847? Could I get a motion before we discuss it if there's any discussion?

So move second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded ordinance number 847. Is there any discussion surrounding this ordinance? Thank you. All those in favor of ordinance number 847 signify by saying I. I. I. I.

Those opposed say nay. The eyes have it. Ordinance number 847 is passed. Miss Schumacher. Ordinance number 848. Ordinance number 848 granting NFC Northwest LLC a non-exclusive franchise agreement for the transmission of telecommunications in through over and under the rights of way of the city of Lakewood. Thank you, Mr. Vargas.

Sure. This should look very familiar. Same franchise for a different company um that are both related. So again, this has the five-year term there. um initial five-year term with up to three five-year extensions for a total of 20 years and it also has a 5% franchise fee. So, same exact telecom franchise. But, yep, I'll conclude there. Thank you very much, Mr. Vargas. All these interesting companies that most of us have never heard of uh wanting to put in communications, telecommunications. Is there any questions for Mr. Vargas? Okay. Could I get a motion for ordinance number 848? So moved.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Ordinance number 848 has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion surrounding this franchise agreement? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? Nay. The ordinance has passed. Mr. City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Vargas. As uh M City Manager Russell, any unfinished business? No, there is not. Any new business? No, there is not.

I keep waiting for something in the unfinished business. I think in all the years I've been here, we've never officially brought up any unfinished business. Items for discussion. So, we now move into our study session phase here. Update and request for direction regarding the HBR restoration project. Ms. Miles, the parks and recreation community services director, come on down and please uh tell us and then we'll um they're asking for our opinion, council members. So, if you can jump in here, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Absolutely. So, um it's an exciting project to be brought up to speed on. I think you know u most of the history on the project. The initiative in the early cost estimates uh moved from around the 7 million mark to 14 million for the full project all-in uh with some of that early direction. In November there was discussion about how to go forward with that full development and look for cost-saving initiatives or efforts. So, one of the tasks uh that I took on coming in was working with the consultants on the possibility of prefabricated buildings for the barns. In discussion with the consultants, we know that the cost estimate was looked at rebuilding the barns in very much the same look and texture. Uh, a lot of information has been out there in terms of what we would be able to actually utilize from the original historic structure. So there is some uh sighting and elements from the H if you want to take it that way and not as much from the spine but we have to raise and renovate the entire roof structure in the process. So there's quite a bit of rebuilding that needs to happen. Even if we weren't restoring and using some original materials, the cost savings to fully construct built design bottom up um is not a huge reduction based on kind of the small elements of historic restoration. So the one element they were asked to really look at is a prefabricated structure. That's one where we have to find one that best fits our needs. It gets uh built um de decommissioned and brought down so it can be shipped here and then it's able to be put up based on our specifications but there's less

customization opportunities. So with that, the early estimates is at least a half a million dollars. Right around $500,000 is what is anticipated to be saved going with a prefabricated option. Until they really can get to the point of seeing what that means in terms of the mechanical and engineering and how it would fit on the site, the consultants can't really give us a full estimate of how much time that might save and the difference of setting up prefab versus the fully uh developed or built structures. So, they do expect some time and material cost savings that might make it a little bit more than a half a million, but wanted to bring that back. That's the ballpark of the estimated savings. We were able to then look at our potential funding sources because that's a big part for this and the memo includes for you what we have secured and where we believe the potential sources for closing the gap might be. Not all of those have uh been pursued or fully identified. Uh there is a shared a federal that can make a big difference in that gap. So that's one of the decision points here is that the charge in November was to go forward with the 60% design. To get to 60% to nine, we can start to get much more concrete cost estment estimates going because they're able to really get into all the mechanical, the electrical, the demolition, like all of the elements that it would take in order to do this building. But those are very divergent paths. So if they move to 60% design based on standard build with some restoration or they move towards 60% design and have prefabricated building, we end up with very different plan sets.

And so that's why this is a decision point in order for them to uh take that direct this direction and move forward to those 60% designs and give you much more developed cost estimates when we hit the fall. Uh there's um something there that's the basis for information. Of course, there are partners for parks folks in the room. There's also some park recreation advisory board members in the room. Uh you know, they've been doing fundraising. So, of course, some of their concern is what will the look of this be and how much does it change some of the conceptual design if we go towards the pre-fabricated option? Thank you very much, Miss Miles. Any questions for Miss Miles? Thank you, uh, Deputy Mayor Bell.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. So, with the prefab, um, is there like any sort of leadcertified type of things that would make it qualified to fall under the lead certified, environmental, all of that. Yeah, I don't have specifics on that. I'd have to get information in terms of the lead environmental though everything is developed to code and efficiency standards, but I'd have to I don't know the distinction between the two buildings.

Yeah. No, I Yeah, I've assumed it would be up to code and all those kinds of things. I was just looking for the certification because I know there's like platinum and gold and silver, different kind types of certification which I think would be fabulous for the H barn. So, thank you, Council Member Talbo.

Um, yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, if I may ask Miss Deputy Mayor's question a different way because I wasn't clear myself. So the 13.5 to 14 million that's mentioned in the memo, does that amount include consideration of a leadcertified building? I would have to find out what level of lead certification was associated with the original, but kind of it's based on a footage in the conceptual planning. So, it's not into levels of detail. And if we require it to be built to a higher level of lead, no matter which design option is chosen, that will come back in the cost factoring. Um but at this point the focus was on whether we become ineligible for funding sources if we don't do restoration. And at this point, now again, we haven't found all the funding sources. At this point, we're not made ineligible for these applications uh that are already in position as long as we're still able to bring historic elements back in or sustain them on the site, which we're able to do through the silos and through other interpretive elements.

I I Okay. Yes. Thank you. I follow now. Um I'm so like you mentioned there are two diverging paths to take here and so with a rebuild and and or with a full historic restoration. There are cost estimates associated with both, but at this point, the 13.5 to 14 million mentioned in the memo. Does that mean that at this point both of those paths amount to thereabouts, that estimate, or wouldn't they each have their own ballpark costs and compared side by side together? What is that? What are those numbers?

Yes. So, as maybe originally envisioned, that's the 14 and it's actually 14.2 or.3. The 13.5 million is with the assumed change to the prefabricated.

Okay. I the consultant came back with the information that they'd anticipated at minimum a $500,000 savings by going with a pre-fabricated building. To get the exact cost, you'd have to design both of them to 60% which is double the cost of the design, which is why we're here. In respect to the lead building, that was never part of the discussion. In fact, the discussion was to save costs. So, I am going to, and this is an assumption, I'm going to pretty much assume that this is not a lead incorporated component. If council would like it designed to lead, just give us that direction.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's that's what I wanted. I I think that it's important to draw that clarity out on the record. So, thank you. Um and then have we so regardless of the path we choose, have we developed an operating budget for the the program the have we or the use of the building regardless of the architectural preference.

A business plan has not been incorporated yet. Um that was part of our discussion I believe back in November. Um and we had a little bit of discussion related to that because some of it was being talked about partners for parks putting it on and what that was and basically came back and said that'd be the responsibility of the city. And we also identified that for a lot of these programs that we'd anticipated they are not going to be revenue generators. It's going to be more of those destination components that would be anything amounting to um type of revenue generation. So yes, that is still absent from it and it granted it's a big component, but it is somewhat separated from there in terms of how much activities are going to be there are going to require that much more staffing and what types of activities those are going to be. But I think in general based upon the most of the ones that have been talked about, those are probably not going to be big revenue generators. It's just going to be dependent upon the amount of staff that may be needed to run those, if any at all. And then I'm getting a tiny bit ahead here, but uh just understanding the context of the the status of the whole project as a project. Um have there has there been any environmental assessment done to date or I guess environmental impact assessment at all yet? Or are you waiting for design to are you waiting for final design to begin environmental assessment or will we be wrapping that into the budget that is covered in will that be an activity of the budget that would cover the 60% design?

Yeah, I'm unaware of any past report addressing environmental I don't know if you saw anything in documents. I think most of the site assessment and the cultural resource um study has been done. So I think in terms of um the location and it's sighting right it's already been well established. So the the foundational work now is we're moving into the actual development of the building itself. Um but to your point, the complimentary work to make sure we could get site development and those type of things we would be eligible to move forward with once we hit the 60% design.

And then the last question and then I'll um pass it back Mr. Mayor. The last question is in the table in the memo of the secured and of the secured funds and and even the potential funds. The city itself doesn't appear to be contributing any funding from our general fund other than through the ELTAC. But the LTAC funds, those are tax revenues collected, right? And so to that end, um, is that because this project, where does this project rank in prioritization wise in the city's CIP?

So, this was a project that is being moved forward and in terms of the priorities. I think that's a question more for the governing body to identify and if you want to put it forth any funding from the general fund. These have been laid out previously and this is the source of funds that have been identified up to this point.

Yeah, thank you. I asked that question because I do kind of worry a little bit that um in going for grant funds you typically have to contribute a local match. Um, and so I guess I was just kind of I'm kind of trying to make sense of if a local match is required for any of the potential sources that are listed in the memo, do we have adequate uh general funds to make that local match? I guess that'd be dependent upon the program. I don't know why you wouldn't be able to use ELTAC funds as a match.

They're eligible as well as our partner for parks normally. So it's just really outside of the body that's providing the grant. They look for in some cases 2 to one or 3 one from other sources. Doesn't have to be general fund. Thank you. Those are my questions and I will potentially weigh in into discussion. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. our parks director? Miss Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayber. Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, thank you.

Mr. city manager touched on it briefly on back in November we were talking about or I guess I had brought up the the question about really kind of establishing a business plan that would help drive what the 60% 90% design is going to look like and if there's anything that is needed you know if if how we're going to market this if we're going to market it at all or if it's just going to be you know operating city functions out of it um that's I guess that that's still kind of a Key point for me is that I I'd like to really have a good understanding of what the need is for the building to make sure that we're getting the right building for what the need is rather than let's get a building and then let's do a plan to use the building. Let's make a plan and then make sure the you know we can plan for the building um appropriately. So that's still on the on the top for me. Thank you. Council member Brandansteader,

I I have I have really two questions. One is I'm having trouble visualizing prefabricated being uh being something that looks essentially like the the original structure. And I understand that restoration is not possible to do complete. But when someone talks to me about pre-fabricated, my most recent experience with a pre-fabricated building is the temporary library, which I I I have trouble translating that kind of prefabrication into into something that is meets the vision of this project. To be able to go and do that So, do we have some experience with eyes on of someone that has done a restoration saving of a of a of a of a historical property, a barn or something of the age of what we're talking about, but using a prefabricated concept is

I'm familiar with other pre-fabricated buildings that have come in um not one in this historic context. So uh we have had um some research by the consultant team and it really is about um the degree of modules that are out there to sit fit the size and scale that has been developed. So it doesn't offer as much customization. Um and there may be questions about life cycle duration but they'd be able to bring that back in terms of comparison. So both of them are your 30 plus years of minimum initial life cycle and the question of what you reinvest on top of that comes based on the rest of the construction decisions. and and and then the other thing that is in the in the memo that I think is concerning to me is there is a statement that if we were to go to a prefabricated assumption and that's the word that's here that uh uh our requirement um is that there would be a requirement to put back 1% of the original materials into the building. And that seems terribly minimal. Um, and I I understand we can always exceed requirements, but I wouldn't want to move forward with an assumption that the design people would be saying, well, the requirement is 1% of something original that would

would be there. And quite frankly, we I would think we'd probably meet that with the silo, but that's something that's there. So, is that 1% um what's the origin of that 1% number? It says if we need to respond to requirements, put 1% back into the project to honor the history of the facility. Yes. Um

if we remove the barns because it is in a historic district so we will have to enter into a memorandum of understanding and it will be managed by the department of arch archaeology and historic preservation of the state and the way it manages then is that they will give us anou and they'll negotiate this minimum of what we have to do and that will be based on 1% of the overall project cost. So, as you've pointed out, there's the silos, there's rest, there's other elements already planned on site. So, that makes it very possible to hit or exceed that 1%, but we still would have anou that would then govern it, which if we don't demolish and take them away, then we are not going to be under an obligation via the department of archaeology and health pres or historic preservation. we would be able uh to really set those parameters independently.

So the 1% relates to uh investing 1% of project cost in maintaining some things. It's not 1% of the wood or

No, it's not a ratio like of what we keep. the assumption is it's gone away. So then how would we make sure that the stories told um that you know the barn door that is in good shape is then reused that the silos are intact like it would be showing back how even if those buildings are gone the history of the site and how it fits into the historic district is being preserved and then that would be an obligation.

Okay. And I guess the the statement that there is a Fort Stilicum historic district that includes this area as opposed to just the area across the street where where the fort was. Um I I honestly I had not heard of that before. I I I had heard that there there were things about do we want the state to designate it as as a historic district? do we want to initiate it through our our processes and as a city to be able to go and do that and and none of those things ever happened as far as I was aware. So is there really an entity for Silicon Historic District or is that our just description of the local? Yes, the historic district is registered and that does include Western State Hospital and again our grounds which were part of the agricultural history of that. So those boundaries exist and it is identified in the state registers as a historic district. These individual buildings aren't itemized to be separately on the historic register in any way,

but they are contributing buildings to the district's history. The footprint is a historic district. I I understand. Um, that's all the questions that I have, Mr. Mayor.

Thank Thank you. Um, okay. Before we start our council discussion, I just I I want to understand where we're at. You're asking us tonight, we're basically at a fork in the road here. If we say all options are on the table to get to 60% design, we're have to spend more money. We could say go with the original plan which is to renovate the whole thing or we could go with this plan of um the prefab as we now as we now call it which we've had previous discussions about but we didn't call it a prefab. We just it was a rebuild saving some other elements. Is that is that what you're looking for here?

Yes. Basically, um, the previous direction was go to 60% design, um, and then it would analyze these costs. The reality of it is we're going to have to pay those costs for both designs. So, what the ideally is to save that money for cost alone to both designs. We just identify where's the guidance going to go and really what council wanted at that time was to be able to evaluate the cost to see if there were cost-saving measures. the architect identified the cost-saving measures by here, but to save more money if we can get direction on which way council would like to go with that, it'll save that money from doing two sets of plans to just the one set.

Okay. So, now it's I I think without I think Miss Miles, thank you very much. Um, stand by just in case there are additional questions, but I'm looking for council member input here on on what you just heard. So, um, we've had a number of discussions on this topic. Where's your where's your head at, Council Member Pearson? My head is planted firmly on my shoulders. Um, actually I guess on my neck, but uh so I'm not um I still really want a plan of what how this is going to be used because I when we look back to November, there was another option that was like $7 million to like renovate the structure that was there but largely keep um some of the structural supports and and kind of clean it up, do a do a you know a flip on it. so to speak. And and I don't know if that may or may not be appropriate depending on what we're doing with the structure. And that's a major, you know, that's that's almost doubling the the price of the the project if we don't know really what we're trying to do. Are we trying to, you know, have some super nice swanky place where people can have weddings as well as city events and stuff? Well, then, you know, we probably can't do that option, but without having a real plan of attack on on are we going to be able to generate any money with it at all? Is it fully, you know, operated by the city and we're really not going to be anticipating, you know, any rentals out of it? Um, I I still would I don't have a crystal clear image on on where we're at there.

I guess that's my that's my concern. That's where I'm at. Yeah,

Council Member Brandstead.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. with regards to the options that we're asked to um choose between at this point in time in order to be able to move forward with a 60% design. I am in favor of going forward with a commitment to renovation. And my reasons for that is that I would really like to keep faith with those folks in the community that have already over the past three years made a commitment to bring this about. And I have talked to quite a few of them, okay? And of doing all that. And for some maybe even a majority of the money that was donated, renovation was a important element that they were considering of to why they were supporting it. you know, this is um and and and you and I would like to keep faith with those folks that have gone 4 million miles anyway. Okay. Okay. To be to be able to to to to go and do that. and you know the 60% design and the estimates will will tell us how long the horizon is before we can can do that along with the the different fundraising. Uh I I think that there is a a couple of things that have gone

forward. We have been successful in looking at getting some um uh Congresswoman Strickland's office to be behind a federal ask of of a significant amount, but I don't know in terms of what we told them we were asking for whether we used I don't think we used a prefabrication assumption. I think we used a a a a a renovation to a significant extent to be able to go go and do that. And I my my idea of trying to be u true to the intent of the people who have been working on this for a period of time and working on it not just as an idea but as an actual raising dollars in and doing things is we look through the history of projects that we have we have gone forward with that the uh we have had a number of projects that we just headlong moved into um when when when when the support in the community was an idea and conceptual and then we it didn't really manifest itself into the resources thing. The last the last project that I can actually remember that the city said if you can come up with this then we'll do the project was the skate park that currently exists in Kuanis Park where we essentially told a group of people and between particularly young people to be able to do that that says if you come up with this one now it wasn't 4 million but it was but when

you're when you're talking to skateboarders ers uh you know a couple hundred thousand is is is is a lot of money and they were u invested in doing it and and put some effort in and they got the community to get behind it and to be able to go and do that. We have had other projects where we've gone forward and then we've had to to make up the shortfall in what idea people couldn't come up with. But that's not the case here. We we we we were very deliberate to say we're not going to move forward significantly to the point where we are today unless the community came up with that $4 million and they have. So, um I'm looking at to to to to go and do that and and I would really not want to u not going forward with a restoration concept at least that is significantly restoration almost seems like a bait and switch strategy with people that have already donated money thinking one thing and and we're thinking another.

Thank you, Council Member Brandsteader. Any other council member Lindholm?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, you know, I entered this in media rest. Conversations have been happening for some time before I joined council. Um, I really appreciate Council Member Pearson's comments about what is the scope of use and not just the scope of use. What is the maintenance commitment? What is the vision for this? I also appreciate Council Member Brandsteader's thoughts on making sure we're a good partner. Um, I don't want that to come at the cost of being reckless, but I think it's important. Um, and this of course comes at a time when we're talking about very real fiscal cliffs and BNO taxes and and asking more of the taxpayer. So, I'm cautious about this. Um, I'm I'm nervous that we don't know even now fully what we're getting ourselves into. We know that the consultant is going to take five, six more months. We we know that this is potentially an inflationary time. Are we going to come back here in a year and find that it's gone up another couple million? Um, these are very real concerns I have.

Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. Deputy Mayor, would you like to weigh in and or No, Council Member Talbo just bailed you out. Council member Talbo.

Okay. Well, um, thank you. Yeah, I I also do appreciate and I do agree with Council Member Pearson in in to the extent that before I joined council, even the discussions that I heard, I felt like there was um I felt like the plan that was being kind of put out to the community at at events and weighed in the blueprint, if you will, the site plan was very different from, I think, the objectives that that this council was still having um discussions about the vision and the use and the program for the building. What I saw on the site plan uh last year, last summer was a very what I would say developed site with a lot of interior classroom space um and usage space for things like weddings, hall, gatherings. Um, this council even talked about how do, you know, how do we ensure that there's proper Wi-Fi and all of that necessitating uh architectural demands on the building and of course even like you know kitchen use. If you're going to have weddings there, you need um proper amenities to host those things. And at the same time, a lot of discussions were coming off the heels from Summerfest where we had a really successful Summerfest and there was, I think, even desire and vision from the chamber to see that the that the H barns could be a regional attractor or some sort of semi-reional attractor, understandably so. But at the same time, I guess what I what I what I

have not heard um been yet discussed is is like, you know, I don't I don't think we still know what's planned for the other two barns, right? Like I don't think there's a at least I I haven't heard of a of a plan for the other two barns and how those spatially fit with the uses that would go into the building. And also if if if there is the desire to have a kind of more a tractor or a a a barn space that is constantly hosting people for whatever uses. Um I haven't heard either of of a very good master plan for Fort Silicum that also handles the the traffic and the demand. um alcohol in the park for weddings at night, lighting in the park for weddings at night, um access to a a venue that would host evening events. You know, I haven't heard um any kind of master plan or discussion that gets to that level of detail about handling impacts to the site. So for me that for me the the issue has always been does there does there really you know does there really need to be can the site be used in such a way that if if people want to have weddings there fine but can it be used in such a way that preserves the historic nature of and the his and historic architecture,

but maybe uses uh utilizes outdoor classroom space making and um kind of I guess bare or paired down bare bones, but paired down um architecture to host um uh educational space that is less dependent on on heavily constructed indoor space. In other words, like for example, I think of Magnus, the hanger at Magnus Park, which is a kind of a old historic shell. It hosts indoor things, but it's also pretty bare bones structure. So I think that M council member Brandansteader is right as well that um that the way in which we are a partner to the community and the folks that have invested already donations um expecting a historic you know structure to come to I think that that's important. So, um, but all in all, I think that the site as it is, I think it's really important to get the usage and the business plan right. And for me, it's less of a space that needs to facilitate so many things inside. Um, and if it can be more, I guess, uh, primitive to say the least, um, but with some reconstruction, then I think that that's a a more pragmatic approach because you can always add more in the future as the demand necessitates it. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Talbo. Deputy Mayor Bell. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. So, what I'm hearing, I think, is that we need to have a little bit more of defined vision of what is for the H barn, which I think we've asked from council a few times of knowing what is going to be there. Is it going to be more than just a, you know, a I can have my birthday party or my wedding there type of thing. And those are great suggestions of things that could possibly um be there. Thank you, Council Member Talbo. So, I do feel like we need a little we definitely need structure. Not even a little bit. We need to know what is the vision for this? What will it be used for? Um, and I know that's a little bit deeper, but and I also think that uh council member Bransetter is correct too. People are expecting to see historic restoration on the H barns. We just we call them the H barns. We're restoring them, the silos. I think that if you went with a pre-fabricated building, it would be very bait and switch. So, I agree with you on that. I would prefer to see the historic restoration of the buildings. Um, but at the same time, I don't want to stop any progress. We just received a very substantial grant from for this project um from our representatives and which is very appreciative and I do think that things need to keep moving and so that does concern me that we have a great grant that we just got and we need to get some vision behind everything. So, I would like to if wondered if maybe we could put a timeline on it when we could get that back so we don't stall the project and things can keep moving and we can make some decisions. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Bell. So, um, when we talked about this last time, I

thought we had some kind of agreement that a rebuild of the current or complete renovation would not work, that the cost would be just incredibly high and it wouldn't ever meet any standards at all. And the earliest things we had were 14 million. I didn't realize that a prefab, which that's a new word, would be 13.5 million. Um, I think we were talking about a lower figure, so I'm not exactly sure what's what's going on there, but I don't I don't know that a renovation is is completely realistic. And that's me because I thought we had agreed on that before. I I will tell you a business plan. Um, I thought we've discussed some of the uses for it. Um, highly unlikely that this thing will ever make money. the the the the the stage. We had some kind of business plan. We looked at it once. It it's never made any money. Um it this will become an amenity. The long-term future of the barns is that they will end up like the other barns. They will just eventually fall down. They just that's they'll run right behind it. Just fell down. That's the future of the barns. So, um, we have asked for this money. We need to go forward with something in in my mind. Um, if the costs get out of control, we just we just can't do it, right? But I we need something before we go back to DC and ask for $3.2 million. We've already had some initial discussions with the with the congresswoman. So I I want to be we need some more information about how this would be used. I would also note that the former mayor who sat on the

elac committee with the guy from travel Tacoma and his name escapes me. Um and we just talked and he said this would be a really valuable asset. So the the the question really isn't is the city of Lakewood going to make all sorts of money, but there are these other concerns, right, that this is this is going to cost us money and it's going to cost us money to keep this thing running long term. So there's, you know, there are there are I think we need some kind of business plan um now that the gap between renovation and prefab has narrowed considerably. Um, I think we need to I I don't think we're ready to go forward clearly with the 60% design because I think we need to understand those those two concepts a little bit more. Um, what it tells me is that probably a renovation is going to cost even more than that and that's just not going to work. It's just not going to work. I don't think. Council member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah, I I would generally agree and and looking at the two figures, you know, 135 and 14. That's like really not even a a question on which option, you know, versus a prefab versus a, you know, full restoration of the structure. Like that those are both I mean, you're talking not that few few percentage, you know, points on on the overall cost of the project. Um, but I I I really if those are the only options is, you know, 13 and a half and 14. I like I'm I those are kind of the same options to me because you're we're both providing a ton of funding is really kind of what it comes down to. So, I'd like to have an alternative option and I think that a reasonable a viable alternative option would be something like council member Tabo had indicated of keeping it as more of like a a a passive, you know, recreation uh shelter thing where it's maybe more opened up to, you know, people can come in and walk around the lake there and have a place that they can walk into and get shelter. and you know take a break for a little while while it's raining in the winter time or something and have somewhere to you know go sit and picnic or whatever. But but that would be a very realistic option, I think, when that you could accomplish a lot of the restoration um that we want to do, but not have to do all of the HVAC stuff and all of the, you know, the kitchen and all. If we're not going to be using it in that way or and we don't plan on making money with it at all anyway, then let's make it something that, you know, fits for the community and people will, you know, can easily use without having to rent it out and, you know, try to otherwise it'll just sit there empty like the um the pavilion does except for in the

summertime when we're doing concerts, right? I mean, it has a handful of city events and the rest of the time it just sits there. And so I don't I I I don't want something to just sit there. I want, you know, people we have a lot of people that walk through the park on a daily basis, rain or shine. And probably the prized possession of the park is the the paved loop around the lake. There's hundreds of people that do that every single day. And there really isn't a good shelter, you know, around there. There's a couple of little shelters, but, you know, one family fills it up, right? I mean, so, um, I think that'd be a great viable alternative is something that's a bit more of a passive space, um, that folks could get shelter in and and we could really do something nice for um, for the H barn there. So, that would be that would be without having a business plan or anything, you know, I would be, you know, all for going forward with something similar to that or at least having that as an as an option. So, thanks, Council Member Talbo.

Thank you. Um, yeah. I think also this is the type of conversation that really benefits from uh I think staff and and the city manager and and even us, however many that wants to be, but really having some good strong examples um and visuals of architectural types. So, like for example, I think of like um if you've ever been to the Olympia Farmers Market, it's a building that is doesn't have heating, but you can put heating elements inside it, shut down garages, but it's covered. And it hosts and it hosts um it hosts space, it hosts, it hosts vendors, there's uh bathrooms, functional bathrooms, um etc., etc. Um, but I guess I'm getting at, you know, this I think this is a good time to maybe try to if if and how when time allows that if there's, you know, it wouldn't hurt to like maybe tour ourselves or whether it's uh in person or just in a PowerPoint of just having some examples of uh those different passive typ types and versus like, you know, the full the the full kaboodleoodle. So, I just like to put that out there. Thank you, Council Member Talos. So, um well, uh I think we need I mean I I think we can only give staff like about 30 days and whatever members

want to be involved here to come up with a plan that um works right to to them. I mean, it's time to fish or cut bait on this thing. Um, I think just limping it along and coming up with more plans and and and whatnot. Um, are we going to renovate? Are we going to do prefab? So, we can't answer that question tonight. Now, we've got a a fourth option because this other option is out there that we talked about, the $7 million option that's no longer on the table, I guess, that we didn't discuss tonight. Then then now there's this fourth option of very passive but we still got to do a lot of work on it. How many millions will that be? there'll be no income and then but you'll have to have people there during the day because you could have all sorts of issues if you have a building that's open but no lock you know nobody supervising city manager.

Yeah. So just to kind of go back to the last meeting that we had on it, a lot of the same discussion in terms of trying to maximize the utility of the function and I think it's exactly what Councilman Pearson and Tabo have alluded to and this usable space within it in terms of the two options tonight. Basically is looking to see if you want to go with a pre-fabricated option to get to that 60% design. Not hearing a whole lot of support for that. I think the other option was not a fundamental historical restoration, but a rebuild incorporating more of it than would be with the pre-fabricated building. So, in terms of what we're looking at tonight, it's really just kind of going back to that decision that was made last fall of moving forward with 60% design, trying to get the maximum utility out and maintaining the essence of the structure and not the literal essence, just the overall feel component that it is going to be still the H barn. So, that's kind of where we were at last fall when we went and moved forward. So we're still can be on that same trajectory as we get to that 60% design. If we want to establish a ad hoc committee, you know, council can appoint one or two people. They can meet with partners for parks staff as it relates to it and have those meetings and go forward. Um but in terms of the direction we had back in the fall, we can still go in that to get to that 60% to bring that back and that may make some of those decisions as it relates to whether we put a kitchen in there. you know, you have those options of, you know, adds or deletes from that same component. So, I I guess the question is, are we ready to move forward to where we at with the decision last fall to go to that 60% design to maximize utility of the building with that general essence? Wouldn't be a full restoration in the true sense of the

word, but more of definitely a restoration than a um pre-fabricated building. That's just what the architect needed to know to be able to keep moving forward. So I I guess we can kind of still go along that track with the 60% design under that framework. And yeah, if we want to establish an ad hoc committee that, you know, has partners for parks and the architect and staff and a couple members of council, we we can certainly do that.

Okay. Thank Thank you for that, Mr. City Manager. I appreciate that that clarification. Um, I do think we need to have at least some members of the council meet with partners for parks and the parks people and hash out what they want to see. And so, who wants to be on the ad hoc committee? Council member Talbo, Council Me, you need to be on it because you've been talking about it the whole time. So, Pearson, Talbo, and Brandstead. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your volunteering. So, you guys set up the meeting meetings and and uh try to try to hash out uh a design design. No, just a concept that we you think that the rest of us will agree on because there's four more of us that may balk at this. Okay. I mean, we're we're trusting you you three to really bring this home.

The usage is a big one, too. Yeah. And and with that, I think we need to bring in just to at least let him travel Tacoma guy. Let him um Why do Why can't I remember his name? Huh? Dean Burke. Dean Burke. Everyone knows his name except me. Okay. Dean Burke. so that he can at least throw in his two cents. He doesn't have to be at the entire meeting. He just needs to be able to throw his two cents.

So, Mr. Mayor, just so that I understand your guidance that uh are we at the point of where this evening we are not giving the city manager a uh a direction based on one of the two options or even a third option to use to go forward with a 60% design. But that we're going to have some other discussions and visioning before we give 60% design guidance. That's that's what I'm saying. I think before we say go to 60%, which I'm fine with saying tonight, go to 60%. But I I think the will of the council is before we get we go off on this, go to 60%. We need to give people some direction as to um what that 60% what direction it needs to go in because I'm I'm hearing three or four things now. I'm not a good architectural concept guy. I'll be the first to admit that. But so so I'm kind of like what what is it going to look like? Is it passive? Is it is it the the full monty that that um I think other folks have talked about? I think Partners for Parks has said they're flexible as to um what the facility I mean they're not I don't think they're wed they can speak for themselves but I don't think they're wed to the renovation idea of every board has to be put back where it's supposed to go which I I I I just I just don't know is is um going to work. Um I think they told us last time that they were okay with some changes to the to the plan. So the question is what is this thing going to look like? Where where are we aiming to? And where

can we get some consensus? Now I and and I none of us should be surprised that this happened. We have two new council members. This has also gone on now for several years, right? And so there's been changes within the council and changes in economic circumstances and various things like that. So, we I think we do need to decide before we start going out and asking the legislature for any more money. I mean, we're already on the we're already hanging out there on the on the gang plank on that and be before, you know, we go talk to the congresswoman, we we need something to hang our hat on or we need to change what we're asking for back there. That's all I'm saying, right? I'm I'm not going to go back and ask for something that we don't even have a consensus on. So, if we're sitting here two months from now or a month and a half from now, kind of six now, seven people going in seven different directions. I'm not going to ask we are not going to ask the congresswoman for any money about for this thing. and and then we we really need to go toe-to-toe and decide whether or not we want to go with this concept at all. Okay. So, got it. This is this is real world. But I just understand that there's time constraints. So, I think your meetings will be very productive. Um because I think I you know we but I think we agree that we need a concept. We need some kind of business plan. um and what this thing is going to look like and what's agreeable to Partners for Parks. They're out raising money. They're talking to people. Um we have we have an upper end. I mean, we this thing can't be unlimited. It can't be a $20 million project. That's just not going to work. I don't think for that's my opinion, but for the for this

for this city. So, and we've got other things that we're working on too that are that are out there. So, Anyway, are we on the now? Are we on the same page? So, I got three three eager volunteers for the ad hoc committee that will include Ms. Miles, Partners for Parks, at least two people from Partners for Parks. I don't know what other city staff wants to be there. If you want someone from

our director is a member of the city staff. So we'll have um parks department working with it. Um more than likely um we'll have additional people sitting on that. Probably reach out to the parks and recreation board as well and uh to the parks advisory board just for additional input. So we'll get something put together and um you know we'll they will be you know posted open public meetings but Oh it will. Yeah. Because you have three. Yeah. Okay. So we'll we'll start moving forward. I think that's the key component is keep moving forward through the process and taking those next steps. Um

it it is a big project for us. I mean dollar-wise I think outside of the city hall and the police station costwise this will be the largest project we've ever taken on I think outside of road. Well it' be more than a road stuff. So um we'll figure it out. Yeah, we're working try to get a meeting set up here rather quickly.

Okay. Thank you. Are we any more questions about So the council members Talo, Brandstead, and Pearson, please try to be as flexible as possible for these meetings. And um and if you need us to cover you on any community meetings, um Council Member, Deputy Mayor Bell will be more than happy to cover you on all those items. We'll cover you. And we have also got Council Member Laura Cella. So, um he's not Yeah. And he's not here and so he'll volunteer

anyway. All right, any other questions? Thank you very much for your input. I think we made we made progress. Um, and we will move forward. Okay, Mr. Gum. Review of the fiscal year 2026 annual action plan for community development block ground CDBG and home programs. Thank you, Mr. Gum. And this is just an update, correct? Or is this the new process?

It is. This is a well, it's a review of the 2026 annual action plan moving forward. It's to be adopted by HUD or sorry, we're proposed to HUD May 15th and it's adopted and and moving forward with our expenditures following July 1st. So, this is the point where the meeting switches to red tape. I am the king of red tape as the former mayor has has christened me. So the the tw the 2026 annual action plan kind of what is it? It's a it's a plan that's required by the US Department of Housing Urban Development. Um it is a framework for how the city will use its CDBG and home funds. What the goals and objectives are for a one-year period. uh kind of to paint with some broad strokes and kind of bring you back. So what what is home? Home was created in 1990 under the National Housing Affordability Act. Um it is a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development program. The primary goal of the home program is to provide safe, decent, affordable housing for low and moderate income individuals. So under the home program, there's a number of activities that can be accomplished, but all of them have to result in the creation of affordable housing. Uh, one of the projects that we've funded recently, um, as some of you probably seen was Lassa with their development of 26 affordable housing units, which is kind of moving right along and should be completed sometime this summer. Um, what is CDBG? Um, CDBG was created in 1974 under title one of the housing and community development act. Again, it's a United States um housing and urban development program. CDBG has three goals. Um, to provide decent housing, provide a a suitable living environment, um, and to expand economic opportunities. All of those again are benefiting low and moderate income

individuals. The activities that are provided under CDBG are quite a bit more broad than they are under home. Whereas home is just housing, CDBG allows us to develop affordable housing. Um it allows the cities to do public services activities um public facilities and infrastructure as well as economic development. So there's a a number of activities that are eligible um in the agenda packet on page 74. The CDBG um funding does come with a a number of requirements as does home. Um some of the kind of the key things for CDBG is 20% of the funds um cannot be ex or sorry only 20% of the funds can be expended for program administration. So there's an administration cap. There's a public services cap of 15% of the funding plus the preceding year's program income. And as I mentioned before, the funds have to be used to benefit low and moderate income individuals. Um, and finally, the funds in the CDBG account that the city receives can never exceed 1.5 times the current year's allocation. So, they continually have to be moved um and expended otherwise they're recaptured by the federal government. So, it's important that these programs move funding. Uh, home has a similar program requirement, but it it's a little bit longer. That's typically a home program gives you two years to commit your funds and then expend them within four. Um so the the planning process there's a a fairly extensive process that is required by HUD. The initial process requires the cities to that receive CDBG and home funds to develop the five-year plan. So, the five-year plan is kind of a a larger umbrella plan, and it defines where the city's going with its expenditures over a five-year period. Um, what the goals and objectives are and what the outcomes are. The city recently developed that last year. So,

our five-year plan was developed in 2025 and approved by council. Um, and then it runs through 2029. The annual action plan is done each and every year of the five-year plan. So it it kind of drills down a little deeper and shows what we're doing this year. Um how we're going to serve low and moderate in individuals, are we doing housing, are we doing economic development, what what our goals are and what our outcomes are. Um and then there's a a fairly extensive process that's involved in both of those plans with public hearings, citizen participation, um advisory boards are involved, the city council, um and the general public. So as as I mentioned the the CDBG and home funding are something the city's been receiving since the year 2000. City became an entitlement city in 2000 which basically means CDBG funds come directly to the city. Before that we were receiving our funds through the county through CDBG. Um the city also qualifies for home funds as part of a home consortium. So we're in a home consortium with the city of Tacoma. Uh the reason being is the home allocation that Lakewood would have received when we originally applied was under $500,000. Um and in order to be a direct entitlement to jurisdiction, you have to have $500,000 in a CDB or sorry in a home allocation year where the federal government allocates 1.5 billion. Um the year that we applied 2,000, we were below that threshold. So we applied through the city of Tacoma through a consortium. So all of our home funds come through the city of Tacoma in an organization that's called uh Tacoma Community Redevelopment Authority. They're the lead for the home funds. So each and every year we we we partner with the city of Tacoma. Um our annual action plans and five-year plans and so forth are coordinated and submitted at the same time. So, some of the activities um in your

agenda packet over our five-year plan that were identified are on page 76. Um the five-year plan identified four priorities. One was to prevent and reduce homelessness and housing instability. Two was to support diverse rental and homeowner opportunities. Three was to support public infrastructure improvements. And four was to stabilize existing residents and neighborhoods. Um, those goals are kind of broad. They sound broad. They're they're supposed to be broad. They allow us to kind of do a lot of different things under those those objectives. So, they were designed specifically to allow the city to do a number of things. Um, over the years, again, on page 77 of your agenda packet, you can kind of see what the city has done since 2000 with our CDBG expenditures. So, over that time frame, um, the city spent about $7.8 8 million on housing, uh, $4.8 million on infrastructure, uh, just over a million in public services. Economic development is is not a not been a priority activity over the years. We spent a small amount, 45,000 and 3 million in administration in that same time period. Uh, as you guys are aware, the congressional budgeting has been a little little iffy lately. Um they did approve the resolution about 3 months ago as part of the budget to fund CDBG and home at primarily the same levels they were funded last year. So I don't anticipate really an increase or a decrease in 2026. We're anticipating that the city will receive about $480,000. Um that's about I don't know two what is it $2,320 less than last year. Um it may be maybe a little bit less than that depending on how many cities become new entitlement jurisdictions from this year versus last year and typically the the program adds

between uh 20 to 30 per state. I mean it it it does increase every year. So the funding typically is dispersed a little further. Home funding we anticipate the exact same allocation as last year. $250,53. um staff does administer the CDBG program internally. We have two staff members and then again through home funding is administered through Tacoma Community Redevelopment Authority and City of Lakewood staff. Uh on page 78, we begin with kind of the the funding priority recommendations that we're looking to expend in 2026. And again, this runs July 1st of 2026 through June 30th of 2027. So, based on the five-year goals, uh the city was looking to fund major home repair in the amount of $412,719.83. Um that would serve seven households. That is a a program that is administered internally. So, myself and one other staff member do uh the housing rehab program. In essence, what it is, major home repair. Um it's also partnered with 1406 funds that we receive from the state. So, we're able to do a large number of of housing rehab programs um and and do rehab for what our elderly and low-income homeowners in the city of Lakewood. It's been a a very successful program over the years, and we're looking to continue that into 2026. Uh another funding would funding stream would be housing emergency uh sorry, emergency assistance for displaced residents under the housing category. Funding would be proposed at $25,000. um that would help 30 individuals. That is another program that the city has has monitor or maintained and and run for the last seven or eight years. Um it's it's a program that that we use when the

city is introduced to a building that's dangerous or a nuisance or some other development is happening and people are displaced. So, we're able to use those funds to help the low-income individuals that are being displaced relocate rather than making them homeless. Um, another another funding program would be under the services category, CDBG emergency payments program, uh, proposed would be $10,000 and that would assist 16 individuals. This is a program that we've run for about four years now. Um, in previous years we've had larger allocations to that fund. Um, we still have some funding left over so I wasn't proposing a large amount in that fund. There's about $70,000 left from previous year's funding. So, this would bring us back to what we have typically allocated. Um, some of the some of the demand for that program has kind of waned a little bit. It's not necessarily a a program that's not prescribed to, but we haven't had as many building closures and as many dangerous um activities and so forth in the last couple of years that we've had previously. So with whether that continues um it's something to be seen. The other funding that would be recommended would be CDBG administrative administration of home housing services in the amount of $12,000. Uh the reason for that allocation is with our home funds. The administration funding that we receive as part of the home funds go to the city of Tacoma. So, in order to maintain our our home program and do reporting through the computer-based system and so forth, that would fund myself and one of our staff members to do that on our end. So, there's some administration for the home program that's required and CDBG does allow for cities to fund that as part of the administration. Um, some of the the funding revenue

that's coming in would be a $100,000 anticipated program income for CDBG. That's typical for an annual year between 75 and $120,000 is is what we have seen. So we always tend to ballpark kind of in the middle about $100,000 in program revenue. Um and those come in for the major home repair program. So those funds are revolving loan funds. Um they're to be used for additional major home repair programs, uh rehabs as as those funds come back. And then there's some reprogram funds that we're looking at reallocating. Um fiscal year 2023 rebuilding together South Sound. Um there's $75,000 reprogramming and fiscal year 2024 administration about $719,000 or sorry $71983. Um both of those would be reprogrammed as part of the annual action plan. And then the the final thing would be to amend the 2025 annual action plan to move $10,000 from CDBG emergency payments program to the CDBG CDBG emergency assistance for displaced program. Um and that is basically just to kind of allow city staff to spend some funds that have we have a have a need for right now. The 2025 funds in emergency assistance for displacement were all expended in a fairly short order. We did have a building closure that that we used for 12 residents. So, those funds went faster than we anticipated. Um, and I we do have some some other expenditures that we're looking for some some resources to find to help some individuals that we're looking to relocate now. So, we would be proposing to move those funds. that does leave um approximately $30,000 still in the in the fund that we're moving from the emergency assistance displace program. So there there'd still be funding to be used. It's just kind of shifting so we can do a few different

things. Um home funding recommendations on page 79 of your packet. The typ the typical allocation um that the city does is we we put our funding into what's called an affordable housing fund for home and that is just managed by Tacoma and then we save those funds typically for two to three years somewhere um to build up a reasonable amount of funding so we can actually fund a fairly large scale project. So the like the loss of project where we're able to fund a million dollars for the construction. Uh it's kind of hard to fund housing development with $250,000. So typically those are are sat on for a number of years and then they're partnered with Pierce County or they're partnered with the state or federal funds and and we use a a larger scale project. Some of the things that we've done with home funds over the year is building 41 houses in the tum neighborhood. So, we've done that through Habitat for Humanity and and they're looking in the future to find other neighborhoods to build in, whether it be Tilikum or somewhere else in Lakewood. So, the affordable housing fund would allow us to to set the funds aside and then whomever um is developing affordable housing comes in and applies to us and that comes to the council and TC for approval. And then some of the milestones that we have kind of accomplished and where we're going. So in February 24th, 2026, the city did conduct its first public hearing um on CDBG uses of funds. Um there was a number of people that uh attended that. Primarily the comments were affordable housing related um some down payment assistance, some movein costs, and then elderly and veteran assistance programs. So a lot of it was housing related. Um, and then there was an individual that was requesting potential funding for the um, Tilcom Community Center. They're looking to do

some renovations and have applied for a state grant of between 200 and $400,000. And they needed um, funding to do their two things. They needed to do a building survey to find out what needed to be done on the building and the costs as well as an audit. So, they were going to request $10,000 potential um for the financial audit. That hasn't uh they they haven't actually submitted an application. So, my thought would be were council to want to do that. Um that would be something we could use our admin funds for as well. So, we wouldn't have to necessarily be built into the plan. It it can be paid for. Um, it it does make it a little easier if we use admin funds versus providing services because admin doesn't require the the service level and the reporting and all the the requirements and and that's kind of would be a large ask for the Chilop Community Center for a $10,000 um funding source, especially when they're just looking to do a an audit. So, moving forward, um we're looking to recommend those funding sources through CDBG and home through council. Um this does come back to council on April 20th for a public hearing. Um before that, there's a 30-day public comment period that runs April 1st to April 30th. Um, we are taking this presentation to the planning commission on March 18th, which is Wednesday. Um, it's to go before CSAB on Thursday. Um, I will bring those results back to council as as what their recommendations are and then it moves forward for approval by city council on May 4th and submittal to HUD on May 15th. The only other note that I have in the agenda um packet was that city staff has been in contact with the

public works department um as part of the 5-year plan. There were some roads that were identified for construction um and CDBG funding was one of the revenue streams that we were looking to fund those with. That is still in the plan. Um public works mentioned that this is one of their busiest years they've ever had for roads and next year's going to be busier. So 2020 um7 and 20 sorry 2028 and 2029 are the years that they're looking to do road development CDBG. So they are coming. It's just a little bit more delayed than originally thought. So with that does council have any questions?

Thank thank you Mr. Gum for that presentation. Does council have any questions for Mr. Gum? So you'll see this again council member Brandsteader. So let's we do have several other presentations and we're going to have some major discussions I think on the next item. So need these to be fairly short and we're going to see this again.

Yeah, Mr. Gum, I what I really would like to ask you to do is to take a look at the write up. It's on page 90 of our packet, but it says it's under the title of describe coordination with the continuum of care. Uh, and u we we're using the same language that we've used for years and um I don't believe it's accurate that Lakewood is an actively engaged member of the continuum of care at the moment. Because slightly over two years ago, there were problems internally within the relationships of the continuum of care with some of the jurisdictions, including Lakewood and the previous city manager directed staff to disengage from participating with the curriculum of care. And the curriculum of care ended up recognizing that they had some problems and did some reorganization of their bylaws and charter and and they came to the council maybe it's 10 months ago and asked us if we would rejoin as an active member being able to go and do that. And because of the ongoing involvement with the uh program to create a unified approach to homelessness and uh and some actions was shape, we didn't do that. We did not engage in and establish a staff member relationship with the continuum of care ongoing. So that's not where we are. And I can say that in the in the effort relating to the establishing a

countywide unified approach to homelessness, the continuum of care has emerged in not a decision but in a discussion as an impediment to that. Um, and so I don't think that we're accurately should actively say that we're an actively engaged member of that right now. Uh although um you know uh unless the city manager decides that he wants to begin to actively engage with them to I'm not sure what what what purpose right now because they are a uh very parochial organization that has control of certain things of money that they don't want really want anyone else's input as to what they do with it. and and and are fairly disrespectful when you ask. Um but if you could look at that section in terms of if there if you want to um mute it slightly,

this is slightly awkward. So I'm on the continuum of care. Um I've been on the continuum of care prior to being on city council and so we can have that conversation. more to come on that. Council member Pearson.

Uh, no questions, just more of a um comment. And I I think that I what we do here and what Mr. gum does here is incredibly valuable for what we do as far as keeping people in housing and you know fixing housing and demoing other houses and stuff. Um the the value added and the really the impact on community is huge that is all um comes from you and your other team of one. So um I just really appreciate all the work you do and just wanted to recognize you. Thank you.

Yeah, that that's that's a great point. Given that the amount is lower than when it was 20 something years ago or whatever and our costs keep going up, great job on the home stuff. I'll be interested to hear going forward how you're going to do this split between transportation and and it sounds like and and we're aware that the telecom situation really has stabilized. So, that'll be an interesting kind of um future future discussions. I think we'll leave it at that. I I'm going to want to take about a 10-minut break. We'll come back at uh how about 8:35 and that'll be 9 minute break and then we'll start the discussion surrounding the uh changes to the rental housing licensing program. Is that okay? 8:35

ready to go.

Thank you very much. So, the next item on the agenda tonight, and it begins on page 133 of your packet, is a review of amendments to the Lakewood Municipal Code, Chapter 5.60, 6 related to rental housing licensing. Mr. Gum, the program manager, is here to make brief comments about the changes that he is he is asking he is requesting us to make. So, good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. Again, the proposal before you is to amend um ordinance 644, which is the chapter um 5.60 of Lakewood Municipal Code. Um ordinance 644 was initially approved by council on August 1st, 2016. Um and it did enact LMC 5.60, which is the city's rental housing rental housing safety inspection and registration program. So the the program's history kind of give you a little background. U after the 2016 adoption, the city put together the plan. Um there was a number of meetings. We brought u the the proposals back to council, developed the inspection checklist and the admin policies and so forth. And we started inspections in 2018. Um so we've inspected kind of a couple of rounds um of inspections. All rental properties as part of the program are required to register. Um there are some exceptions in the code. Not a not a large number of exceptions, but there are some. Um and as part of the inspection process, a rental property has to register each and every year. And once every five years they have to have a what's considered a inspection of their property and and gather um a passing score to have what's considered a or sorry what's considered to have a um certification that they're

in compliance with program. So typically we have about 2,000 rental properties and about 12,000 rental units that are registered. Um since 2018, all of those properties have been inspected um on multiple occasions. Um as as as we started the the process, we were selecting about 20% of the rental properties at random each and every year. And then moving forward, they have established their 5-year inspection cycle. So we've gone through a couple of those phases where we're getting close to going through the second now. um what we saw in the first probably two or three years is kind of different than what we're seeing now from failed inspections. So the the first couple of years um staff had seen a number of kind of significant failures and it was kind of apparent what what had been happening over the years. There was some delayed maintenance and and non-investment in multif family properties especially. So, we were seeing significant structural damages. Um, decks literally three stories falling off the back of buildings um and multiple uh apartment complexes, roofs that had leaked for years and years and years causing structural damage. All kinds of life safety issues. Um, electrical wiring, plumbing, all kinds of things. Where we're at now is kind of in a little bit of a different place. what what we're typically seeing fail in years eight um and nine is is small things like um smoke detectors that are are missing u GFCIS um that are nonfunctional it's it's tends to be small electrical failures um small plumbing failures a lot of water heater issues where they've got flexible piping that's installed where they're supposed to be smooth bar piping so it's it's more kind of minutiae level of building code related um failures. They're they're important um but they're not necessarily lifethreatening. Um they do affect the

structure of of a building. They do affect how a building operates and can potentially lead to structural damage, but it's it's not typically the immediate life safety issues. So, one of the reasons that we were looking to propose the changes to LMC 5.60 60 was one to kind of recognize some of those changes and two um the initial legislation or initial Lake Municipal Code was written kind of combined two things um licensing and it combined inspection. So some of those issues when they were put together didn't didn't really make sense. Um the program was intended to comply with RCW5918025 or sorry 125. Um and again when we combined the inspection and the licensing and provided exe exemptions for some of the properties um we provided exemptions from the entire code not necessarily just for from licensing or from the inspection but from the entire code. For example, newly constructed apartments um were exempted from the entire code for the first 10 years. So they did not have to register. Um they didn't need obtain a rental business license and they weren't to be inspected. Um the original intent of the code was one not to have them not obtain a business license, but it was not to be inspected because it was presumed that their new construction would comply with building code and our rental inspections. But nonetheless, the the code did exempt them. Um there was another uh good example would be properties receiving certain types of housing subsidies were provided exemption. um some of the some of the HUD programs and some of those types provided exemptions and again it was from registration and rental not necessarily just the reg the inspection process. So the proposed draft amendments that we're looking to make would be one um replace some of the language that is in

there to kind of clarify. So, we were proposing to replace rental housing complex with the term rental housing unit um throughout the the code section. And that is kind of complying with the registration requirements um for all properties, not just rental housing complexes. Under the the code, a rental housing complex is defined as five or more units. Um in essence, they would only apply to largecale properties the way it's written, not single family. um and duplexes and triplexes and so forth. So um the intent of the code was to have all rental properties comply and I think this clarifies that and makes it clearer. Um the second one would be to correct licensing and registration inspection issues under 5.6025. Um that specifically delineates which properties are exempt both from licensing and registration or those properties that are exempt from just the inspection process. Um the third one would be to remove program exemption for accessory dwelling units or ADUs, transitional housing and shelters from program registration and inspection requirements. Um some of that is relating to the new state legislations on ADU and some of the infill housing that we're anticipating coming to the city of Lakewood. We have um a number of ADUs that are being operated as rental properties now. Um some of them are registered and we have inspected them. So, this would kind of meet the requirements that the state is is sending to the city of Lakewood with more traditional housing um development, more shelter housing, and more ADUs. The the thought there was, I mean, if if you're developing housing and it's affordable, that it it still should be meeting the requirements that other properties are meeting for rental. Um the the inspections process and the the requirement to meet minimum housing standards.

Number four would be proposing to reduce the number of years a property can be exempt. Um currently the the requirement is 10 years uh property is exempt from new construction. The proposal will be reduce that to 5 years. Um the thought being that in in past we've inspected a couple of properties that that have come online after 10 years and they had some significant issues that needed to be corrected. Uh one of them was the Echelon apartment complex. So rather than have them go 10 years, uh 5 years would be the proposal to to city staff and have them inspected after that cycle. The fifth proposed um change would be to provide for a self-certification option for property owners to certify the properties in compliance with the city's rental housing requirements. Um and again, as I mentioned, all properties are inspected once every 5 years. So this would be a certification that they would provide once every 5 years. Um, it does come along with a checklist that they're to certify that all of their units meet all of the requirements. We have a an inspection program that requires 100% pass. So, every item on the checklist has to be inspected and it has to be passed. Um, anything that fails, in essence, it's a failed inspection. So, they would have to certify all of their properties, um, all of their units on their property and all of their properties meet that requirement. Um the other cities that currently do this are the city of Seattle and the city of Reton. Um we would follow a program similar to the city of Brenton. They've done this since they started their program uh where they they have a one-page certification and then they have their checklist that's filled out to ensure that all of the units um are passed. The owners of properties still have three options even with a self-certification. So, the option were it approved, self-certification would be one. Um, the owners of a property can still choose to have a private inspector inspect their property or they can

choose to have a city of Lakewood inspector inspect their property. So, there's still three options moving forward. Um, I don't anticipate that all property owners will choose the self-certification. Um, my thought is somewhere in the in the 75% 70 to 75% would probably be what they would be looking for self-certification. Uh, we still have a number of property owners who appreciate the rental inspection program and like to use it to kind of check up on their managers and make sure that their property is being maintained. So, we've heard from a number of property owners and say, "Hey, we like this because I'm not around and I want to make sure that my property manage manager is doing a good job and and you guys are doing a good job to let me know when things aren't being followed." So, the thought would be that not all of um properties would choose certification. Um and then kind of the big question is how would that affect um staff and inspections? So, it's not necessarily going to change the inspection process. it's just going to change kind of the how we do it kind of a semantics um change for me in essence. So we would still be looking to follow up with the same number of random inspections um on properties that we would be doing right now with a mandated. So every like I said every 5 years uh properties on the cycle to be inspected. Um not necessarily all of those properties are are ones that have largecale failures. um a lot of those ones for the the past inspection cycles, a couple of them um two cycles have have had kind of minor failures. So allowing the city to kind of focus on some of the more problem properties or some of the other code um reported issues would allow us to kind of shift time away from some of the properties that we've seen doing a really good job over the years and have small failures to allow us to focus on some of the properties that are a little bit more troublesome for us. Um, so it would free

up staff time. The the inspection proposal would would be the same as it was before. So the the city would do 20% of the the units that we select randomly in the apartment complexes. Right now we select 20% of the apartments that are in the 5-year cycle. So it's it's in essence you're doing the same inspections. You're just kind of freeing up staff to focus on different properties in different areas. um if we have code enforcement issues, we tend to focus a little more heavily on those properties. Um we're looking at historical data to see who's complying and and what they're what they're failing or what they're not failing on. Um and as I mentioned before, most of them are kind of small scale. So, this would allow us to shift our gears and and focus on in a little bit of a different way and and redirect where staff is going. Uh, moving forward, the council would be reviewing this again on April 6th. Um, if approved, it would go into effect 30 days later. Um, the the last step that I forgot to mention, it was brought before the Lakewood Planning Commission on February 18th. Um, they held a public hearing on March 4th and approved the proposed amendment 70. Um, so staff is is moving through the process and bringing it to council now to hear your input.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gum. Are there any questions for Mr. Gum? Council member Pearson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, thank you, Mr. Gum. We got a few questions here. Um, first, how do adult family homes fit into rental house? Is it totally separate then? These aren't rental units because they're just renting out bedrooms and they're not under this program. Is that correct? They're they're one of the exemptions. A state licensed facility is exempt from our program. And is that exempt at the state level or exempted by she's Okay. Heidi's saying yes. Okay. It's exempted by municipal code for sure. Our our code provides.

Yeah, our code. Yeah, the um adult family homes are completely regulated by the state and even if we have permitting that's required for them as businesses, they go to the state and get permitting there. And one of the issues, years gone by has been that they can get that state license regardless of whether or not they've gotten a license from us.

Gotcha. Thank you. Um, one of the terms that I found a little bit ambiguous was newly constructed. And I I didn't see that in the definitions. I just didn't know if is that a something's been built in the last 20 years, 5 years. It said just said newly constructed with no um violations within five years. So I just didn't know how new is newly constructed, I guess. So, so newly constructed for the terms of of the code would be in essence newly constructed. It received its certificate of occupancy. So, five years from that date if if that's something that we need to add. That's a a simple definition to add from the building code, but we could clarify that.

Yeah, I think it'd be helpful clarification because I was reading it as that it's been newly constructed but could have been 20 years ago and it just hasn't had any any violations in the last 5 years or something. So, um, anyway, just minor thing there. And then the self-certification sounds interesting. Um, I'm I I certainly appreciate the the good apples, right? Like we can kind of let them do their own thing. It frees us up to do other work that's important as well. Um, but how do we know the bad apples if they're just, you know, sending this thing in and and it doesn't actually it's not accurate? It's not truthful that what they're feeling. Do we have a way of of verifying that at all or is it, you know, you only get so many self-certifications before we have to come out and do a, you know, one of our inspections to kind of verify that how things are going along.

Yeah. So it it would be based on some of the historical data that we've seen um as well as complaints that we received. So we track both of those when when somebody complains and and has an issue with um habitability. Um myself and and the program coordinator track that in spreadsheets so we know kind of who's had the most complaints, what they're regarding. We're also looking at failures over the the last two inspection cycles to kind of see where they're at, especially the most recent inspection cycle. kind of see where what what they've failed, what they've made improvements on. So, some of it is is just looking at historical data and some of it is um being able to kind of know who's maintained their property over the years and and complaints. We've had code enforcement complaints, police complaints. Um believe it or not, we even get property manager complaints. We've had property managers who who've said, "Hey, my owner doesn't want me to do this. Will you come out and look at it because I need you to they need it fixed. I can't leave people in this condition." So, we kind of have that built-in knowledge of of who these actors are that we kind of need to follow up with. Okay. Um,

and the and the inspection cycle as I mentioned, I mean, it's it does free staff up a little bit to kind of to follow up with different properties.

Yeah, I I certainly appreciate that. Um, and then my my final question was about um one of the exemptions talks about newly constructed rental units. Um and then there's a number of of exemptions under that that receives funding and subsidies from federal or state and local government. Um so what is is that you know if you have a some sort of a project a low-inccome project that's got all these funds from you know the state or local then those are exempt from any sort of inspection rental inspections. they they could be exempt from inspections. The the key thing that that I would say on that exemption and something that I've kind of followed with my staff is it's the when you get to that's on page 140 um rental units and then it's IV for which the director determines that the inspection is substantially equivalent to the inspection required by this chapter. I haven't found um an inspection that's substantially equivalent to ours. I mean, they're they're just not out there. So, with our CDBG programs, which and CDBG home section 8, all of those programs have their own inspection protocols, and they don't actually rise to the level that ours do. So, even though that they're federally funded, they're still inspected by our program because they don't rise to our level of inspection. So, I we actually haven't had a single exemption under that since we've started our program.

Is that exemption a state exemption or is that something that we have I guess It to me it kind of reads weird as like if you do lowinccome projects you're exempt from these inspections and it's like I think that quite the contrary that everyone should be having you know safe housing and and keeping up on inspections and so um if there's no state mandate to have that exemption in there I would you know propose striking that exemption and and it sounds like most folks go the other route anyway of of getting inspections. So, um, that would be my only comment there.

Thank you, Council Member Lynh Hill.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I may be in the minority on this uh with this council. It's very important that we promote safe housing. I don't love that we charge people who choose to rent out their home. Uh there are a lot of disincentives out there in the market already for folks who are trying to make that pencil and make it work. Um but be that as it may, one of the distinctions I appreciate in the real estate world is a distinction between uh five and more units and four and under. We have different lending products for those. We have different ways of selling those. They have different requirements and all kinds of ways. Um, it makes a lot of sense to me to have a rental, and I know we're not actually putting the rental housing program on trial here, but if we were, I would say something like, uh, I appreciate wanting to make sure that we have safe housing across Lakewood. I appreciate making sure that our larger operators are doing what they should be doing by their tenants. I'm concerned when we start including ADUs in these inspections. And and and I'll tell you why. ADUs are a different kind of housing product, as you know. Um, this is not a sixplex on a corner of a road. This might be in someone's backyard. They might be renting it to a friend for 3 months or short term. They might be um it's a very personal space. It's on their property. And I do worry about uh slippery slopes here. Uh for example, there are people who rent out rooms in Lakewood. are we going to start charging them, making them get a license and start having their single family home that they live in inspected to make sure it's safe, to make sure that person is um housed appropriately in that in that room. And we're living in a time when tenants are not without a voice. Um there was a time when tenants were quite frankly abused by many landlords in the world and and now we're at a time where they have a voice. They have free legal help. they have someone to call if they need help at no cost to them.

So, I say all this to say I would be strongly opposed to expanding the rental housing program to ADUs um if we were to leave the rest of it intact. Thank you, Council Member Lenome, Council Member Brandsteader.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Gum. I think the the concept of providing for self-certification um is is is good. It'll be able us to focus things more done. I think um that the concern about somebody not accurately selfcertifying is um very likely going to be if it was a serious violation be detected by a tenant bringing an issue to the attention of the city which would trigger an inspection by a city inspector to be able to go and do that. Um, with regard to the the the the ex the the exemption um section on rental units, um, I would really like to delete the line that says that receive funding or subsidies from the federal, state or local government. Okay. um that um I think that if you use advantage of people who get some subsidies from the from the VA for their housing, there's actually a fairly rigorous inspection program that's covered by the second paragraph that are that are that are inspected to be able to go and do that. And a person should be able to submit that inspection in terms of of of having to do that like like it said. Um and so you know just keeping paragraphs sub paragraph I I I I and I um that that is is better than because funding or subsidy is very vague. I mean, what what what what is it that it could could be anything, but it

but it's it's really intended that that that that someone is is is is has some kind of a voucher that's paying part of their rent or all of their rent. Okay. And that um most of the agencies that provide those vouchers have an inspection requirement. Um so I think we we could be there. I had one uh transition question. Um, regarding the uh requirement for um when you have a cert received your certificate occupancy and you have been ex not expecting to have to be subject to the the regulation for 10 years and we're changing it to five. What are you going to do with the property that is seven years into their 10 years? Are you going to let them go go to 10? I mean, if if they're only three, you're just going to let them run to five and that'll go. But, you know, what do you do with a person who's past five but hasn't reached 10? Are you going to immediately tell them they have to be inspected or are you going to let them grandfather them in the 10 until they have to do that?

The thought the thought was to one have them register their property immediately because they were exempt from both of those. So, they would start registering their properties. And the thought was to to move them into the inspection cycle relatively soon as as soon as we could get them in the inspection cycle being that they're past their 5-year requirement at this point in time. Um, and again, that's going to be based on number of inspections that we we've got going. If if we're choosing to um inspect randomly at this point in time, I'll have to kind of reallocate our our load for staff and kind of see where we're at. The thought was to to move them into the inspection cycle relatively soon.

The the inspection cycles were determined by lottery. Correct. So are we still doing that or or would we still be doing that in some way?

What what we what we did is selected 20% of them each and every year for five years. So there was an initial lottery and then every that put everybody in kind of a a five-year time cycle. So everybody has already been allocated unless a property comes now that's a new rental. So every once in a while we we do get some new properties come in and they're they're inspected in that year which that they're put into the the inspection program. So new ones are inspected now. Everyone else is on their fiveyear cycle from this point moving forward. Y and when there's a change in ownership of a of of of of a property but that is has rental units that does that trigger an inspection or just a rellicensing?

It triggers relicensing. The certificate of compliance is transferable with the property owner and can continue till it's expired but they have to relic under the new ownership. And then in the other very unusual circumstance is in where units have been become unoccupied like by a fire and then a owner or a new owner rehabs the building over a couple of years sometimes. Um is that considered new? Not unless it was it was all the units. We we've had a few buildings where all of the units burned. So, you're doing substantial rehabilitation, which is a an actual building code construction. So, you're going in and you're redoing all of the surfaces, all of the finishes, the plumbing, electrical, you're bringing it up to code. Unless they get to a substantial rehab, then no, it it wouldn't qualify for a full inspection. We would just go back and look at the one unit. But if they're doing all of them at a substantial rehab level, then at that point in time, we could consider a five-year exemption.

So a new certificate of occupancy after that rehabbing wouldn't trigger a five-year exemption. No, not for an individual unit, but for an entire building, it could. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Rans. Any other questions from anybody? Okay, just a couple of questions. Um, the last time a a unit in the that I remember the a unit or at a building made it into the paper, so it's public. It's out there in the public was this building on 115th Street, right? Is it 115th Melody Court Apartments?

And we discovered there were people I don't know the whole story. Under this new plan, would you have found those issues? Yes, under this plan we we inspected that building for two different reasons. Code enforcement was in that building was for rental housing was so we had been getting reports from from our code enforcement staff and then the building department also inspected it with the fire department. So it was referred to us through through code code enforcement activities and that would have still happened even under this.

Okay. So, Council Member Brandstead and I were here and we had to give some blood to get this thing approved and and you guys have done wonderful work and I know it took a long time to implement because we wanted to do it electronically and not by paper and so that took a long time. So, we're really somewhere in that we're getting close to 10 years. So, most a lot of units have been inspected twice. Um, this will free up staff time to do what?

Focus on properties that we know um have larger issues than than some of the the ones that we're required I mean to inspect. Right now, everybody has a 5-year cycle, so we're inspecting everybody on an equal basis. So, we're not able to focus on some of the more problem properties because our time is spent on the ones that we have to inspect. Um, there's a lot of properties that the property owners and managers have done a good job in and realistically, I mean, I I can think of a handful that that literally failed for smoke detectors that were missing, and it wasn't smoke detectors that were missing because they were at fault because tenants had removed them. So, I mean, that happened. So, buildings like that where we know that they're they're continually maintaining those units, we can go away from those units and then focus on some of the more problem properties that have some of the bigger life safety issues that there's still some out there. Um it's significantly reduced from what we were seeing originally, but there's there's a lot of of good actors and a good a lot of good property owners who are are doing a lot to meet these requirements. Um and then there's kind of the average ones and then there's still a few that that are kind of lagging in in maintenance. So, we focus our time on on those ones that are kind of lacking in that maintenance.

Okay. Um for me, this is a little bit of a leap of faith. Um, I think there were some language changes that you've been asked to make or I I and I guess I I always thought that the receive funding subsidies from federal or state or local government or something like that was in the the state law that allowed this in the first place. If you going back to the RCW, didn't it didn't it explain what exemptions were in there to the inspection program? I'm just saying that to you. You don't I don't remember anything in RC W5918125 that described the exemption process. I'd have to go back in and look and give you a specific

answer. So, we should probably just match it to that if there was, but it's been years since I looked. So, um as to council member Lind Holmes, that's a material change. So, um didn't hear it from anybody else. So if he would like to make that change, he can propose a change at an amendment at final if you'd like. Does that work? Yes. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. Ms. Walker, city attorney, review of resolution updating the city's purchasing policies.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, deputy mayor, members of the council. Heidi Walker, city attorney, and this is a matter of bringing our um purchasing policies into conformity with state law in two ways. One is that the um small works roster at the state level has been repealed. So, we're going to take that stuff out of the um purchasing policies and the copy of the proposal is in your um packet along with the indicated line items. Um the second item is bringing in language about the apprenticeship program that is now required to be part of our bidding process. I will tell you that our departments planning and public works as well as parks are already moving in that direction. This is just to make sure that our policies actually conform with the state law and with what we're doing. And I will tell you, um, I have one thing on page 162 at the bottom. It is not a scribner's error. It is an outright mistake that I'm going to correct. Um, I told you I would be coming back on Monday, March 2nd, which would be hard because that happened two weeks ago. Um, I will be coming back on April 20th with this for passage if the council um is amendable to that. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them, but really this is just to provide conformity.

Any questions for Miss Walker? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Miss Walker. Okay. Reports by the city manager, Mr. Russell. Yeah. Uh, mayor, deputy mayor, council. Um, just a few items on the upcoming uh, schedule. Tomorrow night, Kuster Neighborhood Association on Saturday the 28th and 29th, spring cleanup. On the 28th, uh there is the invitation out for discussion on homelessness that one of our council members uh will be facilitating. Um on April 1st, the mayor's coffee, I'll be talking about the legacy plan. Then moving uh forward on uh the retreat is on April 18th. Individual meetings with the facilitator is on March 30th and 31st. And we do not have any formal council meetings for the next two Mondays. So, we're off for a little bit. That's all I have, your honor.

Thank you. And um Okay. Any questions for the city manager? Okay. Council member comments. Council member Pearson.

Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. No comments tonight. How's baseball going? Let's forget that. Council member Talbo. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Uh, no major comments, I guess. Um, questions or Okay. Yeah, I guess some comment tonight on some of the public comments we heard a little bit about but received in our inbox regarding the Gary Oaks around John Daer. So I believe the last we heard an update from that project was when the agreement to contract for the right-of-way agent came to us back in January. And that's I think the first and only time we'd seen the plans. And it was my understanding from that meeting that the that the the that there was no tree removal. So this was the first time that I was hearing tonight that there that there is tree removal. So I would just would like to get some clarification on um what that is, what that concern is. And

yeah, we'll get a a note out to council about what uh trees are going to be removed as part of that sidewalk installation project. Thank you. Uh I think that's the only question I had for tonight. Thank you, Council Member Talbo. Council member Brandsteader.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh I I I'll be attending the uh elected leadership group for the unified approach to homelessness uh meeting that uh is is is going to occur on the on on on the 20th. But um I would I am looking forward to our retreat on the 18th. Okay. where I think we can uh um maybe reduce our our big list of things that we're trying to do down to something meaningful and communicate that to the city manager and in and and be able to go and do that. But in that regard, I I guess I would just like to inform you and the other council members that I had exchanged some emails with him regarding an item that is in our legislative policy manual for Pierce County. And it was one that said, "Work to establish an agreement with the Pierce County Library District to be able to during an interim period while there is nothing going on on the old library site to come to an agreement where the city can green that and make it into some sort of of a park as opposed to a scab land." um that that was something that has been in that manual for two years and um and and and and predates the city manure manager's tenure. So he asked to to to look to have that re convened before he begins to reach back out to the library district to do that. And I think our retreat would be um a good place for us to at least touch on that to see whether that's something that we're we're still

interested in in in in in doing in the value of it. Thank you, Council Member Branset. And I think we we can speak to that because I think the proponent of there was a major proponent of that position that isn't here any longer. So we'll have that discussion surrounding things. Council member Lynholm.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really appreciate a lot of our public comment tonight from BNO to parks um to of course our trees which we we hold so dear. I also appreciated hearing um about Dennis Hogan's death. You know, we we have a lot of folks who take time out of their day. They are unpaid. They come here, they spend their time. And if we were to give away if there was a hall of fame for public comment, Dennis Hogan would be in it. Um I did not have the pleasure of serving on council when Dennis made most of his remarks, but I heard them. And then whether one disagrees with his approach or his manner, um I appreciate anytime someone takes time out of their day and comes down here in the evening around dinner time and and uh tells us what they think. So uh so I'm thankful for that. That's it.

Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. Deputy Mayor Bell.

Thank you, Mayor. Um I too I wanted to make a comment on the public comment. I really liked the fact that and this was kind of a 30th anniversary tie-in that um Mr. Kaufman brought up. He brought a list of people who he thought, you know, he wanted to recognize they were transition meme uh members and he said that they merit specific recognition and he put it under the 30th anniversary kind of header. So I know that a lot of things are being planned for the 30th anniversary, but I thought that was really nice of kind of bringing some people forward and letting us know about them. we heard a little history and it was unexpected and I found it really enjoyable. So, just adding to that. Um, and then I came a little bit early and went to the youth council meeting because I'm what the liaison and my child is in it too. So, you know, and they were doing a panel kind of presentation on beloved community. So, they had about six community members in the front. Uh the quilt is over there for the beloved community kind of event that they put together and they were coming up with ideas for next year and just really engaging our youth, engaging the youth council. I thought it was just very very cool and so I'm excited to see what will happen with the MLK celebration next year and how they can expand it. And I saw that uh Miss Martinez was here also, our like quintessential event lady. So, she asked about growing it. So, I thought that that was also super exciting. So, I'm excited for that. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Bell. Um, couple of comments on on on that first one. And I think Council Member Branset knows a lot of the folks that were involved in those initial things. I remember Bill Larkin actually because the first board I served on we had a transportation advisory board and somewhere around the turn of the century that seems like a long time ago now. I'd like to throw that in because it makes me sound seasoned. Somewhere around the turn of the century I went on the citizens transportation uh committee and and it was a wonderful committee. It was just really people who were really interested in really moving forward the the the transportation in our in our city. And Bill Larkin was the guy who who was in charge of that. And he was a wonderful man and he was he was very patient and and we just had some some really great members, a number of whom have passed on. And so um on a lot of those things we we have finally gotten to really in the last 15 10 15 years. A lot of the projects that we discussed some of the even the smaller projects that we discussed I remember Bill Lin talking about uh sidewalks along Angle Lane going from Hipkins to the park that we just got done two or three years ago. Right. He he talked about that, you know, 20some years ago. So, a a lot of vision there. So, I did appreciate that. And the same with Dennis Hogan. So, I'll give you a Dennis Hogan story. I mean, we we didn't we know him of always bugging us and and coming in here with his video player and yelling us about Fargo, North Dakota. He called me at work. He would call me at my office and and and a lot of times I couldn't, right? I had people in my office and I was like I couldn't answer the phone. But once in a while I did and

I talked to him for a little while. But as soon as I said, "Dennis, I've I've got to go into a meeting or Dennis, I've got somebody in my office." He immediately said, "Okay, no problem." Boom. He was he was off. So he was very considerate actually for um all the things that he would say to us. He was actually a very considerate individual and I don't ever remember him going beyond the three minutes allowed. So, I appreciate appreciate those comments. Um, I think I'm just going to leave it at that. Um, we're taking on some media issues, right, in a difficult time. So, I really do appreciate everyone really digging in and really putting in the work because I I think that um anytime and I'm specifically talking to the three people who have now added another committee to their list. I really do appreciate that and and I'm just you just don't know how much because um I I know there's a lot of things going on and so we have um yeah okay so we've got a number of things on the coffee with the mayor or whatever we call it now the quarterly meeting on the 1 of April. Um, so the new mayor, April 1st, really not intended to be a joke, but we're going to talk about parks, the parks legacy plan. So, it'll be interesting to see what we're going to because they're in the midst of working on that. And then I've got a presentation at Lakewood Rotary on on the 3 on Friday the 3. So, um, anyway, good. Uh, I think I've covered everything I need to cover. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Okay. Thank you very much for your good work. Okay. Thank you, M. Mr.

Just kudos to our city manager for giving a presentation at the uh at the chamber here this last week. I learned some things about my city. I saw some pictures I've never seen. So, thanks for that.