City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you very much. I'd like to call uh the Lakewood City Council meeting of Monday, April 6, 2026 to order. Uh Miss Schumanker, would you please call the role? Council member Brandstead here. Council member Lorisella here. Council member Lindholm here. Council member Pearson here. Council member Talbo present. Deputy Mayor Bell here. And Mayor Boi here. We have a quorum.

Next we have the pledge of allegiance. I stand indivisible with justice for all.

Thank you very much for being here. The first uh item that we've got on is a proclamation recognizing April 25th, 2026 as Parks Appreciation Day. I'd like Mr. Jason Gerwin for the chair of our parks and recreation advisory board. I'll present the uh the proclamation and then we'll take a a photo. Hi mayor, how are you? Good.

Whereas parks, trails, and open spaces are essential to the health and well-being and quality of life for residents, providing opportunities for recreation, relaxation, connection with nature. And whereas our community's parks contribute to environmental sustainability by protecting natural habitats, improving air and water quality, and offering green spaces to help that help mitigate the effects of climate change. And whereas parks and recreation programs promote physical activity, mental wellness, and social connection, serving residents of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. And whereas the stewardship of our parks depends on the dedication of volunteers, community groups, and park staff who work tirelessly to maintain and improve these treasured public spaces. And whereas parks appreciation day is an opportunity for residents to come together in service beautifying our parks through activities such as planting trees, removing invasive species, cleaning up litter, and enhancing public amenities. And whereas this annual event strengthens community pride, fosters environmental responsibility, and ensures that our parks remain vibrant and welcoming for generations to come. And whereas on September 28, Saturday, April 25th, 2026 from 9:00 a.m. to noon, volunteers of all ages will work at park sites around Lakewood, committing their time to clean up and beautify the Lakewood Community Garden, Edgewater Park, Fort Stilicum Park, Harry Todd Park, Kuanas Park, and Wards Lake Park. And whereas on Saturday, April 25th, 2026 at 12 p.m., a grand opening ceremony will take place at Wards Lake Park to highlight the enhancements to the park and open space and celebrate

partners who help develop and will continue to take care of the park. Now therefore, the Lakewood City Council do hereby proclaim April 25th, 2026 as Parks Appreciation Day in the city of Lakewood and urges all residents to show support by volunteering at one of our park sites and to help beautify and protect our parks. Proclaim this day the 6th of April, 2026. Thank you very much, Jason. Thank you. Please have a few words and then we'll take a picture.

Uh I'd just like to thank city council for this proclamation. uh uh you know me my 16th 17th time accepting this proclamation and uh this isn't just about the parks, it's about the community. It's bringing the community together and them uh giving back and a little piece to the parks uh that we so love and enjoy. A day like today is easy to uh to see why you want to be out there and doing it. But it doesn't matter if it's rain or shine. Uh hundreds of volunteers come out to this event annually. Um, so number one, I want to thank uh Director Miles, staff. This is extra duties assigned. This takes a heck of a lot of work and coordination just to put this event on. Uh, so staff and and director Miles and uh, as always, city council, your support of the parks department is appreciated. Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. So, uh, next up is

proclamation recognizing April 13, 2026 to April 17, 2026. as Black Hel wellness week. Um, uh, I believe Christina Blocker is here. I don't know if Keith made it or not tonight, but if you could come down and, uh, Deputy Mayor Bell will read the proclamation. Nice to see you.

Go ahead and read this. You want to say a few words after that? Thank you, Christina, for being here today. So, I will read whereas in 1915, Booker T. Washington launched National Health Improvement Week, later known as National Negro Health Week, to spotlight and address health disparities in the black community, including poverty, lack of access to formal health care, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, and lack of access to housing. And whereas a goal of this health week was to foster advocacy and education to remove barriers so that black and African-American people could achieve prosperity and success and have access to education, health care, housing, and build family wealth. And whereas holistic well-being encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and social health is a priority for all communities. And today, more than a hundred years after the creation of National Health Improvement Week, health disparities still exist, especially within the black communities in Washington state. And whereas work as whereas we work to elim Oh, sorry. Yep. In Washington state. And whereas work to eliminate these disparity calls for initiatives that are both inclusive and communitydriven, focusing on leveraging existing resources and capacities. And whereas the Elevate Black Wellness Initiative aims to address health disparities facing black communities through partnerships at all levels, including grassroots advocacy, local government, and by working with the Washington State Department of Health to raise awareness and establish actionable steps to enhance health outcomes and build a sustainable model for future wellness initiatives. And whereas government policies have enduring effects on the communities where they are implemented. And in 2021, the

Lakewood City Council signed an equity statement committing the city council to instill equity as a priority when developing policies and delivering civ city services and when enacting initiatives to support and celebrate the diversity of the community. Now therefore, the Lakewood City Council do by here hereby proclaim April 13th to 17, 2026 as Black Wellness Week in the city of Lakewood. And it urges community groups, nonprofits, and other local governments to look at ways we can further improve health outcomes for black communities by eliminating barriers and prioritizing access to services and programs for the betterment of the community. proclaimed this sixth day of April 2026. Lakewood City Council.

Thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Lakewood City Council for your leadership and for this third proclamation. Um that is such a beautiful thing to acknowledge. Lakewood was one of the first cities to to say yes to a proclamation of this kind. And that early commitment really helped to build a statewide co coalition that we now have today. Um, as as was shared, Lakewood was 2021 equity statement really committed to instilling equity as a priority in policies and services and Black Wellness Week is a commitment in action. Um, we all want the same thing. We want a community where every resident can thrive. And targeted targeted universalism says that we get there by being specific about who faces barriers and intentional about removing them. So when we invest in eliminating health barriers for black communities, the systems we improve, the access to care, the mental health re resources and services, and the preventative resources serve everyone better. And it creates a rising you all might have heard a rising tide lifts all boats right it has that same impact for the entire community. So with that um I want to thank you all for not only participating and signing this document but for continuing to show up in solidarity year after year. We appreciate you. value your leadership and your service for what you all do every single day. So, thank you for your leadership. Thank you all as community members for being part of the civic process. Um, and thank you again. It's an honor. Just stand in the middle.

Thank you very much. Next up is the Youth Council report and we have Damian Cruz Guzman and Alexander Charles. So, please come up and introduce yourself and tell us what great things the youth council is doing. Okay. Um, good evening, Mayor Bokei, Deputy Mayor Bell, and Council. Uh, my name is Damen Cruz Guzman. I'm a sophomore at Clover Park High School. Um, during today's meeting, we um we received two presentations. One about um what's it called? Sustainability and climate environment. We got invited to participate in making a mix media project for the event. Uh and were also urged to become part of regional climate council. We also received uh the second presentation was from you ununice elong from smart programs. Um, following the presentation, members spent the rest of the meeting attending to final details of the April Youth Summit, which is coming up on April 18th. Um, I think that's it for me. Um, I'll turn it over to Alexander. Good evening, council. My name is Alexander Charles and I'm a junior at Harrison Prep. For the remainder of our year together, the youth council will focus on hosting another annual youth summit on April 18th at Pierce College Lakewood campus. To date, we have 144 students registered and with two weeks left, we're anticipating more students to register. We will recap the review

summit to discuss pros and cons and use this info when planning future events. We will begin planning our end of year event. So far, we have decided to have a potluck and we'll be giving out rewards for students who brought the most students to the youth summit. That's our presentation and we're happy to take questions. Thank you very much. Council member Pearson has a question for you.

Not really a question. Thank you. Um I had a lot of fun at the last year's uh summit and I um we have a scheduling conflict this this year and so I and unfortunately we won't be able to attend but um I'm hoping that we don't make that an issue in next year in future years because it it really is a good event and I had a lot of fun interacting with all the youth at the different tables and and doing things. So um I hope it's a successful event. It sounds like you guys have a ton of people showing up. Yes. Or signed up. So, I hope that uh it goes well and wish you guys all the best. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brandsteader.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I I appreciate the update. The the number of registered students, how does that compare with past summits?

Um I'm not sure the exact number, but it's substantially increased from the past years. I know like the area that we are in right now compared to past years, we've had a major increase in students participating or signing up to participate in the event. I know that at one time in past years there was hopes to begin to attract more students from uh outside the Clover Park School District and make this a more regional event. Have you made any progress in that regard? Uh, I don't believe we did or we have yet.

Okay. Well, there is there are future years and and and and and thank you to to you on behalf of thanks to to all of the planning efforts that have gone on because I know that they have been uh been substantial on on on the part of many of the youth council to be able to go and do that. and I certainly hope you get the uh event you deserve. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Good job. Good luck at the the event. I mean, that event's been going on for a number of years now, and I can remember when they first started it, and it's really been a youthled event, which we're very proud of. Um, and um, I I think you guys are doing a great job. You really are. And it's it's a it's a good we have a big uh just managing that I guess uh and and getting through that and able to work with a group of I think what 64 this year or something like that.

It's a lot of members of the youth council this year that we're very proud of that. But it is it does take on some different dynamics and when it used to be like 24 or something, right? So good job on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is public comments. Uh public comments are accepted by mail, email, or 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 one hour before the meeting have been provided to the city council electronically. Miss Schumacher, have we I believe we have received at least one comment.

Mayor, you received written comments in advance of the meeting from Michelle Lee.

Thank you very much. And and those are in the members inboxes. Members of 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 the te by telephone 12532158782 and enter meeting ID 86872632373 or visit zoom. us and enter meeting ID 86872632373. Upon entering the meeting, please enter your name using 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. 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. You will not be acknowledged and your microphone will remain muted except for when you are called upon. So, let's start here in person. I have some signatures in. I don't know that all of you want to speak, but let's uh start with Roger Neil. Roger, would you like to speak Thank you, Mayor Council. My name is Roger Neil. I'm from the town of Stilum, but tonight I'm representing AARP driver safety and we have a proclam not a

proclamation, a certificate of appreciation to read to you on behalf of the city of Lakewood. So, the certificate I will let you see it, clerk, I'll give it to you when we get done. The city of Lakewood who reached a milestone of having hosted 11 driver safety courses for 108 participants during calendar year 2025. You have made a difference in the lives of many. And a little bit of context, the city of Lake the city of Lakewood tied for number two statewide in the number of courses had hosted and unfortunately we were only seven participants less than the number one course in the state. So I've been involved with a driver safety for many years and over 10 years with the city of Lakewood. I want to acknowledge two of your staff people that are here tonight. Elizabeth Elizabeth Shide, Debbie Washburn, they are the two that make this work. And I'm going to give you an example in a minute of what great staff people they are. So last December, we had already scheduled the class and the city of Lakewood decided to have an employee gathering. Well, city hall was closed, but Debbie came in and she stood outside in the cold December morning making sure that every participant got into the building and that without that kind of partnership, we would not be able to do these classes. So, I I just wanted to point that out to you. And that I will also point out that most of our participants, although they're from many are from Lakewood, they're from all over Pierce County and Thirstston County. And I've noticed that most of them go off site to eat lunch. So we're contributing a little bit to your sales tax revenue. So without it again, Elizabeth and Debbie, thank you for being here tonight. We couldn't do it without you. We couldn't do it without the

partnership of the city of Lakewood. And we're going to try and do 12 classes this year and see if we can be number one in the state. So thank you very much. Thank Thank you, Mr. Neil. former council member or town council member Neil in the actually I'm in my third term mayor I I feel like mayor okay I apologize that's fine so we're glad to be doing that I mean vision zero is is something that everyone in the state of Washington is involved in to reduce traffic fatalities and and uh this is an important part of it so thank you very much for your efforts and thank you for your kind words to staff they're great ambassadors for the city of Lakewood

thank Thank you, mayor.

Next up, Jason Gerwin. Jason, Damen still here? Damian, a youth council member. He shows up to every parks board meeting with Zoe Clifford. Uh, talk about two dedicated youth council members. Need to call them out. Uh, but I'm here to talk about the H barn. Uh, attended the last city council meeting and, uh, was a little, um, not pleased with kind of what I was hearing. And so, um, in regards to the H barn, um, you know, it's not a new idea. The record shows the project has been discussed, studied, and supported by the community for over 20 years. Formal evaluation going back to 2008 and 2009 uh, identified the H barn as the most viable structure for reuse. over multiple councils and boards. This has consistently been identified as a priority by Lakewood. That was all until I came to the last council meeting and I I definitely heard some wavering and I think a lot of that has to do with uh new council members, new staff and they haven't lived the history. I've been a part of that over your 20-y year history uh on the HB Barn and uh hugely significant um project uh that is extremely important to not only uh the city itself but the community and I have a a bunch of uh issues that I had written down uh at the last meeting. We had an ad hoc committee meeting prior to this meeting, but uh in that ad hoc committee meeting, I don't feel like we even scratched the surface in educating uh the new council members on maybe things they need to hear. And so um I did draft a four-page memo that I'll leave with the clerk and I'll be prepared to email that to you at the uh when I return home this evening so you can all read it. uh some of the context has changed based on that ad hoc meeting

and uh other things I've heard, but uh gives you some context. And so some of my thoughts in there may have changed since then, but uh it was where I was feeling at the uh end of that last city council meeting. And so um I can use my last minute or if so kindly be extended couple minutes, it would be appreciated. But you know um one of the biggest things I think you need to hear tonight is lead certification. I heard that should we do lead certification or not? I think you need to make the decision now. It doesn't matter which way you go. We support sustainable design but uh generally they call it a green tax which is about 20% more when you want to go for lead certification. Now 20%'s a little high. It's probably more like 6 to 12%. U but it's still it's upfront cost upfront. Um but you get a nice certification with it. Uh the thing is you'll get that payback but it's not going to be for 10 15 years but you're doing a good thing. save this this planet, right? We we all need to be taking steps to do that. Um the one thing that has not been in question is the community is clamoring for indoor space. And uh in my mind after 20 years, uh the thing that was most disappointing about the ad hoc meeting uh a little bit earlier was all the talk was about what we should do to cut or how do we change this building to fit it into a nice budget and and and to me

to wrap it up. Wrap it up. And so I'll leave it on this last point. Um there was not one discussion of how are we going to find and wake make this plan happen. And that's always been the attitude of Lakewood City Council, Lakewood Park staff is we make stuff happen in this community when at times it doesn't feel like it's even possible. And so to me, let's not talk about how we're going to cut this facility. talk about how we're going to build the facility this community wants, needs, and has been clamoring for for 20 years. Thank you.

Next up, Joel Vera. Good evening, council members. My name is Joel Verona. I am uh president of the Eagle Point Homeowners Association and I would like to speak just for a few minutes about uh the quality of American Lake. But before I do that, I want to thank uh your mayor and uh your city manager and council member Bransetter. In the last week or so, I've seen them in multiple positions um actually out in the community with the constituents with hands-on. And it's not just what you do here in chambers. It's really what you do out in the community that makes this uh really work so well. So, thank you for that. The city has uh developed their own American Lake management district which has been uh a a godsend for our mil foil situation and we are much much better off on American Lake for that. And that's really nice, but it's actually a tip of the iceberg for the situations and problems that we do have on American Lake with invasive and noxious aquatic weeds. If anybody has spent time on American Lake over many, many years, you'll find that uh it's deteriorated poorly over time. We've got filamentous green algae that's not under control. And some of these things can be handled with the permits that the city currently holds. We have kind of gotten together uh with shoreline owners and developed some petitions that will allow the shoreline owners to actually pay and participate for the cleanup of American Lake. It doesn't have to cost the council or the city to do this. We will take it on with your permission, but we need your cooperation in our permits to be able to do this.

Not only do we have these uh algae blooms and and uh a lot of noxious weeds, I mean, I haven't been able to swim off of my dock. I live on the lake. I've not been able to swim off my dock for the last 10 years uh due to the amount of aquatic growth that we have there. And a lot of owners have those same experiences. So, it does have effects on recreational use, property values, etc. It also has a lot of effects to uh the cyanobacteria that can grow in there, which is kind of a $10 word, but it's uh it's noxious problems that can uh cause people to to become very very ill, and we don't want to have that liability with the city. We are willing to pay to get that done. We have learned from other lakes around the county and around the state that have all this phosphorus content that wersheds into their lakes that allow for all this growth that they've not done well managing. And we want to manage ours and we want to do it earlier than later before it's terribly dangerous. And we will pay to do it, but we need your help in getting that done. Most uh lakes are paying dollars and dollars per per lineal foot. In uh Spanway, they pay about $4. On Silicon Lake, they pay $12 a foot to do this. We believe we can do a good job for around $5. And we want your permission to go ahead and raise that money and utilize that money at no cost to the city if if that can be allowed. So, when the ALM comes to you, please work with them and allow these things to happen. I'm sorry I'm over my time, but uh

it's an important thing. Any questions? No. Okay. I have a uh Joel Kangzer. I butchering that name. Sorry.

Hello. It's Joel Kongzer and u I live in the same community as Joel Verona does and I I'm retired so I spent a lot of time out on American Lake and there are there are some major problems there. Um, what I wanted to emphasize is that we believe and we've gotten a lot of support from the shoreline owners we've talked to and we really believe that we can get um a positive approval of assessment uh changes and that type of thing. So, all of this would be paid for. And I happen to look at the uh city council's vision statements and goals and it mentions two times about positive change and moving forward kind of depending on your resources. So, this would be some changes. If we raise those assessments, it would be positive changes. You'd be heroes to a lot of the lake owners or lakeshore owners out there. Positive changes without any worry about funding because we we're in it. Um we've been involved with this for months and we believe we can get that positive um approval of assessment changes to to take care of these problems. And uh so anyway, that's all what I wanted to say. So I'm very much um very much approve of what Joel said. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, Mr. Paul Bryce. Hello, Mayor, council members. My name is Paul Bryce, long-term resident in Lakewood over 23 years. I'm I'm here because I'm always told, you know, to get change, you got to keep coming and and it helps make change happen. Um, and I'm here to talk about cannabis retail. Not producer processing where you might find odors or smell, but simply cannabis retail. Uh, it's been a big thing. You know, every city, everyone's needing money. There's the millionaire's tax. I've been coming meetings here hearing about a 900 year old tree that's going to be chopped down for businesses. I'm not sure what the outcome on that is yet, but you know, clearly for money, low-income housing going into the middle of the the town center. Uh again, you know, money cannabis has been around 13 years as a retail. Uh we only see it gaining ground throughout the whole country, just more and more states coming on board and and it's not like it's new anymore. We we have enough time to see that just like banks or whatever the fear is of it being burglarized, uh, retail spots are opening up with better understanding how to open up just because there was all the items on the shelf, you know, some early on and being a major cash place only, you know, was was a target. But just like anything, clearly it's a business that people support and they keep improving because clearly all the money that's coming in is is just shows the like I'm not the only minority here saying this is something I want. Now for myself, yes, medically most and I own a couple retail stores.

Most of my customers are 40, 50 years old. We're talking about edibles and CBD creams, lotions, you name it. It's not just just to get high. It's a lot of this this is for medicine and really after all this time uh knowing that our state's not even having social equity come about and living here in Lakewood and knowing how diverse it is and hearing for everything for the the brown and black communities. This is something I would think Lakewood would should really get behind as I've seen other cities also get behind. And you know, we're not talking about just open the gates and have a pot shop everywhere. I mean, you guys are able to pick do a pilot program, maybe allow one or two pot shops. Again, talking about shops, we're not talking about agriculture. We're not talking about having it smell like crazy. You for product, lotions, edibles. None of that even smells like marijuana. And for the bags, they all have to be either a myar or a jar, which really cuts down any types of smelling for that matter. Um, and then you know the the worry about the kids like uh you know the minute this goes descheduled and we start talking about Safeways and whatever the pharmacies can sell like the kids are in all of those stores. No kids are ever allowed in any of these pot shops whatsoever. So like I can answer any of the questions or concerns you guys might have because I am the the east side representative for Washington State for the Cannabis Alliance Council on LCB. like we can answer anything that you guys might have a question that you think is like harmful for everyone.

Thank you Mr. Bryce. Appreciate it. Next up, Christina Manetti.

Hello everybody. Um, first of all, I can smell marijuana all around my house. All the neighbors smell it. It stinks. I hate it. And please don't make it any easier to get it close to where I live. Um, Christina Manetti Lakewood. I've lived in the general area of Edgewater Park since 1977, and I used to ride by it, as I mentioned before, on my bike when I was a kid. I've lived just a couple of blocks away since 2013. And tonight, I'm asking you to reconsider what is being planned at Edgewater Park because it's not just misguided, it is astonishingly short-sighted. Specifically, the Portland Lou is being presented as a simple public amenity and something positive. Obviously, people have to pee and stuff, but it's not it's not that simple. It's a structure that has cost cities on the order of $90,000 to $100,000 or even much much more even like a million dollars in New York City. And it comes with very real, very predictable consequences. These units are designed with blue lighting specifically to make it harder for introvenous drug users to find veins. Many include sharps disposal boxes for used needles. Think about that. These features exist because of the behavior that these things attract. I don't want that in my neighborhood. And the track record around the country is clear. A Portland police officer described one as a favorite nighttime destination for drug dealers and prostitutes. In San Diego, residents called it a magnet for crime and homelessness. As if we need more of that. And the city ultimately removed one after increased crime and maintenance problems. Seattle itself has already removed Portland lu. These are not isolated anecdotes. They are patterns. And I'm sure that you guys must have heard about it when you were considering it. Even the re limited success stories come with a catch. These facilities only work when they are actively monitored. In California, observers concluded that the key to success was a human attendant on site. So where is that in this plan? Are we

staffing this restroom or are we just simply hoping that reality will not apply to Edgewater Park? Meanwhile, Edgewater already struggles with trash, noise, and irresponsible use. You're not solving that. You are intensifying that with the Portland Lou. A permanent unsupervised restroom and an adjacent parking area will not sit quietly in winter. I mean, maybe you're going to seal it all off. I don't know. Um, they'll become a destination during the majority of the year when the park itself is empty. I guess some people are sleepy. And at what cost? Probably at least $100,000 and quite possibly more. I haven't seen the figure. Maybe you should wait to see how the situation with the new Portland loo at Ward's Lake Park turns out. No. This plan reflects bureaucratic tunnel vision fueled by grants and mysterious unspoken motives that confuses installing infrastructure with solving problems. It ignores decades of real life observations from the purple pe no people who actually live there. It's not thoughtful planning. It's the exact opposite. Ignoring the obvious. Thank you. and now one from the Gary Coalition Lakewood Christina Manetti Gary Coalition. The other day I drove by the corner of 112th and Interlockan Drive and was stunned to see what had taken place there. The clear cutting of full 2 acres of some of the most heavily forested land in Lakewood. I saw it earlier, but it really hit me the other day. Council members, have you seen the site with your own eyes? You should really make a point of going. The day I was there, I saw an area of blinding sun where there used to be a dense forest. The trees in the surrounding forest will now suffer from the edge effect, quite possibly also dying because of the adjacent forest that they've been part of has been stripped away and much of it asphalted over. The trees in a forest live in one system. Taking part away

harms the rest. I'm here today to ask on behalf of the Gary Oak Coalition that the city under your direction now take decisive action to ensure that this never happens again in the city of Lakewood. We anticipate the city's usual response that was under the old tree code, but what in substance has really changed? The new code may require permits when the where the old one did not, but a permit is not protection. So meanwhile um you know the city has adopted a goal of 40% canopy cover by 2050. How does clear cutting an intact force move us towards that goal? It doesn't. Remember people often try to justify environmental destruction like this by saying that it's for affordable housing. No one can argue with that, right? Someone said this project would be missing middle housing, but that's just not true. These homes are being listed now for around $1 million. One is 1,39,950 on Zillow today. And no matter what kinds of houses were put there, they needed to be built in a way that would be in harmony with the environment, which means less density and more tree preservation. What happened at 112th in Interlockan has reminded us of tree preservation code that does not in practice even in its new and improved form preserve trees. If Lakewood is serious about protecting its canopy and habitats, then the answer is not to doggedly defend the current code. It is to fix it. The tree code must be revised again, strengthened and made to actually do what it claims truly protect the trees and the ecosystems that remain. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time until we witness another devastating clearcut like the one on the corner of

112th in Interlockan. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Manetti. Mr. James Dunlop and that now Mr. Dunlop's the last one that signed up, but anybody else who wants to speak after him here and we'll be you'll get your chance after he speaks.

Hello, my name is uh James Dunlop and I am a Lakewood resident. I want to sort of continue on the theme of um Edgewater Park. You know, the temperature is now going up. We've had the first sort of real spring days and uh you know I get a chance to walk walk by it and people are enjoying um Spring Park Edward Edgewater Park and I'm just wondering you know why why is the city doing what it's doing or planning on doing what it's doing. Firstly they uh they eminent domain Dr. Jalile's house and that is something that uh was appalling. As I've said on numerous occasions, this would not I don't believe have happened if uh Dr. Muji had been a white retired, for example, colonel in the US Air Force. So I I think the city needs to really think about that. But additionally, the the concept of turning that property into a parking lot for trailers is uh is really absurd. I mean, what kind of group are you really catering for? I mean, you've when I remember when when you had the uh talk about equity, you said, "Oh, you've got to open that park up because it's all about equity." Well, walking past that park, I see that people are using that um Dr. Mujiva's um old property. Uh they're fishing um off his dock. Of course, I'm a I'm a vegetarian and if I had my way um fishing would be banned, but that's not really the point. The point is people are using that part of the park and it's a very small park. So, you're going to use it for a parking lot and rather than just extending the park. I mean, that seems to be a logical thing to do. And and and I wonder really thinking about the themes that Christina

Manetti was talking about, has anyone in the city really modeled what's going to happen in Edgewater Park once the plans get fulfilled? What is going to happen? For example, the uh when you put the uh the laboratory in or whatever you whatever you call it, you know, okay, there is the potential of crime and drug use and so forth. You know, what is going to happen? I mean, have you has has someone really thought about it? And I don't think they have. I think that someone in the city is just thinking about the present. Maybe there's a grant involved. I and I think that you know it's going to be quite devastating uh for anyone actually living on Edgewater Park because I think it could it could seriously damage uh damage the area and I think that uh this talks about division in Lakewood. I don't think if you know you know I know people on on the Edgewater Park side those properties are quite quite expensive but if they live on the other side of the lake those properties are super expensive. I don't think the city would have treated those property owners like that. So I think we're seeing a bit of a social and economic division here. But please do think about this age water park again and I think you need to have an inquiry. Why why are you doing it?

Thank you Mr. Dunlop. Do we have anybody in chambers who who who would like to speak? Please introduce yourself and mention your city of residence. Welcome.

Thank you council. My name is Terry Weise. I'm a land use consultant and I'm representing a client that uh owns property at uh get my glasses on. 5105 Soulberg Drive Southwest and I believe there's an action before the council about a an abatement action. Um I was contacted about this on Thursday afternoon. So I've had Friday and today to try to wrap my arms around this. So, excuse me if I don't have all the facts, but as I understand it, this is a mixeduse commercial property. Has two buildings on it. Uh that one used to be a convenience store kind of facing out towards um Soulberg. And then there's a second building behind it that uh sounds like the upper story was um office, not condos, but office units where they would share a kitchen and a bathroom and and people would rent out the offices. My client who has a residential background um bought the property with the idea of providing uh attainable housing uh you know for folks and uh again her background is in residential real estate. I think she had no understanding of the difference between trying to develop property or remodel property from commercial to residential. uh it adds a layer of complexity that um you know frankly was beyond her scope. Uh she hired contractors to help her out that um were also residential contractor so it was beyond their scope. Um and she had a a series of bad luck with incompetent contractors and even some unscrupulous ones. but they ended up tearing off a breezeway that was connecting the two buildings that um uh did incorrectly. Consequently, it caused

significant water damage. And I think I've talked to staff on this and they have been I think bent over backwards try to work with my client to try to resolve this and uh but they've got to the point where they just don't feel like progress is being made and so they've suggested that uh you know um the council vote to bulldoze the back building and and send her the bill. Um there's some real issues with this property on the west side of it. I believe it's Clover Creek. correct me if I'm wrong, that borders it. So, we have the uh shoreline master program that that encumbers this property. We've got fish and wildlife and wetland buffers, and we also have the storm water um management manual that has different setbacks. All those don't dovet dovetail perfectly, but it looks like there's a 150 ft setback. My main concern at this point and and from reviewing the code, it's unclear to me, and I'm not great at this, but I'm pretty good at looking at code, whether or not they would have the ability to rebuild that back building with the existing imperous footprint, right? Because of the code, it's not clear that they would get credit for that impervious footprint. So, I think that there needs to be she's now got people involved that know what they're doing. I would beg that you don't approve this abatement. Give us a chance to figure out what to do with this property cuz my fear is if we bulldoze it and then she can't rebuild that we've irreparably

Thank you, Mr. Weise. Thank you. Any other speakers? Please come up to the podium. Introduce yourself. City of residents. Good evening, mayor and deputy mayor and um members of U city council. Um as a refugee in this country, um I worked very hard, graduated from college and uh did the thing I'm supposed to do for the American dream, buy my first home and from there started investing in real estate and excuse me, let's hold it up. You need to give us your name. Oh, I'm sorry. Michelle Lee. I'm the owner of the property at 5105 Silver Drive um Southwest in Lakewood.

Thank you, Miss Lee.

Um and so, um investing in real estate was the thing that I wanted to do to make extra income and I met a pastor down in city of Lakewood and from there she started um sharing with me about homeless people and displaced residents down here. And as I achieved my American dream, the next thing I wanted to do was to give back. And being realist in real estate, residential real estate, I have experience in that. When I heard about this, I thought, okay, they advertise it with income this and this and they have residents in there renting and I thought, okay, I'll just take over, hand it over to the pastor, and you know, go from there. And that is the way for me to give back. Long story short, it didn't worked out. She didn't pay rent. she took a rent and um left, you know, me with the project. So, I took over and little did I know, that's when all of this stuff came up as a zoning and um you know, I'm not supposed to rent out these as residents and all of that. So, as soon as I heard about that and I got um Paul to correct the problem, it was like two years ago, I understand. But a problem like this, it takes time for me to save up a lot of money to correct it, which I've been doing. And I hired two licensed bonded contractors to help me. And these are referrals from people here in Lakewood because I live in Seattle. I'm not from this area. And they took my money, didn't do the work, and left. and I had to learn how to submit permits online with the gracious help of all the um staff member at the city department. But the next guy who came in, he did the same thing and he took off the roof which he was not supposed to do until he was done with everything else. The roof was the last piece. Um, and that's when the water damage come in and the city I

had until um I have until June or May to finish this project, but I just found out about this in uh abatement like couple days ago as well. And as soon as I heard that, I called so many different people and finally got a hold of Mr. Weise to help me and educated me on the differences between residential real estate and commercial are two different things. residential is location, location, but here is the zoning and that's this the first time I'm learning all of this. I'm willing to cooperate with the help of Mr. Weise to um help me through this. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Miss Lee. Are there is there anybody else here in the chambers that would like to speak? Anybody else? Okay, Miss Schumacher will go online. Is there anybody online who would like to speak? It looks like we've got a couple of people there. We'll start with Tisha Moore Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop, welcome. You've got three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Right. My name is Tamir Dunlop. I'm a resident of Lakewood. I'm here to ask that the city take action to prevent future clearcuts like the one I recently saw on the corner of 112th and Interlockan. It's an area I'm very familiar with because I used to go to Idle Wild Elementary and the German school up the street. It shocked and hurt me to see what had happened. I loved that forested stretch of road. I was a member of Lakewood's ad hoc tree committee in 2022 and I'm convinced that the changes that resulted from those code revisions do not adequately protect Lakewood's trees. The land on 112th was clear-cut for a subdivision of 11 houses. This was mature native forest, including protected gerry oaks and their habitat, which were a part of a larger grove that spanned multiple properties. And yet, this forest and protected oak habitat was treated like garbage to be cleared. On paper, there was a quote unquote habitat assessment, but the man conducting it admitted under oath that he could not even identify common local birds, referring to them simply as little birds. That's not an expert opinion. its procedural theater. What was really lost? Gary oaks are not just trees. They are a base. They are basis for an entire habitat. They are closely associated with species like the western gray squirrel, which is state endangered in Washington and depends on oak and mixed oak douglas fur forests for its survival. Was that habitat properly assessed? From what I heard or what we heard at the appeal in 2023, there's no evidence that it ever was. The Douglas squirrel, which had been documented on the site, was also part of this ecosystem. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Douglas squirrels are protected species in Washington, whose decline is likely due to the loss of preferred habitat, mature mixed conifer forests, which of course is exactly the

kind of habitat that Lakewood would allow to be destroyed. Neighbors spoke up and clearly said that they wanted the forested character of their neighborhood preserved. They understand they understood what would be lost. But like elsewhere, the city and the hearing examiner it had hired disregarded those concerns and sided with the developer. The comprehensive plan repeatedly requires that new development be compatible with with and not undermine the character of established neighborhoods. This neighborhood's forest is its most important feature, and now a chunk of that has been taken out of it and habitat destroyed. It's time for you and the city to revise the tree code so that it actually protects Lakewood's trees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Next up is Mr. Joe Ramos. Mr. Ramos. Hello. Thank you.

Hi. Uh, Joseph Ramos for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. Uh, speaking on item 212, AGLA represents 10,000 rental housing priorities throughout Los Angeles, including many in Lakewood. More than 80% of our members are small owners with 20 or fewer units. City staff has done no outreach whatsoever to the impacted rental housing providers for their input prior to bringing forward this draft ordinance. This ordinance will impact all rental housing providers, including single family, accessory dwelling units, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. These are all small owners currently providing affordable rental housing for working families in Lakewood. As such, they are likely rental housing partners with the least understanding of city requirements governing business and many probably do not even consider themselves as business owners. Suddenly requiring registration and inspection could create a chilling effect on these owners and cause them to leave the rental housing market entirely. This would significantly and suddenly reduce the supply of affordable rental housing in Lakewood. There's been no data gathered by staff nor analysis offered as to potential impacts of this ordinance on this expanded segment of rental housing providers and the city's existing rental housing stock. We urge the city to delay taking any action on this draft ordinance. Instead, we request that the city council direct city staff to conduct several inperson and virtual town hall meetings with impacted property owners to obtain information on the likely impacts of such an ordinance and solicit input on the language for the draft ordinance. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Any are there any other people who are willing to speak there?

Mayor, there are no other virtual hands raised at this time. Thank you. I would note I hope Mr. Ramos is on. This is Lakewood, Washington, and we already have the rental safety plan in place and so we're making changes to it. Is not Lakewood, California, just in case. He might be representing investors up up here, but just want to make sure he understands that. So, we have no one else. Mayor, we do not. So, I'm going to close public comment and we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Consent agenda. A. Approval of the minutes of the city council study session of March 9th, 2026. B. Approval of the minutes of the city council meeting of March 16th, 2026. C. Approval of claims vouchers in the amount of 4,457,692.38 for the period of February 14th, 2026 through March 13, 2026. D. approval of payroll checks in the amount of 3,82,83744 the period of February 16, 2026 through March 15, 2026. E motion number 2026-23 authorizing the execution of a grant agreement with Washington State Military Department in the amount of $50,9 for the Emergency Management Performance Grant. F. Motion number 2026-24 authorizing the execution of an amendment extending the term of the agreement with Keller Associates to assist in updating the Lakewood Municipal Code Title 12 and the Engineering Standards Manual. G. Motion number 2026-25 authorizing the award of an abatement contract to DP Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $71,181.85 85 cents for the abatement of 5105 Soulberg Drive Southwest. H motion number 2026-26 authorizing the award of a community development block grant major home repair loan in the amount of $75,000 and a construction contract with FRN Corporation in the amount of $68,922.60 for the rehabilitation of 9005 Highland A Southwest. I items filed in the office of the city clerk. One, community services advisory board meeting minutes of January 22nd, 2026. Two, community services advisory board meeting minutes of February 19th, 2026. Three, parks and recreation advisory board meeting

minutes of February 24th, 2026. And four, planning commission meeting minutes of March 4th, 2026. Thank you, Miss Schumacher. Are there any items that any member of the council would like pulled from the consent agenda? And I believe Mr. Lyn, Council Member Lynhol. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Given the public comment we've received, I would move to have 2026-25 removed from the consent agenda so we can talk about it.

Thank you very much. So, uh, item number item G, motion number 202625, which is authorizing the award of an abatement contract to DP excavation at 5105 Soulberg Drive, is being pulled from the consent agenda. Are there any other items that members of the council would like pulled from the consent agenda tonight? Okay, seeing that, I don't think I need a second, right? We can just go forward with it. Correct. Mayor, you do not need a second.

Huh? You You don't need one, right? All those in favor of approving the consent agenda as amended. You're Okay. Council member Brener. Mayor, I I would just like to make a comment in before we vote in terms of discussion in that uh included in the consent agenda of items being filed include some minutes from the community services advisory board. And uh I was pleased to note that in these minutes that that this year that board has moved to make some positive recommendations regarding the use of opioid abatement funds which we tked them to do um quite some time ago and they have been very deliberate about. that uh that that we're going to move forward to getting some impact. And so I just like to say that these minutes uh are are praiseworthy with respect to the the work of of that advisory board.

Thank you for pointing that out, Council Member Vansteader. It is something we've been waiting on and I'm I'm glad they were deliberate in their because there's no time frame on when we have to spend those funds, but I'm glad they're moving forward with that very important item. So, uh, all those in favor of approval of the consent agenda, signify by saying I. I. No, wait. Are we going to make a motion? Yeah. Mr. M. Can I get a motion for the consent agenda, please? A motion to That's okay. A motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. Mayor, I I move to adopt the consent agenda less item G. And I will second that motion.

Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda minus item G, which is motion number 202625. All those Any discussion? All those in favor of approval of the consent agenda, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. All those opposed say nay. The consent agenda as amended is approved. So, let's go on to ordinance uh to motion number 202625. Miss Schumacher.

Motion number 2026-25 authorizing the award of abatement contract to DP Excavation, Inc. in the amount of $71,181.85 for the abatement of 5105 Soulberg Drive Southwest.

Thank you, Miss Schumacher. Uh who what staff is going to speak to this and do the introduction on this? Good evening, Mr. Mayor, deputy mayor, members of the council. So, again, before you is a a motion to approve the abatement for 5105 Soulberg. I can kind of give you some some background of this property. So, it's a a property that has a long time um dangerous and nuisance history. Um the city issued the abatement complaint on June 20th, 2024. Uh the city then followed with the abatement order that was issued July 23rd, 2024. um the dates that were provided within the order to correct the property and there was um numerous numerous issues. The property was used for um housing 12 individuals. Um it was converted illegally from a commercial structure to a single family structure. Um this was actually the the third such occurrence um on the property. I I have personally relocated people from the property um three times in about a 15-year period. This was the most recent. Um when we inspected the property, there was all kinds of electrical modifications, interior structural modifications, um mechanical, plumbing, um all types of interior modifications. Myself, the building official, um labor and industries, and the fire marshall all inspected the property and and all identified additional dangers and nuisance issues. Um those were all addressed in the order. The order provided a September 30th, 2024 date to apply for permits um to either repair or demolish the building. I can tell you to date there were no permits from the city of Lakewood to apply um any repairs. There was no permits to apply for demolition for the building that we're specifically talking there were um permits that were issued for the property on the front building. So, the owner applied for some sighting repairs and some some miscellaneous sheetrock and so forth on the building in front of

it. However, no permits were ever applied for for this building. So, um the city in order to demolish the building, we go through Pierce County Superior Court and obtain a warrant. Um we did that on two occasions. Um the first warrant was issued to the city November 6th, 2025. Um after that initial issue or warrant was issued, both myself and the building official conducted uh multiple walkthroughs. We again involved labor and industries, the fire marshall and so forth to try and get the owner um to address the building. The owner was present. Uh all issues were identified. Again, no permits were submitted. So the abatement order that was issued no or sorry the the warrant from Pierce County Superior Court um was issued November 6th, 2025. It has a six-month time frame. Um in November 6th, the city realized um that we were getting close to the timelines and we negotiated with the owner um a second abatement order. So the owner agreed to an extension of the first abatement order on November 6th that was granted by Pierce County Superior Court which then again six months later provided for an expiration date of May 6 of 2026 which brings us to where we are now. um the city in order to complete the process uh we we went through the bidding. We received a number of bids from individuals. They're considerably lower than my city estimate. Um there's kind of a lull in construction that I hadn't anticipated. So being able to take advantage of the cost savings would be um one thing. The other issue with the property is it's currently um and has been occupied by squatters again. So, there's a number of occasions I was out on the property in the past two weeks. There were squatters in the building. Um, I had police show up one day when we were there. They escorted three people out of the building and arrested one. Um, went back about a week later, the building was broken into again and had the property owner secure it. So, it continues to be a vacant

nuisance property that squatters are actively occupying. Um the the key issue here is the expiration of the May 6th um abatement order and the and the warrant from Pierce County Superior Court. Were that to lapse um and we were to go back to Pierce County Superior Court and try and get a third warrant, I'm not certain we would be successful in doing so because we had not met our first two agreements uh with Pierce County Superior Court. So doing that, I believe, would be an uphill battle. um if we're not awarded another warrant on the property, um it would stay as it is and it would be continuing um to attract squatters and transients and so forth and continue to deteriorate and have water flow into the building. So that is my presentation. You have any questions? Thank Thank you, Mr. Gum. Any questions for Mr. Gum? Council member Mortal, do you have you have your light on? Do you want you got any questions? Oh, okay. Council member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so, uh, Mr. Gum, I understand there was an extension provided. Um, and then how has communication gone to the applicant or the owner? Um, is this certified mail? Is this through our permit portal? How how does the communications happen and notifications?

Uh, a number of different ways. So when we're doing the abatement process, all of those are given via certified mail and first class mail. So any of the orders and any of that is is given to the owner. Um there's number of emails um that were sent back and forth to the owner home owner, the property owner. Um we have the property owner's cell phone, so there's been a number of texts going back and forth scheduling inspections, trying to get things fixed. Um so all of the all of the communication has been kind of ongoing and and upfront as we've gone through this process. when we're awarded the warrant, um the two different warrants, the the property owner is notified as that part of the process through our Pierce County legal department. So, the owner is aware that we're getting a warrant and why we're getting a warrant. So, they're involved all along the process.

Okay. And then a couple other um how would you say that this timeline compares to our other typical enforcement cases? And then um is this decision similar and consistent with other cases that we've dealt with?

I can say this timeline is significantly longer than we would be addressing a property like this. Um it's a property that I can say the building official and I had this discussion today. I've never had the building official out on a abatement property going through what's required to be fixed with the homeowner um and or the property owner and literally going through a plan submitt that they're looking to submit to the city of Lakewood. So, the building official was physically on this property and attempted to make um the owner aware of the issues that needed to be corrected. Um, we waited again since September of 2024 was the deadline that was known by the owner to fix these repairs and we had never received a permit. So, we waited substantially longer um than we would. We were trying to give the owner time to fix a property and instead she chose to address the property in front instead of hers.

Okay. And then um thank you for that and your presentation the information that's all helpful. Um I guess I I would just a general comment on this is that you know I I think that it's we need to be mindful of our role on council that you know we put forth policy and city staff enforce policy and and the codes and stuff that are that are in place. Um, and I this is simply for a uh a contract for your kind of typical abatement case as I understand it. Um, and I don't think it's, you know, really appropriate for us to be up here getting involved in individual code enforcement cases. Um, as it relates to the the contract side, I guess. So, I'll just say that. Um, I appreciate your uh presentation and comments. Thank you. that. Thank you, Council Member Pearson. I'm going to recognize the city manager because I think he wants to say that. But before that, I'm also I don't see Mr. Lynholm or council member Lynholm's hand, but um he is after the city manager is done done talking, I'm going to ask council member Lynholm to speak to this because he was the one that that asked that it be pulled. So, city city manager Russell. Yeah, Council Member Pearson actually addressed my comment in that this isn't actually approving the abatement. It's approving the contract to comply with our fiscal policies because it's over $50,000. That's why it's coming before council.

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. Mr. Council Member Lynholm.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The first thing I should say, first of all, I just really appreciate the work the city has done to communicate with property the property owner here. I think that's incredibly important. Um, we want to do everything we can to be working with our folks and we want them to work with us. That's better for everybody, right? If if we can have a property owner proactively involved in improving a property, bringing it to code, all the things, that's a benefit both to the owner and to us, it means we're not using city funds to do the work and not trying to collect from and lean our property owners. I need to disclose that I do not have a professional relationship with Mr. wise, but I do have a long-standing friendship and former he's a former colleague of mine and I will say this, I know him to be incredibly capable. I've seen him swoop in at the 11th hour for projects that um were previously thought to be impossible and do impossible things. And it sounds like he's had approximately three business days on this project. I do not want to question uh our city staff or our city manager, but when I do think about a policy, I think about I would hope that as as a city that one of our policies is to do all we can to work with property owners and I think the city really has done that. The challenge here is it sounds like to me coming in again at the 11th hour that we have a property owner who no matter no matter how much time she had to fix a problem, it was not a problem she was capable of fixing. Um she now maybe potentially has a team member that can get that done. And so I wonder um not dictating policy, but I but I wonder if we've waited two years, can we wait two more weeks to see if Mr. wise can hammer out a mutually agreeable timeline uh with city staff. Um but again, I would expect to abstain from any vote on this.

Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. Uh Mr. Gum, are there any other comments from M Council Member Brandsteader?

Yeah, Mr. Gum, I I certainly concur with the idea that the documentation that you've provided that's supported going forward with the getting the bids for this contract is is is in isn't in in line with the policy that we have had with abatements going forward. in that there doesn't seem to be any question that there were efforts to work with the property owner to try to uh allow her to take control of the situation and manage uh rehabilitation or of the property and that we're now at a point of where uh because unfortunately it sounds like she was taken advantage of by some of the folks she was seeking to have to his sister, but that also that you've you've obtained a a contract that is significantly below what was the city's estimate and the estimate of what it would cost to demolish or even to to rehabilitate this program. And so, um, it strikes me that the the property owner is actually benefiting from the competitive bidding process that you have in terms of of getting done what needs to be done with the with with with the owner. I get a lot of u comments at neighborhood association meetings and things for people all really sort of wondering why abatement actions on buildings in their neighborhood seem to take a long time. And this packet that you've provided is actually a good

instructional aid for for people to see uh all the levels of effort that that you and your staff go through and then all of the legal hurdles that are involved with with actually enforcing city policy to be able to go and do that. And I'm particularly disturbed to hear you tell us that even recently there are squatters occupying the building upon occasion to be able to go and do that. So uh I certainly think the time is right to do the action that you have proposed the contract that you've negotiated and uh it's my intention to support it.

Okay. So before we really get into discussion here, we need to move and second this because we don't even have it on the table yet. So can I get a motion and a second on motion number 202625? Mr. Mayor, I move adoption of motion to 2025-26. Second.

Got a couple seconds there. It's been moved and seconded. Uh motion number 202625. Further discussion, council members, anyone else would like to speak to this. Okay. Council member Lynholm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could just make one more comment. I think Mr. Bransler is absolutely right that the property owner benefits from this contract, but they only benefit from that contract if the city does the work. Because of course, the city is paying prevailing wage. I would expect the property owner to be able to demolish at a substantially cheaper price. since she said so in her public comment. So, I just want to make sure that's clear.

Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. Are there any more comments from any members? Okay, so um we are going to uh do voice vote on or is are you going to call the RO? I'm having a rough time tonight for whatever. Mayor, would you like me to call roll? Yeah, please call the role. So I have council member Lindholm abstain. Council member Pearson. Yes. Council member Talbo. Hi. Council member excuse me. Deputy Mayor Bell. I. Council member Brandansteader. Hi. Council member Lorisella. I.

And Mayor Boi. I. So the motion passes. On to the regular agenda. Ordinance number 849. Miss Schumacher. Ordinance number 849 amending Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 related to rental housing licensing and inspection requirements. Thank you. And Mr. Gum or you know what? I'm going to do this right. We are going to move and second this ordinance before we even begin discussion and have So could I get a motion?

Mayor, I'm I uh move to I make a motion to move this. Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Ordinance number 845 amending the Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60. Miss Schumacher, do you want to read that in? Ordinance number 849 amending Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 related to rental housing licensing and inspection requirements. Thank you very much, Mr. Gum. Planning Manager Jeff Gum.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council, uh again before you use the resolution or sorry, an ordinance to approve 8 number number 849. Um this would modify Lakewood Municipal Code 5.60 60 rental housing licensing to change um licensing and inspection requirements. Uh this was reviewed before council on March 16th. At that um review, I wanted to follow back up and and answer some questions. So, there was a number of questions that were asked by council of staff and I've gotten the answers and I would like to present you with the info. So one of the questions was um what was the definition of new construction? So in your agenda packet u we've tried to reflect that um with the in article in 5.60 um article B 5.6025 B um we've we've clearly defined what legally um permitted new construction is. So the the ordinance is is supposed to provide an exemption for a newly constructed building and the intent of newly constructed building is to have something that is legally permitted new construction. I mean anybody can construct something. So the intention is to have something that was legally permitted newly constructed. So that would be the definition of what is newly constructed under Lake Municipal Code 5.60. Um a second question was relating to one of the same exemptions um in the same 5.6025 uh B2. The question was uh raised was it a requirement of the RCW to have a section that had an exemption for a rental unit that was receiving funding subsidies from the federal, state or local

government. um that is inspected at least every three years as a requirement of the funding or subsidy that provides a copy of the inspection to the city and for which the director determines that the inspection is substantially equivalent to the inspection required by this chapter. Um, I can tell you in reviewing RCW5918125, which is the enabling legislation for this, um, it specifically says a rental property inspected by a government agency or other qualified inspector within the previous 24 months may be provided uh, may may provide proof that the inspection which the local municipality may accept in lie of a certificate of inspection. So I am not an attorney but I can infer the term was used may and not shall. So uh the third question that was raised was um what what is done if what what can be done if somebody's providing um information in a self-certification that either is either false or misleading. So, in our our certifications that the owners of the properties provide, we have added some clear language that specifically says um if if an owner knowingly and willingly provides false or misleading information, they're disqualified from future self-certifications from this property or any others. So, the intention of the self-certification is to provide accurate information about the property. Does it does it not meet the code? um and provide that to city staff and then we're to use that um accordingly. So I hope that answers the questions that was raised by council and if there are any others I'm happy to answer. Thank you very much Mr. Gum. Are there any more questions for Mr. Gum? Mr. Brandsteader.

Thank you Mr. Mr. Gum. Uh in the proposed ordinance um in the under section one there is a some comments about the business license and fee and in section 5.602 there is a section A that says the fee for such rental license shall be in accordance with LMC 320-10. in the fee schedule. And um it looks like that is changing the title of the fee in in that in that it used to be rental housing complex license. And so um if this is ordinance is approved this evening are we then to expect a amendment to come forward to council of the fee schedule to make sure that the fee schedule is correctly annotating the license. I I would have to look and double check, but I do not believe the rental license that's listed in the fee schedule is listed as a rental housing complex license. I believe it's just a rental housing license, but I I would double check. And if it were not correct, then yes, we would have to

Okay. Ju just the way that the that the that the draft in our packet was headlined, it looked like there is that change because rental housing complex is is is lined out. And so, um, you know, I we're going to move this. It would be good to be able to amend this fee schedule before the ordinance becomes effective if the ordinance passes.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Brandsteader. Yeah, we we should probably look at that to make sure the nomenclature is correct and either bring it forward right away or find out from council if we can um from legal counsel whether that's something we could do when we do the budget later this year. Does that sound good? Are there any is there anybody else who Oh, someone

taking a look at the schedule, the fee schedule now, but I believe Mr. gum is correct. I think it's just rental housing safety inspection and it doesn't refer to complex, but I need to verify. So, yeah. Thank you. Any other comments from council members? Council member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, one of the discussion points that came up last time was about uh ADUs on owner occupied uh like the owner occupies the primary dwelling unit and has an ADU in their backyard and and the potential of having that as an exemption. I didn't see that in here. Is that something that we could move to have as an amendment in here or is that something that is not allowed per the state laws or anything like that? it it could be allowed and if if council were to choose that it's there's no there's no requirement nor exemption that's in the in the code. So currently an ADU is required to be registered. There's some exemptions for any rental complex depending who lives in it. So if one's mother or father live in it or their children, their son or daughter so forth live in it, those are exempt units. But other than that that it's not considered exempt currently. It could be. We're council to choose.

Okay. Thank you. And the reason I bring that up is because I I feel like that's an element of this that really benefits Lakewood residents and and the people that are working to try to provide affordable housing. And that's just an added layer of, you know, permitting and fees and stuff. If you're going to have someone living in an ADU in your backyard, you're you're going to be likely making sure that it's wellkept and it's, you know, you're doing the right things, right? Rather than some investors owning, you know, all these units and not kind of keeping tabs on them or or whatever. They're they're really like their primary business. So, um anyway, I once we get to it, I will be making that motion to amend. Thank you.

Are there any other comments, questions? So, oh, Council Member Lindholm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to double up on what Council Member Pearson said. And, you know, in my view, uh, the rental safety program was designed to ensure that overall housing stock is safe, but we don't want to start inspecting owner occupied properties, especially attached ADUs. In my view, we don't want to disturb the quiet enjoyment of Lakewood homeowners and the renters that choose to occupy those properties. So, I'll be supporting Council Member Pearson's amendment. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Council member Talbo.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do remember um part of the that question coming up the last time we had the discussion. I think um the reason I guess well, let me ask Mr. Gum first. Uh if we did ex if we did exempt ADUs, uh how would we have another mechanism of tracking their existence and their ownership status in the city?

I'm certain there's a way that we could track it. I'm I'm certain that I am not tracking it. Um it would be through the the building and and permitting would be the way that you track ADUs and so forth. Um, so I think my comment is I would be in support of um including them and keeping keeping the language as it is in this ordinance uh relative to ADUs. I understand that um I understand the perspective that ADUs can be seen as um uh an an an innocent less offensive uh less provocative form of a of a rental situation. But at the same time, I think that if ADUs are exempt from business license requirement, the city loses its ability to track its actual housing capacity. And from a data consistency standpoint, including them allows the city to verify if the density increase is actually resulting in the long-term results or um if the units are just being converted into short-term rentals. And um there's I have nothing against short-term rentals, but uh I want to touch on that in a second, too. Um but at the same time from an infrastructure planning point of view as well knowing exactly how many people live in ADUs helps us the city plan for utility loads, parking demand and emergency service allocation. So um exempting ADUs from licensing fees and expensive requirements that larger landlords must follow can create some friction. Um I remember too so when the uh state changed the legislation in 22

that increased the density requirements. This was during COVID and at the same time um ADUs even prior to COVID were kind of getting a bad rap na nationwide because heinous things were happening in certain in certain cities. Um, and so Airbnb was getting a bad rap. And so when uh we were having community discussions through the reachout sessions for the comp plan update, people did um ask questions and and bear some concerns about well, you know, how do we ensure the safety and the livability and the habitatability of ADUs? And so I think since then, um I think primarily because apps and um companies like Airbnb and VBO have tightened and uh made some changes to their rental model uh that have kind of addressed those uh the accountability for rental units. um that those types of crimes or offenses uh else h you haven't seen as much of them. But I think nonetheless the concern remains. So um I'm not quite in favor of uh exempting ADUs. I would prefer to keep them into the ordinance as is. Thank you.

Well, Council Member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just a a clarification. So it my my amendment wouldn't be to straight up exempt all ADUs. It would be to exempt ADUs on owner occupied parcels. So I just want to make that clarification because now under state law, you don't have to be an owner on this the parcel to have ADUs. You could just buy a parcel with three or four ADUs on it or whatever. So that's the clarification. If if an owner occupies the primary unit or one of the units, then then that would be where the exemption would follow. And I I we have Mr. Remac in here that might be able to address the permitting um elements of this because I understand that ADUs are on title and they have to go through a separate permitting process. So it's very trackable. This is not our avenue for tracking. This is the avenue of rental safety housing and and that part of it. And if they don't have uh ADU permits, then that would go through code enforcement as those are, you know, but I'll let staff talk about that a bit more. Certainly. So, ADUs are a separate unit that we can look at. We do have the building permit that would go with that. At the same time, I'll take a moment to speak to ADUs and zoning law have changed. ADUs can be sold outright. A unit lot subdivision can be done now. So, they're not really like they used to be where they're directly always tied to that property. So, for that fact, we do we do track and watch where the ADUs are at. The other thing when I was reading through at the same time is while we're talking about rentals and what we're looking at, there is a caveat for if it's owner, child, or parent to go ahead and be exempt from being in the rental. And the historical when you look at it, the most of ADUs are either grandmother, father, son, um their family, their familial units and what people are looking at. So we would be able to track the permits when they come in. Um but they also have the ability to sell. So train watching the owner occupied would be where we don't really have a

mechanism currently built on how we would do that. Okay. I do want to follow up on that before council member Laurelis. So, and I I I appreciate what council member Pearson's do trying to do and because my my concern is there's hundreds of homes in the city, maybe a hundred homes or more that are owned by like invitation homes. So, they could theoretically tomorrow ask for a 100 ADUs. We would have to permit them basically, right? Under state law.

Yes. Not not a hundred, but they could get far more than the zoning used to allow under state law. Yeah. Okay. So, so they could build a lot. Yes. It would meet, you know, what the goals of the state are. Now, he's he's going we're going to try to write an amendment and I'm and I'm going to to speak to that um that would exempt an owner occupied property if it was owner occupi the the primary home was owner occupied.

Yeah. And I'd make So what Mr. Remac is talking about is they could be unit lot subdivided and sold off. That is no longer an ADU at that point. That's just a primary dwelling unit, correct? Yeah. Yes, it's yes and no. You can sell an ADU. They basically claim now that an ADU is a a standalone home where it used to be yes as accessory in the dwelling unit, but you can make it a standalone home at any time, but it becomes a separate tax parcel, right? Yes, you would do lot subdivision, get a second tax.

I guess that's where like the language here I just needs to be clear that it's on the same tax parcel. What I the goal is that if if if so if someone has a half an acre and they want to have their son live in one and you know they it's it's economical to build a duplex or two attach or detach ADUs that they're treated like the same way and they're on the they're living in one of the units maybe their child's living in another and and they have a friend that wants to live in the other one and they're all treated the same. That's that's the goal here that I'm trying to get across. So,

thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I appreciate Council Member Pearson's perspective, Council Member Tabo's perspective, and I think we're talking in hypotheticals. Uh, if we talk experience and uh data, Mr. Gum, do we have examples of uh owners that live on parcels that are renting out ADUs that were not compliant? Yes, as as I've inspected in the past when council member Talabo asked of trying to rack my brain and think of the ADUs that we've inspected over the years and and yeah, we we have had properties that are owner occupied and the ADUs don't comply. Um I don't know the the exact number. I mean, it's not going to be a huge number, but there are units that do not comply. I mean, we've we've also have um parcels that have ADUs that they're both renter occupied, and I can think of one that I inspected last week that both of them failed. So, okay. Thank you, Council Member Lynhall.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll just say a couple more things. I really appreciate the perspectives uh that are being expressed here, and there's a real attention to detail, which I appreciate. So, just a couple things. Council member Tabo mentioned a concern for making sure that we have accurate density numbers for planning, making sure that we can provide power and sewer and water and all these things. And that's a great concern following all the changes in housing, right? Because now we can have higher densities on lots. The reality though is that's not an ADU issue. Um that's an issue in general. If you drive down any given road, you have no idea how many people are living in those homes. And the rental rules are now such that landlords cannot prohibit multiple people, for example, from living in a one-bedroom apartment. So, we can't get accurate numbers just by making somebody pay a license fee every year. The other piece I'm concerned about is uh I believe it was Mr. Remac, you know, mentioned that historically uh it's traditionally been a family member who's been in the ADU. I want to be careful though that we're not discriminating against different types of family. the family is changing and I think Lakewood Code would want to make sure to change too that we're not expecting people to live as they lived 20 years ago. If they have a very close friend to whom they do not wish to marry or pick any number of scenarios that we can all think of, um, one should not be treated differently than the other in my view. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Lindholm. So, we've we don't have an amendment in front of us. I believe the amendment has a number of facets to it. And so, we're going to need this in writing somehow. So, I I what I'd like to do is is um

staff and and especially Council Member Pearson, but it sounds like there's also several other interested members in writing an amendment because it it's there's different facets to it and I just want to make sure we just don't start putting loopholes in this thing that people drive trucks through. That's my concern. It doesn't sound like we'll have that problem, but uh council member Bell. Yes, Mayor. Um I would like to make a motion to move that we push this out two weeks so that staff can have the appropriate time to work on the amendment and the wording and so that we're not doing it up here and adding to the confusion.

Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we continue ordinance number 849, I believe, until the meeting of April 20th and we will expect an amendment at that time in writing. Please, may I make one comment? Yeah. Um, council reviewed the Mr. Branset's comment about the rental licensing and the language in 3.20 is consistent with the language that we have. It would it would not conflict. There'd be no required change.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for handling that quickly. So, does everyone understand what we're going to vote on? Okay. All those in favor of continuing ordinance number 849 to the meeting of April 20th, 2026, please signify by saying I. I. I.

All those opposed say nay. Okay. We have continued ordinance number 849 to the meeting of April 20th and we will be looking um hopefully maybe we can even discuss the amendment at at study session next week if if that's possible. Thank you. Okay. Uh ordinance number 850. Miss Schumacher, could you please read it in? Ordinance number 850 enacting an additional sales and use tax of onetenth of 1% as authorized in section 2011 chapter 350 laws of Washington 2025 for criminal justice purposes creating a new section of Lakewood Municipal Code title 3 revenue and finance chapter 3.90110th of 1% public safety sales tax and providing for severability and establishing an effective date.

Okay, so let's thank you for reading in the record but I keep screwing up the order. We need it moved and seconded. Mayor, I would like to move that we um that we move forward ordinance number 850. I will second. It's been moved. Ordinance number 850 has been moved and seconded. It's already been read into the record. Thank you very much, Miss Schumacher. Mr. Vargas.

Well, good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. I'm starting on page 219 of your packet tonight. Um yeah, we are looking at the public safety sales tax ordinance here. Um just a bit of synopsis here under discussion that the city must add about 1.0 FTE public defenders each year between now 2026 and 2036 to comply with the new case load limits um and still provide adequate public defense for up to um 1740 case equivalents, which is what we're currently contracted at. Current revenue sources do not support the increased staffing requirements and are anticipated to lead to reductions and limitations in projects and/or service delivery levels. The public safety sales tax is an authorized revenue source that would mitigate the impact of these requirements moving forward. Um as for a fiscal impact, um table A there shows the projected sales tax revenue. Um you've seen this table before. It's the same table. Essentially um the sales tax revenue completely funds the primary public defense um annual contract cost uh through 2027. So next year and starting in 2028 uh the projected sales tax revenue is less than the contract cost projected uh with the difference growing to nearly 2.1 million by 2035. As for alternatives, the city council may choose not to authorize the sales tax and we would continue, the city would continue to use general fund monies to cover the cost of public defense moving forward. And the fiscal impact is attached in attachment a that table. So that is all. Thank you, Mr. Vargas. We've had a number of discussions surrounding this. So, C any council member uh let's council member comments or questions for Mr. Vargas or any other staff? Council member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh Mr. Vargas, can you what you you talked about alternatives here um continue to use the general fund monies to cover these costs and and these are estimated that to the tunes of um multiple millions of dollars. Um, so we'd be looking at areas where we probably have bigger budgets in the general fund. Can So can you kind of enlighten me on where a majority of the the general fund monies are are spent and and probably maybe some targeted areas for cuts.

Yeah. Yeah. If I may go ahead and jump in on that one, we also have Tros, our finance director here. Um, you know, this has been a point of discussion going back actually the very first time that I remember it was when I was in the audience interviewing and it was a topic of the Supreme Court decision and the impact that it was going to be. You we brought it back up uh and discussed it in last fall and council elected not to move forward with it. talked about it in November as part of the midbian budget going forward and in there we identified uh future funding considerations um and I'll get around to your question in terms of other areas but not only um as we got to the end of 2025 did we already go through a reduction in staffing of three FTEEs at that point but we also had upcoming costs that were beyond our baseline 2026 budget including the funding for Edgewater Park up to for a total of 3.5 million for that. Um, our body camera system was funded with a one-time back in 2022. So, we're going to have to find funding for those items in addition to the uh position for attorneys. So, essentially the identification would be that the general fund dollars that we're going to pay for public defense would then be freed up for these other things that we needed to find funding for. Now in the absence of both those uh we would be looking at further reductions uh with throughout the organization. What we would start doing is identifying council priorities in terms of service levels. You've established those items in previous sessions. um should we not pass this really what my request would be is that we dedicate a lot of our retreat to that very thing because I I don't know if it's very fair to identify the priorities in terms of the

council uh related to a different time and place in funding to some very significant challenges council would face moving forward in terms of where those reductions would be. Um you know basically what the um gets funded you know the majority of our services um in general fund are in law enforcement that is one of our priorities. Hence even our body camera system is a very significant component that we would try and find a way to fund. Does that mean we have fewer personnel across you know the organization and all departments? Well, those would be very significant discussions that council would want to have in terms of what are now the priorities of council not in the terms of priorities of growing which was it was back in two years ago when those initial priorities are set but what are the priorities now in light of probably significant cuts and while we can go through and identify some of those things that would be there you know it's going to run the spectrum to some very important programs the council has had all the way from you know the priorities of public service, parks, human services, you know, ancillary things, you know, our contract services all the way from some of our outreach to, you know, our lobbyists. All those things would be discussed, uh, you know, component of where really where that retreat is and what are those new priorities for council. Then we would come back with, okay, here's where we'd have to go. I look at a forecast because these additional costs continue to compound on a yearly basis as we meet those 10% reduction in case loads for our city attorneys. So, um that's where I would take it in terms of guiding the council into service delivery levels and where reductions would be in the absence of moving forward with this or other revenue sources that would meet it. Um and what those challenges would be. So, I know that doesn't get to specifics, but I think it would have to be a

collaborative process of really reorienting ourselves to what are our new priorities in the face of reductions because those may change some of the answers.

Well, I I I appreciate that response and and I think that it kind of hints at kind of what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we're not a fullervice city here. And so, what do we do? We provide public safety largely. That's we probably spend twothirds or threequarters of our money on public safety. Um and then the other part that we do a lot of is we we do parks projects and we maintain our roads, right? So we don't have sewer, we don't have water, we don't have other things that other cities do. And so we are really a pretty lean city. So, when you're talking about making $2 million in cuts every year to try to deal with this, you're looking at, okay, where are we getting the big bang for our buck? And and outside of the police department, we have like around 50 employees or something thereabouts. So,

I think we're at 250 total, probably around 120 plus change in law enforcement. So, probably half of

Okay. Half and half. Okay. So, I mean, we're talking about a a massive cut, you know, on an annual basis here that would be cuts to significant cuts to staffing or andor significant cuts to any sort of projects that we had in the pipeline um that we wanted to potentially do. And these are year after year. This isn't a one-time, you know, cut. So, um, all of that said, um, I'm not for, uh, these types of taxes, generally speaking. Um, and I've come out and said that I'm, you know, opposed to the onetenth to 1% sales tax. But I also have to look in the mirror and say, well, really, what are the options? And and where do these options stack up? And the onetenth to 1% sales tax, while it's not a good option, I don't like it. Um it's better than significant cuts to law enforcement and providing good amenities for our residents. Um it's also, you know, the people have thrown out the idea of a BNO tax. Um, that's really kind of one of our last remaining things that we have to try to sell for business owners and to retain business owners and to bring folks into Lakewood. Um, so I'm I'm not, you know, those are two items that are that I like even less, I guess, than this one to 1% sales tax. And so, um, for that, I will be voting for the 110th to 1% sales tax. um it's in my opinion the lesser of of all the evils. Um and it doesn't impact as much as the other ones um potentially would I think for the for our community. So um anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Pearson. Are there any Council Member Ranssteader?

Yeah. Um and Mr. Vargas. Um, you in your preparation here, you talked about the the need to u fund 1,740 cases a year of indigent defense. What if we only funded 750 cases? Can we then through prosecutotorial policy and that in terms of making polic the the the court and the prosecutor making decisions as to which indigent defendants actually get a lawyer or which ones we're not going to prosecute if they insist on not doing some sort of diversion. or something. That number is not mandated to us in the state mandate that generated this problem for us that we have to continue to provide as many indigent defendants with cases as we have in the past. and we could adjust our policies to provide it for fewer and be more selective in which cases we did that is that is that 1740 number our choice.

So that 1740 number um comes from a number of places. Um the the first point here is that it's actually 1740 case equivalence um which is in line with um other contracts that our uh main public defender has with other municipalities and is incorporated in office of public defense um standards as well. Essentially um we compensate based on one one case equivalent equals one case filing. So we're charging paper but in addition to that um every hour a public defender spends in court we compensate um based on 22 of a case equivalent essentially. So it's paying for um represent first representation with a case filing but it's also paying for time spent in court. Now the other part of your question was you know sort of how can we styy the flow perhaps you know which um clients get public defend or not. That decision rests within um the judicial branch right within the municipal court. Um the judge um ultimately decides who um receives a public defender and in Washington state uh it is in state law that you qualify for um indigent defense representation. essentially if you qualify for any state um help if you will, right? Um in terms of like food stamps or um social security income, that sort of thing. So because of that, a large majority of folks um who apply for public for indigent defense will receive it. Um and as for you know prosecution, um that does rest within um you know um the city administration here. Um but again that has public um safety impacts if you choose not to um charge some of these um

in in an effort to lower um the amount of um indigent defense uh representation. So there's a public safety impact there as well. So, okay. But my my point really is is that the 1740 is a calculation if we continue to provide public defense services as we have been. Correct. Correct. It's historically based as well. Yep. Are there any other quil member Lorisella?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, uh, as we talked about this before, uh, we all expressed concerns, uh, myself included, uh, the onetenth of 1% as it's presented buys us two years and then we're underwater again, right? Uh, it gets us to 2028, but out through 2036, we have to fund this says 14 and a half full-time attorneys, which I don't know that we have a plan to get us there. And I don't know that enacting this onetenth of 1% now is the right move because I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never seen taxes come down in the future. Um, so that that's a concern of mine. At the same time, when we brought it up before, I asked that city staff provide a list of bad options, right? Things that we don't necessarily want to do, but find the lesser of the evils. And I'm not yet confident that we've explored all those options and done our due diligence. And I think the opportunity to look at that as a city manager presented maybe as we go through our retreat, establish our new priorities, we can then ask city staff to come back and go line by line through everything in the general fund and figure out what we do and don't want to prioritize in order to meet this. Uh if we don't enact a tenth of 1% sales tax, um at this point, I would not support putting that into action. Thank you,

Council Member. Thank you, Council Member Lorisella. Council member Branser, are you ready for your amendment?

Yeah, Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'm in in terms of of looking at this and I I am in agreement with Council Member Pearson that this is not a good idea. It's it's something that it's it's it's it's it's a choice of a from amongst a number of bad ideas. We are here because at the state level they have made some policy direction that if we continue to operate as we have, we have to go through this thing that gets us over the next 10 years further and further in the hole. And this solution doesn't fix that problem. It only gets us gets us a year to or two a bianium to to to be able to go through and do that. I when we were discussing this going back into last year, we were discussing and looking at and asking, well, what can we do to reduce the cost? And there were a couple of items that came up in that discussion such as we could have a more robust um system of of of diverting defendants to prosecution to something else. We we we looked and at the time that we looked at our history going back six, seven years, we were not really looking closely at defendants that claimed that they want needed needed needed indigent defense as to whether they truly met all of the categories. And there were there were

several categories we weren't using which included the ones where a defendant would is supposed to pay pay partially and and and then get get individ indigent defense support to do that. And we haven't had any policy actions move forward to us that would help us look at addressing the problem. Uh and then there's the question of what's the value of indigent defense? Okay. And um we haven't gotten any data that says the indigent defense money that we're spending now creates real benefits in the terms of public safety for Lakewood. it complies with the kind of normal way that courts run and and and that's there and I certainly agree that there are some offenders who commit gross misdemeanors and maybe even some serious misdemeanors or who are repeat arrestes that we we defin and and and are truly indigent that maybe we need to move forward to do that but I don't think we're at the point of where we really know that and I don't know that the citizens of Lakewood uh really see the value of providing indigent defense for every misdemeanor arresty. Uh, I think we also have occasions of where we decide to charge individuals with misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors in our court. when the

facts could be interpreted as being uh chargeable as a felony if we referred it to Pierce County, but they would make their own prosecutotorial decisions then when when when that was referred. Lastly, we're in Lakewood and there is a significant situation when you talk about sales taxes being regressive and they are particularly regressive in communities that have high percentages of of lowincome people and low AMIs compared to many other communities. And we are in that situation. We are, you know, one of the two lowest AMI communities in Pierce County and certainly the largest that goes to that and that to adopt a easy to adopt because the state has made it easy for us to adopt a a regressive sales tax and they have do and do they do this completely. I really believe I personally believe that we don't want to do that. We can scale back on our indigent defense program to be able to go and and and and do that. Okay? And and that and that we we don't need to do this tax. This tax was not created by the legislature as an aid to cities to deal with the indigent defense problem. It was actually created to help cities deal with true public safety issues like

cities that had trouble recruiting and and and dealing with real importance. So, I'm in favor of looking at in in in not approving this tax, moving forward in through the budgeting process to take a look at how much indigent defense can we actually afford to fund. put that in in in in in our budgets and future budgets. And then it allow our our court and our prosecutotorial staff to figure out how to allocate those resources amongst the potential need for indigent defense. And then I could be wrong. I could be wrong that citizens in Lakewood want every person arrested to be prosecuted and if they're indigent, they want them to be prosecuted, too. I don't think that, but and and that's not how how how how I feel, but maybe that is. And so, Mr. Mayor, I I would move to amend the motion to state that the authorization of the sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes in RCW82.14 be submitted to the municipal voters at the next available general election and then I would because I would certainly abide by a decision that came about that way. Okay, we have a amendment to the to the um

we have an amendment to on the on the floor uh to uh amend the ordinance as it's written. Do we have a second? Correct. I will second that so we can discuss it. Okay. So, Council Member Brandsteaders's amendment has been moved and seconded. Council member Loris, excuse me, Council Member Lindholm, do you have a comment on this?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that I completely agree with everything that Council Member Laura Cell said. I personally would like to see more discussion amongst council and with staff before we decide to put this to a vote. I want to make sure that we are as informed as we can be to make sure that um we're doing the job we were set here to do. But either way, it's not clear to me we have to make a decision in the affirmative today. So, if I had to vote today um on the sales tax without the postponement or without putting to the voters, I would vote no.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. We still have the amendment that is on the table. Are there any comments to the amendment that council member Brandanstead has put forward? Council member Brandanstead. My thought on this amendment is that we as a council or take if we just vote to console manically approve that we're taking the easy route out and we're not really looking at that. our real role is is budgetary in in in in this regard and that the uh I I don't like regressive things but I am willing to abide by if if if if the voters really want to have indigent defense funded you know I'm I'm willing to do with them and then work through the budget process on what else than what what what goes away. But I would really like not really ready to to substitute my judgment to say, well, we just need to have a sales tax that will go on in perpetuity until we till we stop it. Okay? uh to address a problem that is that will to only address a problem for two years and then have to go through it and thus I I would say I'd referred it to the voters. Now, when we put it to the voters, I would also tell them if you you know there there's there's there's there's going to be something else. But I and and I don't know what the something else is, but I think that

there is some combination of provision and policies to do that. But I'm willing to abide by what the voters want want to do if they think indigent defense is that important right now. Any other com? Council member Talbo.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. um they're hard comments to follow, but um to follow after, but nonetheless, I think that, you know, ideologically, it's I I recognize that it's it's not ideal for some um to be in this position and and have to raise taxes because raising because the the just the sheer um volume of the term is ideologically unfavorable. But I think that by by I think that just uh digging into discretionary the city's discretionary funding over a period of time to pay more and more for public safety, which residents do want. They do want safe everything. So, including the aspects and the quality of life in Lakewood that enhance, augment, and even provide softer levels of public safety that is not hardcore public defense and and enforcement. And so that is why for me I think it's all the more um imperative to recognize that balance. And I I I'm thankful to Council Member Pearson for uh you know being able to be self-reflective and say yeah look it's not it's it's not my uh flavor of tea but um but looking you know, looking being in a position where I don't want

to have to I don't think we want to have to evaluate a budget every year to decide what to cut continuously every year to meet these to meet our intended public safety quota just on one line here. If we have concerns about the cost of our public defense contract, then it's upon it's incumbent upon us to put guard rails into and service provisions um in or special provisions into the contract as best as we can to ensure that we are uh making the most of billable hours. So the other thing is that I think that uh I think that if we dig into our discretionary funding levels over time, year after year, we are starting to put ourselves kind of on a a service level death spiral or a spiral that just that goes to a place where now instead of a a a bianual budget where we're spending 23 third. Now we're spending 80% of our budget on public safety and and and 20% on nothing else because we are grasping for hairs and straws because we're hamstringing ourselves. So I I for for me I think council manic action is all more important um because even if we put if if we and this is why I will say I am not in favor of um council member Branser's amendment because respectfully even if we put something to the voters and that ballot fails then we are right back where we

are today and we will have spent that much more time delaying ourselves to have this discussion again. So respectfully for that reason um I'm not for the amendment and and we can we can discuss um we can look at budget uh um I won't say budget cuts but budget adjustments but at the same time recognizing that we have quite a bit of brand new executive staff and I would like to hear from them what they have observed and noted in uh the city's policies and procedures and way of doing things and if they have already uh noted any um perhaps they already have some ideas of of areas where we can cut the cost of administrative um of administrative spending. So I think we have to give ourselves the chance to understand that too. So um that's that's I for me it's I I it's important for me I would be in favor of uh supporting this ordinance tonight because I don't think it's taking the easy way out. I think that it's being responsible and striking the balance between what our residents expect a basic minimum level of service for us to provide of their of their that meet their their daily needs in addition to public safety. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Talbo. Are there any other comments? Okay. Council member Lorisella, this is to the amendment, right?

Okay. Yeah. So, uh, I I appreciate Council Member Brandsteaders's proposed amendment. Uh, and I I agree, uh, with what Council Member Linholm said, though I may not say it as eloquently. Uh, I I think we need I personally need more information from staff before I'm comfortable making a decision on this, including a decision on whether to put this to the voters. So, for me personally, I would not I would not vote yay on the amendment because I think it's upon us to get more information together before we make that decision. And as I said before on the the main motion, uh I would want more information before voting yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. So, to the amendment, I I'm I'm going to vote no on the amendment. I'm um I think it's a little bit cynical to to we fund all sorts of stuff out of the general fund, but all of a sudden it's it's indigen defense something that they have a constitutional right to. It's it's not our we're not making decisions here about whether or not they need the the the init. They have the a constitutional right to it, right? they're going to win in any court of the land if they're not adequately don't have adequate counsel. And then to go to the voters and say, "Well, do you think people other than you should be able to have um uh free lawyers?" I It's not up to us to decide that, right? It's the court and then it's prosecutor prosetorial discretion. um we would be frozen. We we essentially this amendment freezes us as a city and as a city council until November until the results of the November vote are in. We have a budget that we need to have passed by the end of November probably. Right. So what do we tell if we pass this amendment? What do we tell? They have to write two budgets. one all cuts, one with I I mean I I'm not it's it's it's and then we essentially just stop talking about any programs and whatnot till we can somehow wait until the vote. It's it it just won't work. So, um I'm a no on the amendment. So, we are going to vote on the amendment first. Council member Lynholm, are you there

yet? I hear. Okay. So on the amendment, so can you read the amendment in please? Do we have a the wording of the amendment? Authorization of sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes of RCW82.14 be submitted to the municipal voters at the next available general election. Okay. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, nay. Nay. Nay.

The amendment has failed. So now we're back to the underlying ordinance. Are there any other questions, comments about the underlying ordinance? Council member Lorisella. Thank you, Mayor Bokei. Uh just one last comment based on the the projections. I think going forward with this puts us on a slippery slope where potentially we're voting for another tenth of 1% every two years until we get to 2036.

Council member Brandstead Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'm I'm going to vote against the ordinance one. I don't believe that that that adding a tenth of a percent of sales tax and letting the state off the hook for solving a problem that they have caused for numerous cities and counties across the state. This admittedly they didn't do anything this past legislative session. Some state legislators attempted to do that, like they attempted to put money in the millionaire tax and and and do some other things, but the majority of them chose not to do that. And they're they're sort of looking for counties and cities to just sort of take them off the hook for something that is a state level bigger unfunded mandate than most of the bigger unfunded mandates that they have. So I I would vote to not impose the tax at this time. Uh I would I would agree with council member Lindholm that that I I think that there is some ways to reduce the impact of it. But I think we should also redouble double our in our efforts to impress upon the state that they need to do something to mitigate this. uh not just go through because this tax the ordinance that created it was not intended to address this problem and it doesn't for us solve this problem but it causes in our community it puts a long-term

regressive increment on the most regressive tax that that that that many of us have. And so I'm going to vote no on the ordinance. Any other additions, comments? Okay. Council member Lynholm. Yes, Mr. Mayor. You have any comments? For once, I do not have any comments.

Okay. Thank you. Um a couple of items. I mean, it is a regressive tax. the the the way Washington system works and the legislature now does this. They did this with the behavioral health tax. They've done this with the housing and related services sales tax. But I will go to the behavioral health sales sales tax first. No one argued plausibly argued that mental health was not a function of state government. There was no argument around that. It says it in the state con. There's like two things mentioned in the state constitution. Mental health's one of them. They did the same thing with the behavioral health sales tax. And they went to the counties and anytime anybody said, "Hey, we need more mental health spending." They said, "Have you passed that tax?" That the tax is not a solution. That this is what the legislature gives us. We're a creature of the legislature. They've now done this. This wasn't a legislative this lawyer thing, indigent defense thing wasn't a lawyer. It wasn't a a legislative thing, right? It wasn't their idea. It was the bar association cynically. It was the bar association that decided they came up with this. Hey, you need to hire more lawyers. Oh, okay. And then they go to the state supreme court who said, we've got to implement this over 10 years. What I want to point out is we already have budget issues. I I mean I I took some time and I looked at the budget book that we used for the deliberations and of the budget that we're currently in the 2526 and on one of the pages somewhere there and I didn't bring it tonight and but Miss Krauss is here it showed it showed

that our you know we have the goal of a 12% fund balance 12 you know we have a unrestricted fund balance at the end of year 12% of next year's revenues are expenses and we've been above that but it's been going down and and in the next bianium it it was due to go down and then in the bianium after that so the third and fourth year of this thing it was going to go way below to like four four and a half% and then it was going to go negative. Now I don't know if those have been updated yet or not. But the issue with that is this was before this. This was before these additional costs on this and I don't know if we were including the cost of the cameras. We're in a difficult spot and and I and if and if I believed if I believed that we could cut our way out of it, I would I would support that. I re I really would. If I thought, you know what, we'll just just crank down on all the departments. We'll just crank and that would include the police, by the way. We'll just crank on them and and somehow people, but you remember people are still paying taxes on all this other stuff. And when the levels of service go down, they're going to be like, what am I paying for? So, so there's this what I'm saying is I think we're going to be doing some reductions anyway in the fall because we don't we're not going to have enough money. We don't know what some of the collective bargaining agreements are going to say. So, that's another variable out there. So, and we've got all these we've got a lot of variables. We're up to like two or three variables all the time in this situation.

And if if we take this off the table, we've made the numbers a lot worse. That's all I know. So, it is it is it a great thing to be sitting here and and voting for a general property a general sales tax increase? No. We haven't had a a new general tax, I think, in in this city. We we we did raise the utility tax on gas uh I think the last goaround, but within the general fund, we have not had a tax increase since I mean, we have the 1% every year, but we have not added an additional tax since I've been here. We did the TBD, but that goes into a different area. So, I I I really do I I really do support this. I really do hope that the legislature will realize their obligation. I think I think the Washington Association of Counties is is pursuing it through the courts, but those things take years. And I think the the real wakeup call for me was when we were down there, we had the money in the millionaire's tax. It was set aside for they had a set aside for local government that we could use for this. and then it disappeared at the end, which is how it works. That's part of the deal. But but clearly it wasn't a legislative priority to help the the the the counties and cities out yet. And the counties have the big responsibility, of course, because they've got the um they've got the felonies. I would also point out just we ended up with more cases because all the drug cases moved down from felony to gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor. So we took on that responsibility which added to the workload what we've got is up

until they changed the law. We didn't have that either. So for those just the long-term fiscal health or at least the short-term fiscal health over the next few years I I think we need to approve this. Um it's a difficult vote. I I I really do I really do recognize that and I recognize that it is a a regressive tax. Now, the legislature has done some things in that regard that I think we're good but are going to hurt us, right? So, I'll I'll throw that in that at the end of the session, they took some in 2029 or whatever when the millionaire's tax kicks in, they're taking the tax off like diapers and some personal care items. They should do that. It's the right thing to do to try to make the tax less regressive, the sales tax, but it also hurts our numbers. So, so our our numbers are going to go down. So, people who buy diapers and personal care items at Walmart and Target, they're not going to be paying sales tax anymore. I mean, good for them, but for our for our finances, it's difficult. So, with that, I'll be voting yes on it. So, um, I'm going to do a voice vote on this and hopefully Council Member Lynholm will be able to hear him or do you want me to do a

Mayor, it's your choice. Would you like a roll call? Uh, yeah. Let's do a roll call just to make sure we got everybody. Thanks, Council Member Talbo. Yay. Deputy Mayor Bell. Yay. Council member Bransetter. Nay. Council member Laurisa. Nay. Council member Lind Holm. Nay. Council member Pearson. Yay. And Mayor Bokei. I. Ordinance passes.

Thank you very much. Thank you for I recognize it's a very difficult subject. Any unfinished business, Mr. City Manager? No. Any new business? No, we don't. So, reports by the city manager.

As we are looking at next week's study session, um pretty full agenda. Uh several things of note. We'll have an overview of the legacy plan. We will have an update on the 2026 state legislative session, although we heard a lot of that already tonight. Um, we'll also be reviewing uh surveys and encroachments in the street ends as we look at that volunteer program. And we'll also be reviewing an amendment to our agreement with EXP services as it relates to urban forestry program and the NCC. When we first adopted that in 2000 in November of 2015, it was a reduced program with some of the things not included anticipated into the future because we didn't know about the grant at the time. With the arrival of the grant, we're looking to incorporate some of those. So, uh, we'll be able to give a broader description of what those amendments are, what they're going to do for the program, uh, for that discussion. Um, outside of that, just following up on a couple of requests for proclamations that we're looking at, uh, from individual council members. Had one on AsianPacific American Heritage Months, which we'll include in May and had a request from a council member in human trafficking. Uh, normally we look at having two people agree, so I throw those out in case there's any objection to those. If not, we'll move forward with scheduling those. Um, upcoming items. Uh we have the Lake City Neighborhood Association on the 9th, Telecom Woodbrook Neighborhood Association on the 14th, Fort Silicone Neighborhood Association on the 21st, Downtown uh Neighborhood Association on the 22nd, and Parks Appreciation Day on the 25th and the uh retreat on April

18th. That's all I have, your honor.

Thank you. Do we have folks to cover all those? I I've I will tell you I've been invited to the Tilikum Woodbrook one to speak as mayor. I mean I got a invitation and I have accepted that. So whoever was going on the 14th, you can still come and make council member comments I guess. But um but does are we covered for all the other places? Does anybody need to sub for anybody? Okay. All right. Well, just just let us know if anybody needs to sub for anybody. Uh any more any questions for the city manager? Do you have any quer were we supposed to talk about sister cities trip?

Yeah, we do have that invitation that we did receive from Gimhi um at the end of the month. Let me actually pull that up. Thank you. Um, so April 30th to May 3rd for the Gaia Cultural Festival in G May. So yeah, I guess we should decide if we want to look at sending a delegation to that. The dates of the festival are in April 30th through May 3rd.

Yeah, it's that's the one we went to, right? Isn't that the It's really short notice. Yeah, it's Mike, can you make it, you think? Or can anybody make the trip? Is there anybody right now who who like knows they can make that? Mr. Mayor, I can make the trip. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Lynholm. And are you planning to go then, Mr. City Manager? Yeah, I certainly can. Okay. I don't I don't know that I can make it because we've got the DC trip. So, I didn't catch I know we had council member Lynholm. Were there other individuals? Okay.

Will the um sister cities be expected to are the travel costs covered by the city? Yeah, we get we get

I think there were there there was there was some discussion at the sister cities meeting this week and I think it was our understanding that the mayor and or deputy mayor would be the um first to be invited. Uh so I think that's but we just we didn't we were just waiting on word for that. Well, I'll Yeah, I'll talk to my spouse, but I Okay, if you can let us know by the end of the week.

Yeah, we're going to have to make some decisions. Okay, Council Member Rans question. Okay, Council Member Brans Mr. Russell, um, have there been any progress or news regarding the discussions uh that uh with with the Western State Hospital and ourselves in in the aftermath of the the incident of of an escapee? No, we're meeting internally tomorrow. The meetings tomorrow. Internally. Okay. And then to see kind of what other items what protocols Western States even does with that.

Okay. Thank you. manager. Okay, council member comments. So, let's start with council member Laura Cella and then we'll go to council member Lynholm so we can go to bed. It's getting very late.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be brief. Uh I attended the public safety advisory council meeting last week uh where we had a good discussion on their prioritization for where to put potential speed cameras around the city. So I think we'll hear about that either next week or the week after uh in our in our meeting. Um, there was a question brought up by one of the members of that committee about whether the city would be willing to provide some sort of communication about uh safe use of motorized bikes and scooters in the city and just maybe just general maybe it's from the police department, maybe it's just from the the city account, but just you know how people can be safe on those things and how to guide their kids to do things safely. So if there's any sort of regulations.

Yeah. Did they have any more discussion like was it locations? I think it was just in general. So, uh I've seen from my day job uh that there are a disproportionate amount of accidents and injuries from ebikes and scooters and that kind of thing. Okay, if I just touch base with you later. Yeah, absolutely. Um other than that, looking forward to our retreat on the 18th uh and parks appreciation day on the 25th. Uh, and I also appreciate the, uh, in-depth conversations we had tonight as a council. Uh, I think it really put things in perspective. So, thank you, Council Member Lindholm.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, really appreciate the conversations that happened tonight. These are hard questions, and I think people had good reasons for answering them the way that they did. I want to double down on the importance that I see of a proclamation on human trafficking. You know, some proclamations have more impact than others. And one of the things we know about human trafficking is that it's very expensive uh to surveil and really root some of these things out. It's also obviously very important. So, one of the actual the big things that we can do as a city is raise awareness and a proclamation can help do that. So, um, I still am very much in favor of that and hope my fellow council members are as well. And I just want to say thank you to Mayor Boi for coming to Lakewood Rotary last week. Uh, he is doing his best to be out in all the right places and I I commend him for that and um and the other council members as well. There's a lot of places to be and I appreciate being part of a team that prioritizes that. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Lyn Holm. Council member Talbo.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so all right. planning commission met last week and they um heard uh I guess I think they heard as an information item primarily the um framework that we asked them to look over as far as for formulating the task force for the for the neck committee. And so, um, Miss Spear, uh, walked through that with them and there was not much discussion, um, other than, uh, there was there was some desire expressed, uh, that council participate in those task force meetings. So, I decided I would bring that back. Um, I will do my best, at least in my role, liazisoning with the planning commission to attend those task force meetings. But I think there is there is a there is some desire to have some council member participation at some of those task forces when they kick them off. Um I I do want to thank as far as public comment tonight, I do want to thank Roger Neil and the ARP for their driver safety classes. Um the you know those classes I have heard uh that they do bring that that they do get a lot of signups and that um they bring people they bring seniors to the to to the senior center that have never heard of or seen the senior center and have a positive experience when they're here. So, um, and our senior center, even though it's housed in that wing, um, as I am aware, actually attracts quite a quite a lot of of, uh, activity and participants. So, I'm just thankful that we have those classes. Uh, that

he's doing that work. Uh, thank you to AAP for continuing to hold hold those classes here. Um, I'm also excited for awards like park opening at the latter end of this month, which um I have been to. Uh, we did hear some public comments tonight about Portland Lu's. And if you don't know or want to see one up close, we have one at uh, Wards Lake Park. And when I went there, I was unable to use it because or even see inside of it because it was occupied by family after family that was using it. So, um, thank you for to our our, uh, park staff for, um, for their design choices. That's it for my report.

Thank you, Council Member Tabo. Council member Brandstead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, with respect to your question about the uh the Telecom uh American Lake Gardens uh uh neighborhood association on the 14th. I am planning to go to that if we see you there. or not that and that um I'm um got have two meetings with South Sound 911 scheduled later this month. One is is that the last update of their charter and bylaws was was was six years ago. And so there's a committee that's reviewing those. I don't know what that goes, but those committee meetings start um here later this week. But beyond that, the South Sound 911 has for many years been putting money aside for radio systems. And the there was a time when a thought that a creating a trying to put this money here to see that there is some solution to the fact that some organizations fire or police are serviced by a radio system run by Tacoma and others are serviced by one that is run by Pierce County. and that the cost to agencies depending on which one you are is different of being able to go and they thought well let's do something to just make one and and and they started putting money aside. Um

actually they put aside $9 million. Okay. and they've been continuing those discussions and the discussions have gotten to the point of where it's not our problem. And so they have $9 million. Okay. And they they the right now the plan on the table that will either get approved on April 15th or a month from then is to take that $9 million and divide it up and return it to police and fire agencies across the county. And were that to happen, um, Lakewood would get a one-time reduction in this year's allocation of $626,000 or of of how that goes. Or so it it would either be cancelling the remaining payments or it would be an actual refund of some things to do that. And I'm expecting for that to come up on the agenda on April 15th. And depending on how that discussion goes, it'll either get voted on or it'll or it'll be uh voted on in May. But the majority of board members of South 911 seem to be in favor of refunding the money because they haven't got anything to do with it given given the parameters around which it was set aside in in in a separate fund. So that could I'm expecting that that to be some good news to do that. Recognize that that money does not include council member Laura's paycheck.

So he's still he'd still get paid no matter what they do to be able to go on and do that. All right. But anyway, that's all I have as mayor. Well, thank you for that good news. That's great news. Uh, Council Member Pearson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I attended the community healthc care lunch and laughter a couple weeks ago, and that was the first time going to that event. It was a um nice to see such support for them. We have uh one of their facilities in in Lakewood, and so um went there and chatted with the CEO who is uh retiring later this year. So, there's going to be some new leadership at uh community healthcare and um we'll see what goes on there. Their last CEO, I believe, was in the position for like 20 years or something. So, they've had long tenure with their leadership and um yeah, it was well attended event. I um attended PRA uh parks and wreck advisory board um last week, believe it was last week and there was uh some some fairly robust discussion about the H bar project and um what the vision is and what the desire is for different um folks and on the on PRAB and and what past commitments have been. Um Mr. Branded and um Miss Talbo and myself attended a um an ad hoc committee today for the H barn and um again was kind of met with very similar uh thoughts and um a lot of support around the H barn project. Um, and I think that we're cautiously optimistic of of what that project could be. Um, really what was thrown out there was um, you know, the $14.3 million project. Um, even if funding goes well, we're still sitting at 1.8 almost $2 million worth of funds that the city would have to come up with. um and a fund, you know,

if if we don't get grants and some other things, then then what does that number look like? Um and and and really at that point, you know, is it really a project given some of these other discussions that we're having tonight um with where things are at and and and those things. So, um I I'm hoping that um us three can get together maybe before next week's meeting if if you guys are open to meeting at 6 or so uh here and we can discuss uh what we had talked about at the ad hoc committee meeting and kind of have a a consensus from us three to at least um discuss amongst the the rest of the group um at next week's meeting. So, thank yeah, thank you for asking. I should normally I I would and I could except next Monday I have obligations to be uh to be in a staff in my staff role up at Renton. So, I I will actually be joining executive session late uh around 7:30 if that's acceptable. So, I wouldn't be able to meet Monday, but I could meet anytime before then.

Okay. Well, I I'll touch base with with Mr. Branset or Miss Tabo and see if we can it'd be nice to touch base soon uh so we can get some direction on people are really clamoring on where to go with the 60% and and so we had some good discussions. Um so we just need to provide direction. So um yes and then I would like to add um an item to our uh study session there. There's a resolution that usually our resolutions are pretty, you know, standard. I guess we kind of do a lot of the same resolutions every year. Um, this one was a bit different as it looks like it's the the resolution that I'm talking about is the the resolution expressing commitment to the unified regional approach. And so in the bottom of the resolution, it it almost looks like we're kind of committing. This isn't really an ILA, but but we're making some commitments to what we're going to be doing um as part of this process. And I just want to make sure that we've all had time to discuss that and make sure that everyone's, you know, on board or not on board before we put forth a resolution with, you know, half signatures or no, you know, whatever. So, um, just want to have some time to discuss that a little bit. And that's all Mr. Brand had a question.

Thank you. And I'm going to let Mike talk to that. Do we do we have time in that study session? I mean, we've added You know what I'd say? I don't know how, you know, sometimes those agenda items go five minutes, sometimes they go a lot longer. We can put it on and always bump it to the next one. I mean it wouldn't be bad because I'm meeting this Friday with the city managers and you know basically express you know there's differing opinions you know on the understanding of that resolution and the challenges with that. So that' be some good information for me to share as well and then can follow up with if we're able to get to it at our next session to share that.

Okay. Let let let's let's put that on there and Michael speak to

let me just say that that that the uh the URRA process which has been driven by a consultant and and and it was a consultant that drafted that uh resolution because they were really trying to get a sense of which cities were where and or were serious being able to go and do that. Since that resolution was distributed, uh there have been a couple of developments. One is a city manager said that there's going to be a meeting by county staff who are going to meet with all of the city managers to sort of talk about where they see the the URRA process moving forward. and it may uh may and that's going to take place on the 10th to be able to go and do that. Beyond that, the the county has made the decision to cancel the remaining months of the contractor's contract. So it's going to take another direction and that thus the urgency for that particular resolution if it even becomes something that they still want to do is uh not immediate and that it is the intent of the the county staff that are taking over the project to include which is under the the direction of council member Hitchen. Okay. To schedule a opportunity for the county to come to brief the council on on at at a study session or or or something to do that, although

she's thinking to wanting to start those rounds of things in in May. So I think that they they will be asking to come to have the kind of discussion that we need to do that and there certainly is no expectation of any immediate action on the draft resolution that was originally distributed.

Thank you. Yeah, I am I am aware that the contract has now been stopped with the group that was there. So, um, we don't need to talk. Is that okay? I mean, I we can put it off a month or so. Yeah, it sounds like or at least until Council Member Hitchin gets here to to speak to it. Yeah, I think we should give her that. I think we should give her that um you know, word escapes me, but we should opportunity. Okay. So, Council Member Bell, Deputy Mayor Bell.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had the great opportunity to be here for the youth council uh this afternoon where they presented Elijah, I believe. I cannot remember his last name, but with a scholarship from the um first First Lions Club um that council member Brandansteader also belongs to. So Elijah was very very grateful and he was surprised and happy and it was just it was really great and he was able to be presented the scholarship in front of his peers too. So, uh, thank you to the first li lions first Lions Club, right? That's what the title is, first. I forgot that part. So, thank you. That was wonderful. And then I just want to say um I'm very proud to serve with my fellow council members. I thought that we had great discussion today. Uh it was very everyone just treated each other's opinions with grace and thoughtfulness and I really appreciate that from each and every one of you and again very difficult decisions very difficult um things that we have to address and put forward but in the betterment of our community and the safety of our community um I think that we did the best decision that we could possibly do tonight. So, thank you, Mayor.

Okay. Thank you very much, uh, Deputy Mayor Bell. Um, I think we've covered just about everything that we could possibly cover at at almost 10 o'clock at night, so I'm going to be very brief. I I did have a nice visit uh with the um the uh Rotary Club on Friday. Thank you to the to the city manager for putting together a nice presentation and I just spoke to it because the pictures were up pictures were up there. Pictures are worth a thousand words. So you know then I only had to say a hundred towards each picture or something like that. Um but it was enjoyable and it's a club um full like a lot of the service clubs full of people who have either been elected officials are currently one or two of them are currently elected officials um have been on our boards and commissions and and do a lot of volunteering too to to really So I'm going to leave you with a story because we've been through a lot tonight um and I like to tell stories So, and and so and I've, you know, spent a lifetime working at it because I don't think I tell good stories, but but I'm gonna tell you about why we do this, right? So, I'm I'm driving and I want to see the Lassa project and how they're doing on the Lassa project. So, I make a turn and so I'm in the road behind the Lassa project. So now I'm between the new Lassa project and Kowanas Park and there there are quite a few people in Kuanas Park, right? It's a beautiful day. This was a week or two ago. Beautiful day. Um and varying types of people, right? There's there was somebody wrapped up in a blanket and on one of the picnic tables, right? But there was a family and there was other people. There was this couple out walking. They were They're out walking just like my wife and I do. But here's the

difference. They were picking up garbage. They had a bag and they had those little things and they were picking up garbage and they were just walking into the park and they already had a bag full of stuff. And it was I was like I almost stopped. If I had if I had one of those coins, I would have stopped, jumped out, and given it to them. I was like, "These are the people we want in our city. these are the kind of folks that we want and this is why we do this job. It's like I was just like these people are great. It's a beautiful Saturday and they're out picking up garbage and I just thought it was the greatest thing and I I was just moved by that that they did that. So, on that positive note, along with council members Brandstead's great note that we might get over $600,000 back in the mail,