City Council - Regular Meeting

got our fancy new Can you hear me? Yeah. Great.

Um I'd like to call uh the Lakewood City Council retreat of Saturday, April 18th, 2026. It's uh it's about 8:48 a.m. and uh we've got our agenda in front of us and I'd like to um our facilitator today is Michael Pendleton and I would uh I'll hand it over to Michael. Thank you. Thank you for coming on a sunny Saturday from in behalf of your community. Uh it's appreciated. No better place to be actually. Uh uh I've been looking forward to this retreat for several reasons. One, the agenda I think which we'll get to in a minute. It promises to be I think really important and I'm looking forward to the discussions. I was with you a couple years ago as as many of you know and and you set the goals that uh are uh going to be reflected in terms of the discussion. And I'll get to the agenda a little bit more in a second, but I I have been looking forward to to spending the day with with you. Um, I want to go over the ground rules of the retreat. Uh, some of them are obvious. Uh, others I'm going to spend a little bit more time on. Um, I'm really particularly fond of the first one, the power of the facilitator. Um we so you brought me in and my role really is not around the content but my role is around the process and and and so uh I want to quickly point to the agenda and say we have a lot of topics to talk about. These are your topics that we we have identified through the pre- retreat interviews and so forth. So I will need your help along the way and so that's my job. Some of these things are obvious. Um, I want to talk about seek facilitator

acknowledgement before speaking. For those of us that worked together in the past, I keep a queue. So, I want you to please raise your hand and kind of let me get get keep the queue going. And I do that for a number of reasons. Um, one is the obvious in terms of of just making sure there's equity and participation the best we can. Um, the other reason I do that is for efficiency purposes because I will let you know that it's your turn to to talk and there's several other in the wings behind you. Um, sometimes I will deviate from the queue usually in two circumstances. one if you're talking about somebody something and somebody raises their hand and it's to that point it's not so you know it can get stilted if I just and so sometimes I will ask the queue to hold and bring somebody else in because the flow of the or of the conversation needs to be sustained. The other reason I will break from the queue is if one or more of you have been heavily participating and others have not then I'm going to I I may say you know I'll just say that and and and bring somebody else in. We all have different discussion norms and so some people are pretty reticent and they hang back. Others are are very vocal and don't do that. So we're trying to you know create equity in our participation but also to our next point and that's efficiency. So I think move on avoid saying the same thing twice. Um, please keep in mind that that that because we have so much to talk about that if if you if you know you're you're one of these individuals who is very verbal and some of us are that and others not so much. I'm really asking

you to do some self you know governing like we all have to do from time to time only in the interest of the equity of participation and getting through our agenda. So, um, do you have any questions about I mean the grounds are in front of you. Do I need to go over any questions? They're seem pretty obvious. Um, okay. Let's talk about the agenda. So, for those that are either listening or here, um, the process has been an individual interview with each council member and they have and they come to these interviews with the topics that they would like to speak about. I then know now how many folks want to talk about what. So we kind of we established the agenda in terms of the topics that that seemed mo the most folks sitting around the table wanted to talk about first and it kind of goes down. What's different about this retreat from the last one and it comes from these interviews is we're not going to be going through the the flip chart process on goal set. Okay. Each of you said the goals we have really are the goals that we have. And if you look at the content of this agenda, you'll quickly realize that now what we're talking about is some of the strategies and other things underneath each of these main goals. And and that's because that's what you wanted because this is your retreat. So you won't see the flip charts, you won't see the numbers this time around because I think um the the major emphases you indicated are still in play and and so we we'll that will change the nature of the relation or the retreat from the last time. Um any questions or anything that I forgot to say that you good? Okay. Um, I want to do a quick review of the agenda. You the topics I started with

the topics and you can see on the front half of this retreat are the folks that want the most down to what we call sort of individual sponsored items. People want to talk about these and I do that for the obvious reason that that we want to talk about the topics that most people want to talk about first and then go in in descending order. We will take breaks. Pretty strict about that. And that's for your health and well-being in a meeting like this. It's just to get up, get moving and what have you. Um I don't know how long each of these conversations are going to take. Uh I have put some times to it and I tend to facilitate to the times. So um we can buy some more time here and there. Pretty strict on breaks. So any questions? Yes,

we'll test out these new microphones. Uh what uh at the end of this, what sort of deliverable should we expect coming out of the meeting?

Great question. Um so in the past and what I did last time, I wrote a summary report and actually it's important it in the retreat setting, you can come to agreements about certain things, but typically though those are agreements. They're not decisions. And there's a subtle but important distinction. If you decide to make a decision based on this retreat, that's all almost always exclusively done in a business meeting at your formal council meeting. So start with that. Um I will do a summary report um with first of all Brianna thank you for being here that with the support of the of your clerk uh and myself will do a summary report similar to what I did last time. The most important takeaway and I it's a general summary you're this is recorded you know citizens can come listen if they want to give you a flavor of what we talked about it's not who said what it's not that detailed but the agreements I want to grab I think that's becomes really important um so that's that's the principal takeaway um I did come to a subsequent council meeting but you had he had done goals and and I think John at the time wanted me to be there in terms of goals We haven't talked about that, but if it's necessary, I could certainly do that if it supports something that happens today. But the report is a takeaway. Well, in addition to, and this is real important, it's important that you talk with each other. You hear where each other really resides in terms of these issues and so on because you work as a body. You don't work as individuals. And while that's might be a statement of the obvious, that's one of the most powerful aspects of a retreat is you get to talk and kind of listen to each other. It's, you know, it I know the the some people in the community are listening, but this is really the the the thing that makes this different from other kinds of meetings. The other takeaway is in terms

of your city manager because of the nature of the the this agenda, he really needs to hear where you are as individuals and collectively as a group on some of these things because many of these items may drive your should drive budgets, should drive decisions that you're going to make in the future. So, one of the takeaways is we can't leave here today if Doug has questions about stuff. And so, I'm really hoping, we've talked about this already, that if he has any questions or uncertainties or needs clarification, that that all that interaction is going to happen here. So, you you can let him know uh kind of what what you're thinking and feeling on that. So, I would say those are probably the main takeaways. Okay. Any other questions before we start? Okay. So, several of you folks have identified the community center uh and downtown together. I think LNU uh when in our interview indicated that you would like to at least discuss whether they should be separated or together when we talk. But in general, there was an interest from several of you to to have a conversation about the community center downtown. This has been an ongoing and very important discussion point for you. So, I'm not going to start that discussion. I'm going to turn to one of you who who feels an interest and wants to hop in the queue for the first time. Um, anybody like to lead us off on that discussion? Bike

community center occupied a good deal of our discussion time two years ago when we were doing a retreat as a community. We're behind what should have been the timeline at incorporation to have a a community center that could be the focus of things particularly for youth and seniors but also for groups to in their formative time be able to meet and and do that. Um, I remain hopeful that a a site for a community center could be located centrally in the in in the downtown or certainly someplace that has accessibility to public transportation and that is not um in the periphery of the city or or or or or w within a park or something like that. I I think to to go to do that. Um so I think that we are still at the point where we were two years ago of a major decision. I think we we can deal with the what if we can solve the where problem. And I would like to sort of at least in the near term look in the the the where being in the downtown sub area or close by.

Thank you, Mike. And thank you, Council Member Brandsteader. Uh I I agree that this community center is a need uh for us as we've discussed in the past. Uh and I think the as we're trying to define the the where I think we need to go back to the why and understand the criteria that we put into it. I to me I think it's important that it's near transit. I think it's important that it's near uh spaces in the community that have higher density of folks who would participate in a community center. Um when I was looking at the maps, uh not under not necessarily knowing what's available in terms of land and space and opportunities. Uh a place in the station district makes a lot of sense to me. Uh because we're building all that additional housing over there. We've got the Sounder station. The bus line goes there. Its proximity to I5 makes it easier for folks to get in and out from outside the city. Um I don't think it necessarily needs to be connected to the downtown core. Uh I I I do see our drive around improving our downtown core and it's you know the center of our city. But I think that uh to serve the community as a whole, proximity to transit, proximity to uh highdensity housing uh are my priorities for it. other comments and while you're ready to jump in, let me say this in the case of just for efficiency in the interest of what I always hope is a a less formal retreat setting from my perspective maybe not yours. okay if you don't use I'm going to use your first names so it's okay my perspective if you just

want to do that if you don't that's up to you but but in that regard so um Paul so uh council member Bell and myself uh so let and I and I agree with the things that have been said is it needs to be accessible right if it's in a it's in an odd spot it's not going to be used as much or it'll be very difficult to access. Um, Council Member Bell and myself went on a tour of the Lakewood Community Center, which is still owned by the the county. It is a close to 50-year-old building, um, and in need of some work. So, uh, but their plan right now is the way I understand it is for the county to to knock that thing down in 2029. So, but we we went through it. It's got a fantastic gym. Um, some of the other stuff's a bit dogeared and there's been some drainage pro drainage issues. So, but our our interpretation and and where our our thought process has been that we should at least look at this as a possibility because there is an end date on that building, right? and and so is it and and we would probably want Celely Lake anyway. Um because there are some issues with the the trail around Celely Lake and it needs to because it's not a year- round trail right now because of when it fills with water the trail disappears. So it's probably a something that we want to make into a park. And so you know accessing that property is something long range we're going to want to do anyway. The question is is do we want the building and what that costs? I think if we look at it as if we do nothing there's no cost right if probably the next lowest cost would be this building to some extent unless we got really

cheap with the other building but in discussions I've had with people I mean they built one in Kent that was or excuse me in um Redmond that was pretty expensive and it was $35 million and the guy said well you could probably make it for less because they they did they did a pretty fancy fancy job, but it's probably not the size of this facility that we're talking about. So, I just want to use that as a benchmark while we continue this discussion that we should probably investigate, at least investigate. Um, and our new parks director who's here is very, very aware of the situation at the community center and could certainly help us with that analysis.

Patty,

thank you. Yes, thank you, mayor. Um, I would I think it's definitely worthwhile for all of you to go and check out the building, see what we saw, ask your questions, see the space. Um, couple things that stood out to me is I really like the location. It's right by the Y. It's right by Harrison Prep and Lockburn is right around the corner. Um, and on top of that, the police station's right there. There's sidewalks. The tiein to Celely Lake is incredible. It needs work, yes, but it is something that potentially could be a park. It has more trails. It has definitely the outdoor space that you would want to tie in a community center to. So, I think that that is just a bonus right there. Some other things that I think we don't think about, but we always need to, is that there's really available parking. So, there's great parking right there already. There's available space. Um, I just think it could be it has a lot of potential inside of there. So, if we could get something together where all of you guys could go take a look and we can figure out maybe a little bit more investigation on it. But, I think it has a lot of qualities that we could look at. And I know it is a trend of things that is happening right now where it's also sustainable to reuse a building to come in and, you know, uh, fix it up. I most I know they just did that at Pierce County and they moved a couple you know a lot of facilities your administration I know other places that are doing it is just more cost effective too. So I definitely uh stand behind taking a deeper look at that building. Thank you.

Any thoughts or response to the specific idea of this building or additional comments on this trust?

Yes. Uh, thank you Paul and Patty. I I think that could be a good site. I think the pro the other priority that I forgot to mention that I had included when I was researching was proximity to schools, right? So, Lockburn, Harrison Prep, Clover Park Tech, uh, the Y. Um, I think they're all bonuses in that category. Um, I want to be careful that we don't try and shoehorn ourselves into something that's not necessarily a good fit, but I think it's worth investigating and and seeing what the art of the possible is when it comes to that space because it was historically a community center for this area. So, um, it may be maybe a great fit and looking at it on the map combined with Celely Lake, that's a huge space that really

Yeah. So, I am definitely interested in seeing if it's a possibility. Philip. Yeah, I'll just say I think it's certainly worth pursuing or at least knowing more about. Um I've been in the space when it's been full. I've seen it vibrant. I've seen it accommodate over 100 people easily. Um to rebuild that space would be incredibly expensive. Not to say we need that gym, but we wouldn't rebuild that gym and and the community used it to good effect. So,

other comments on this, Ellen? Thank you. Um, so yes, I am supportive of a community center, multi-generational center work. Today, we're calling it a community center in this discussion because it's listed as such on the agenda. But in the past, I I know multigenerational center has been the kind of heavy used term. And the reason why I kind of get on the semantics between the two is because just for me as a new council member and also, you know, outsider looking into the discussions that have been had and and I I I disclaim you can hit me over the head for being the new ignorant council member, but but

go where where I'm coming from is I just want to make sure that as we move forward that that there's transparency in where the purpose and need but where the need came from because because when I look at our current um officially adopted parks legacy plan a multi-generational center a community center at least in the public serving fell to the bottom or fell to the middle middle low bottom and it was never really emphasized in that plan that that we need a community a multi-generational center. Now we have we know that we've needed a senior center for a long time and and and a space for that. Um but at the same time consequently in the in the downtown sub area plan the concept for the sub area plan also doesn't focus on a community center either. It focuses on the green street loop, public streets, a downtown park, um, and Gral Lake and Catalism. So, nonetheless though, I still agree that whether it's a multi-generational center that is that that serves all generations and a place for our senior center that's in city hall, fine. But um when we start getting in at least what I have heard over the last couple years is like when we start getting into okay the the suggestion that a community center multigenerational center needs to be downtown my only raised my my only raised hairs raised eyebrows is like okay let's be responsible to understand um what existing sites downtown and and

like council member Laura Cella mentioned too, what existing sites outside of downtown if necessary because we also do live with the Tilicum Community Center which is arguably beyond in need of repairs. And so if we're going to go forward with a a a multigenerational center without any kind of acknowledgement of of those other facilities, um I I think that that that there are there are some things to be dis acknowledged with our with our community. So uh about that when we get to that and and particularly I'm speaking about equity. So um

okay I'll hand it over.

So that said uh two things in this discussion come out. One is that this is you didn't make a lot of progress on this and it was a priority for you from the last retreat. So the facilitator in me is going why did that not happen? You know and and maybe that's an irrelevant question to you but but I always wonder about that. And and secondly, in terms of it seems like you have some agreement in terms of of where it should, you know, together or not, but I don't think the question's been I guess the question I have for you is is it an important discussion to have in terms of is is the downtown and the community center because that's the question you raise where it is together and has that been sort of the the I think desire of the council and and and and where you want to go with it or is that not the case? Because you're kind of there's a lot of I'd like to wonder when's this going to coalesce in terms of something that you want actually want to do so that you know you can make progress on that. So I'm kind of pushing you a little bit to kind of maybe talk about some of those things Mike to that those questions. Well, I think you know just putting it in the downtown as the lines for the downtown exists now is less important than making it easily accessible by folks from from throughout the community. and you have to then put that somewhere uh that goes on. And I do agree that the current Lakewood Community Center building owned by the county is a good

site uh to be able to go go and do that. I think one other advantage to that um location is the fact that they uh the Nourish Food Bank will be becoming established there two blocks from there which is going to be a uh a significantly upgrade that is going to also be looking to be used by folks over there. I view uh creating a community center kind of like sidewalks that uh we don't have a community center so people aren't using it and are not necessarily certain about h how they would value it. But I think like sidewalks when there is one it'll use of it will grow and and and be able to to be able to go and and and do that. So I'm not opposed uh to uh because the where question remains uh to looking at that site and resolving the questions about um what would the county do to facilitate its ownership transferring to us? And what would they do to bringing up the building to a status where we're willing to accept it? Yeah. I I think our reason for bringing this up is because eventually the, you know, the the county has really decided what it's going to do, which is to leave the building. So, we we just need to

decide, you know, we need to find out how much is this going to cost to fix. Now, even fixing this up, I'm hoping that it'll be less expensive than building Denovo, right? Just and finding a piece of property and buying a piece of property because like as as you mentioned, as several people have mentioned, I'm I'm not sure where that would be. Um, so I mean, there are there are other options. The idea is just explore this to see if this is something that we can program, get the seniors in there. There's also some other things that I think when you walk through, you'll come up with ideas. I think between the seven of us, we could come probably come up with 75 ideas uh about how to use a facility, but it's I think that there's and then the issue is going to quickly move even if we said okay this is doable which I don't know you know I'm saying and even as a kind of a proponent of at least looking at this and studying it it's probably 50/50 maybe uh because it's going to be expensive than the Next question would be how would we how would we do this? You know, how would we put the financing together? Could we get help on certain things about energy efficiency or that kind of thing? And if it's not going to work, we need to start looking at other locations as you as you mentioned, Michael. Um, and then it it becomes difficult. I mean, I I I've held out hope for years, but I I honestly I've given up um trying to colllocate with the library. I just I just don't I I see them as a as a willing partner, but not as a driving part. I mean, they just don't seem to get ever get there in any discussions we've had with them. And I know we're going to talk about later today about a property we even bought for them. Um, so I would love the co

I've always had this dream of a collocation downtown with the library that we would have as a community center that the seniors could use in the mornings and could be used sometime in the afternoon by youth and and could be used as a facility all hours of the day. That's still my dream. I think it doesn't have the size and as as as Philip mentioned, we will never do that gym, right? That that the the the in my mind the prize is the gym. They they've 12 pickle ball courts already lined out. They use it for that. There's we we would we would build maybe it would be like Furrest, right? A city that's a fraction of our size. The gym is is usable, right? they use it for stuff and they play pickle ball in there and that's probably what we would end up with. So that's a rambling kind of just but I I'm just saying this is this would be the first step taking a look at this thing and saying okay is this something that we could take on and then if the answer is then we need to look at alternatives and get then get serious about finding some property.

Okay. Uh Ryan and then Preston, you haven't had a chance yet. And not that you don't maybe you don't want a chance.

Yep. No. Yeah. Thank you. Um yeah, I I I totally agree with um investigating this Pierce County property. I think when you talk about the total cost of of community centers, it's somewhat frightening. Um, and if we can come across something that we can get, you know, an incredible value out of, um, it's it's a place that's familiar to to people already, um, I think it would be money well spent to do some investment in a property that's already probably more than well way more than what we would be able to get out of anything else. So, I I think it it's in a great location. Um, everyone else kind of echoed, you know, a number of things, but yeah, I'm in full support of at least um evaluating it as a whole, the building. Um, maybe what kind of a a timeline we could get for doing some improvements over time and and kind of phasing into it or something. Um, but yeah, I think it's a it's a great opportunity. So, totally in support of it. uh trust and I'm going to see if we're sort of inching towards an agreement if you will on something I'm hearing. So,

thank you. Uh I want to circle back to a couple things that Ellen said. First, uh you're not the ignorant new council member. Uh don't sell yourself short. I think you come in with uh a fresh perspective that uh you're not as jaded with local politics as uh folks who may have been here a little longer might be. So uh don't don't sell yourself short. Uh additionally when I say community center to me that is a multigenerational center so that we serve uh all members of our community from newborns to oxygenarians and beyond right so uh I think that's that's critical. Uh and the last thing I wanted to add was when we talk about funding and financing looking at uh private public partnerships and opportunities there. Uh I know the city has permitted a uh nonprofit that's trying to build a community center type sports complex in the industrial center. Uh and I know from what they've said is their sort of aspirations were to do something somewhat similar. So I think there may be opportunities to reach out to other parts of the community to help fund things to sort of drive towards what they see needs being as well. So whether it's this nonprofit, whether it's the Lakewood Playhouse, whether it's the Korean Women's Association, uh there's lots of u folks in the community that care and have the resources to be able to help.

Okay. Sure.

I'm sorry. So, thank you. I I feel like it's really important and it is a a point that Council Member Talbo brought up was equity and looking at our different spaces throughout Lakewood. I think that this is the beginning of how we would do that and I know that we have to start from somewhere but I do believe that we always are thinking about telecom and the other areas that are less served. So I feel like that's not lost. I don't want that to come across in any way, shape, or form is if we're looking at a space that is in downtown in the core that we're not thinking about the other areas and how we could branch out, how we could like I mean I think well is there a partnership we could do with Pierce Transit that would get you know the shuttle that would come from the Tikcom or the Spring Brook area and drive people over to the community center. So I mean I get that that speaks to both of your guys' points. So thank you. So in this conversation now you started to focus a bit on my words the county building maybe it's has a different feel and you've taken steps to go a couple of you to go look at it. Um others of you have said hey you know there may be some merit there whether it's you know married strictly to a downtown location or not that's exists and I'm hearing in the conversation that the clock might be ticking a little bit on it in terms of what's going to happen. It sounds a bit like it's an opportunity that that that the city should take a a reasonable set of steps towards to see if it really is and what that is. Is that kind of what I'm hearing in this conversation? Irrespective of whether it's, you know, definitive of your downtown or not or what have you. Mike,

yes. I I think that that I'm hearing the a consensus around uh that uh in order to get some sort of momentum going, let's take a site and focus on beginning to work on evaluating the feasibility of that site in its in the various parameters that have to be looked at. So I agree with with Ryan that if we can, you know, within our immediate goal, stop just talking conceptually about we want one somewhere. Let's go move to a goal of saying can we acquire this building and and go it there. I mean the building has the advantage of the seniors would certainly be in favor of it because it was very very successful as a site for a senior center for you know you know you know almost 10 years

so uh Tristan and then I'm going to try something here

sorry I keep going back uh so I I certainly appreciate everything that everyone has said uh I want to make sure we don't get away from the why and understanding the community need as well, right? So, it's I don't want to reverse engineer ourselves into something because it's currently existing, but I also want to give that the the weight and the value of it is currently existing, so it could cost less. Um, but to me, it's again, it's understanding the community needs, its proximities to schools, its proximity to housing, it's transit, uh, and just that combination of things. So, thank you. So, two thoughts. I do hear kind of convergence in terms of it being an opportunity. One of the things I've seen happen in in a situation like this where you actually have something concrete. It you know where it is. It it starts to have advantages and disadvantages. The process of examination which I'm hearing to say we maybe we should just look at it and see what that is and get a little more involved in that. that process will also illuminate to as you work together on that or what have you if it in the second half's going to be coming to you in here in a second in terms of what's important. So you look at it and go that works for this that works for that or you know we need to talk to this constituency about that. Does that work for them and and you know does it pencil out and you know does it leak? I mean, whatever that process is, you can still examine it to determine whether or not it works, but in addition, it will flesh out additional interests or concerns or things that you would you would have because I hear you talking, you have a strong conceptual understanding of the criteria by which you would look at something. This would be a test run at that at at looking at something or what have that said. Now we

come and I'd ask Doug to maybe put some thoughts in here. Any examination of anything is going to be a process that potentially would cost money, time, and resources. So, not to put you on the spot, but now to bring in an element of these kinds of conversations that I think are are critical. Any thoughts, Doug?

Yeah. No, it's it's great to hone in on a site and get some unity behind it because have heard a lot of the, you know, same challenges since the time I've got here about where it should be, where it shouldn't be for. What I'd envision because it sounds like we've got a good idea to investigate this one facility is, you know, be in contact with county executive's office, talk about it. You'd want a feasibility component done on the building and what those costs would be and what that phasing would be. So there'll we'll come back to you with a and that'll probably be a fairly expensive feasibility study. Um well worth it in terms of knowing what's ahead of us and to plan that out but um that would come back and so I just want the council to be prepared on that and you know maybe we can work with the county on that on some of their set aside funds to maybe partner with us. I don't know. I wouldn't expect just cuz I said maybe that that's a commitment, but we would want to come back with, you know, some structural integrity. So, we don't find ourselves in a situation where we're deeper and I know some of that work has been done on some of it in terms of rebuilding it. So, we investigate that stuff first and refresh and update, but then also what are those next steps?

Yes, Phil.

Yeah, I completely agree with that. I'd really love to know what work they have done. Obviously, they've made a decision that this building is not worth saving. So, they probably put some kind of dollar value to that. I also want to know what their willingness is to give or subsidize to the city. If we don't get a good deal there, I don't want to spend a dollar on feasibility until we know what that looks like. So, I'm hearing consensus of interest and and and for a variety of reasons. I'm hearing that that you may have an interest in in pursuing a process. So I'm coming to you in a quick second say do we have an agreement here? So let's let's and and at least initially expending some resources which isn't necessarily the full feasibility study but maybe as and Doug trim me down here if I'm getting too out but maybe have the staff come to you with a process that they would pursue to begin getting a good understanding of of of that as an opportunity or not. is I'm hearing you as a as a group being interested in that. I'm hearing you wrong, please say. Okay. So, is that a fair agreement from your standpoint, Doug? Just in terms of resources to kind of follow that process and because I don't want to over

Yeah. Yeah. I would envision the first component is answering some of those questions council member Lynholm brought up of you know what does that partnership look like before we do a structural integrity upfresh upgrade can look at what the previous plans have identified as the potential pitfalls but then also what that partnership would be so I would think the first thing would be you know contact uh with county executive's office and have those discussions um and then bring back to the council then what that next steps would be from that avenue.

So then we have an agreement in roughly stated that that you would start a process to to see if you wanted to pursue a larger process to look at it. So in my mind that's a step-wise approach to to getting to yes we want to continue no we don't kind of thing. Is that we good with that? Okay. Anything else on this topic before I move us to the to the next one? I don't assume this is the only thing you want to talk about here. So I want to you know anything else? Okay. Oh yeah, please fill up.

Just one more note. I don't know the details of this, but it's my understanding, you know, if this site were not to work out. One of the places we've expressed interest is the downtown park. It's my understanding there may be a building envelope issue there and that we have easement conversations happening there. So I don't know if you can speak to that very quickly Doug as we because there will come a conversation if this building doesn't work then where do we want this?

Yeah I think there's even more discussion in terms of some of the envelope issues. Yeah, there's certainly restriction on size on there and also what uh the outcome is of uh potending uh you know revaluation in the courts right now that you know goes to trial later on in this year in terms of the initial uh contribution is 1.4 million was the initial judgment that's being challenged. Um but then also how does that relay upon the easement that goes through there? So there may be other components related to that on the downtown site, not to mention its overall size and parking availability depending on the size of the building as well.

Any other discuss? So I guess to that point then would it make more sense to just understand the feasibility of two site of more than one site of of a of a of the existing community center that is already zoned that is that already lies in zoning where it's zoned to be used for for that use. The downtown park we just reszoned as downtown park, but everything surrounding that site is commercial is commercial use. And so reszoning commercial use for nonprofitable space I think is another different conversation that has its own legs to it. And so but but I don't think we have enough conver I don't think we would have enough information to decide which is more feasible than the other until you study the feasibility of kind of both the the partnerships needed with with Pierce County to realize what can be made of that site and the the cost and concept of of plunking down a um built vertical brand new construction on either existing parkland or adding reszoned commercial use. That is a hairy thing too. So that's why I I felt that despite whatever um partnerships and difficulty may lie with the county and frankly I don't anticipate difficulty with the county necessarily. I I just don't know the lay of the land and the history well enough to determine whether there's whether that there's going to be friction there and how much. I think we just need to

have the conversation with them and and it and and both agree that it's a forward positive conversation to have and I think from that there could be success in what we're both trying to achieve. So yeah, I I I would agree. I would agree with that. Um, we have to talk to them to to see what that and and I don't know what the exec wants to do. I think we're already segueing into the next item, so we should probably just go there.

Ryan, did you have something you want to add? I was just going to add a quick comment about, you know, evaluating too many things that are we have one thing in front of us that is finite and real and has a timeline on it. And so I want to be mindful of that. The downtown park, you know, the downtown property, whatever it's going to be called, that's always going to be there. So, that doesn't have a timeline, but I think that we need to get started on um started on, you know, there's a building that's going to be demolished here in a few years, and we needed to start looking at that to see if that's a real opportunity and at least start there. So, I don't necessarily think we need to do a conceptual analysis of multiple sites at this point. At least start on one and figure out if it's a, you know, real possibility or if it's a eh, you know, and if it's a eh, then we look at some other stuff. But at least start like with a more narrow focus on on that one site. So

to my earlier comment, I think it as this happens and it'll happen in this retreat even, but as you go down the road about analyzing that space, thoughts like Ellen just had will come up. So typically in a process like that, rather than get diverted from that because you're not really spending money yet, you're kind of still going. I would urge you to park lot that thought knowing you're going to revisit it before you make any what I'd call threshold decisions. In other words, so at that point so it's not loss. The the value of this kind of thing is it sparks these thoughts. So you don't want to lose them, but but you don't want to, you know, you don't want the outside guy coming back five years later and having you talking about the same thing because you didn't do anything for five years. And and I'm maybe being a little harsh on you because there's lots of factors here, but sometimes in a complicated decision or world like you like like this agenda represents to me, there's a lot of connectivity and it's complicated. So Miller's plus or minus seven. Once you're over seven, it's really hard for you to keep track of stuff. So one way to do it is decide like you did today, parking lot your thought and then as you go forward know you're going to at some point you'll go, "Wait a minute. I can't vote yet because I need to know about that. That's a different kind of part of the process. Just a suggestion for you. Okay. Anything else before we move to the next topic. Okay. um Colonial Center, Green Loop, several of you, but Philip, you I think had some thoughts on that and and and uh I think Ryan, you brought it up as well, but uh I don't know who wants to start us out on that, but somebody

can I can I can I just ask for when we're talking about the Colonial Center, to me, I think of the Colonial Center as the the building with the lash the the the the lash boutique, the um the Indian restaurant and the chiropractic at the same time. The Colonial Center is all those buildings surrounding. So I just want to make sure that when we're talking about the Colonial Center, that's what we're talking about. Those all those three commercial areas with the Autozone with the the Sound View Unicve and the Colombia Bank. I I think I think that semantic is important.

One of the things you can do here is whoever wants to start us out can start talking about it and let's let the conversation at some point if we're not talking about the same thing or what have that'll start to emerge. So great point Philip Ryan. Okay. Yep. Um yeah and I don't to that point I don't think that we really have a defined limits of the Colonial Center. I think it's generally focused around the Lakewood Theater and that area. That area is vague, right? Um,

so I think I'll let Philip talk a little bit more about the um the theater and the plaza area, but I really kind of wanted to focus on the Green Street Loop as it relates to some of that. And the Green Street Loop is I think a an amazing opportunity to it's not just a transportation project. It's you know probably our single most effective way as a city to as a tool to create investment in the community to create a walkable downtown space to create an active downtown. Um it hits many priorities, many of our priorities, our transportation priorities, our economic, you know, development priorities. Um our safety priorities. Um it, you know, when you drive down Bridgeport, you know, it's not exactly a welcoming road to walk down at nighttime. And so I think that if we can work to get this green street loop, it's not that it's not a safe area to walk down, but I think there's a perception of safety as well that's kind of goes into some of that. And I think when you have a a space that's well lit, well, you know, landscaped, and it's a it's a more welcoming environment that people are more likely to feel that perception of safety. Um,

and is it currently not that that would be a developed thing? Okay.

Yeah. So, I mean, Bridgeport I kind of use Bridgeport is like the isore um road that comes through, right? So, um it's just lots of old development um and asphalt, you know, sea of asphalt from the road all the way to the buildings essentially just random kind of parking and random driveway approaches. It's not really a It's just happened over years of being unincorporated, right? And that's kind of what we have now. We have some sidewalks and some areas and some kind of asphalt like pathways in some other areas and there's a few developments that are a bit newer that put in like a proper, you know, frontage improvement. Um, but there's really like there's no trees, there's no street trees, there's no, you know, it's not like it's a very welcoming, inviting um place to walk. Um, I think that another thing that it would do is, you know, we make a lot of decisions at the city that aren't necessarily always visible, right? Like, well, what is the city doing? And we're doing a lot of things, but some of it isn't visible. Some of it takes time for developers to, you know, realize these things happening. Um this would create like an immediate visible transformation of the downtown and and really give we we've talked in the past about um you know what is the city known as you like what are what is our kind of what is the city you know where is our space and I think that that would help to develop that sense of space and location and destination of of Lakewood and and help kind of identify yeah here is really our downtown core because it's surrounded in this green street loop and everything within inside of that is our downtown city core, right? Um it starts to connect other other things together. Um you know, you're connecting developments, you're uh creating an

inviting uh you know, businesses want to they have a certain risk threshold. Um, if we can help do what we can to mitigate some of that risk and create an inviting economic, you know, area to come into, I think that, uh, there's a lot of folks that, you know, would start kind of turning that over. So, I'll kick off.

Other comments on this, Mike? Well, certainly I'm I'm in favor of uh uh planning and and and and and developing the the green street loop processes is there and we've already started on some of the planning for that. I I think that the Brian's point is well taken that right now it isn't a very aesthetic streetscape that that goes on and I and I'm particularly concerned about the portion of it that would uh which is really the longest portion of it that would be the from from from 100th to Maine on along Grally Lake Drive because that is a an area that is got a series of properties that no one no one has yet come up with a plan for what to do with and and and creating that into the the Green Street Loop would would would link things together and would create a piece to be able to go and do that. the um I and as we've discussed before, in addition to promoting economic development, promoting a walkable downtown, uh helping create the image of Lakewood, but I think that it is also becomes a a venue that is enhanced uh in terms of of of public art of of providing multiple locations where it's there to where do that and

even though it is along streets it is in fact a internal trail system that and in that we were you know that our evolving legacy plan wants to look at where are their trails being able to go and do that and um providing some connectivity So, I'm in favor of looking to do that. As as far as the colonial center, I I I think when we talk about doing that that we certainly own some property there. We own a plaza. We own some some property that we've that we've that we've that we've just acquired. Um there is some discussion about whether there is other property that could be put to use. Certainly the historical society has a has a property there, but I don't extend discussions about the colonial center is to wanting to repurpose the commercial properties that are there. I think that the commercial sector will do that if we make the area more inviting to changes of use because of what we put there. but that we're we shouldn't be spending our effort in terms of trying to change the types of businesses or it's doing all that and and and and the privatelyowned properties there decisions will be made but perhaps in response to how well we handle the publiclyowned property that sits within the colonial center and then in the activities that we allow to take place there. So clarification question. So the the loop that you're talking about green tree loop is is is that publicly owned or in other words?

Okay. It's mo probably partially owned right now. I mean most of it it's the public road but there would probably be some rideway needs that you know potentially it wouldn't need in some areas. Okay. And not to jump ahead in the discussion but what which might distinguish the loop from Colonial Center? Yeah. I think that they're definitely two separate but they're linked in some respects and that's the what part I'm waiting to hear. But they they they're on opposite end of a corner intersection Mount Toma Drive. I I think our assumption was that the Green Street loop would end or begin at the Colonial Center.

Okay. So, Philip's been in the queue, but it's in planning. I mean, we've approved a planning grant. You know, we've it's in planning. Okay. So, Philip and then Ryan again. Great.

Yeah. So, I think a lot of great things have been said. I do think they're separate issues. U the Green Street loop is is an incredibly important piece of how we connect our community. That's really important. Access, multimodal, all the things. Um the downtown park I see as a separate issue than the center or plaza as we want to call it. The building there with the Lakewood theater. Um, I think it's incredibly important to zoom out and and say that we've spent over $2 million as a city on this space. Now's the fun part. You know, now's the part where we get to see the return on that as we develop and build and plan for this park. I do think it'd be helpful and important to have our economic development uh team spend some focus on that liquid theater building. Um there have been conversations in the past about acquiring it or public private partnerships or can we bring in outside partners like M McMinmans and others. I think those conversations would do well to happen again. We know that Little Church on the Prairie has wanted to be a partner in whatever happens there. We have other partners that want to be involved. So there's a willingness there from the community and I think we want to honor that and reflect that. uh that building used to be the heart of our community and I think it can play a really important role again if we do that well. As for the downtown park, especially if we're removing for now the multigenerational center from that plan, this doesn't have to break our budget. You know, it doesn't a couple hundred,000 for a splash pad. There have been a lot of ideas expressed at council before I joined about what that could look like. um national fitness campaign, a pickleball court, like these are not necessarily high dollar items. These are ones we can achieve and we can achieve well. So, I'd love to see a plan for what that coder should look like and uh or what the options could be um and have our economic development team. Yeah. So, we've acquired a parcel for a little over 1.4 million and now we're just deciding what to do with it.

It's in that plaza. Yeah. Yep. No, that's just to say I think I think attention needs to be paid there and I think we can really reap some dividends because a lot of the hard work has been done. So, okay. Ryan and then Paul, were you in too or no? Okay.

Um, yeah, without belaboring the point, I guess I I just would add a couple more. Um, so I think that the other element that the Green Street Loop really promotes, it promotes small business. It promotes all types of business, but you're getting people um like right now when I'm when I drive to you have to pretty much drive to businesses along Bridgeport and these kind of areas here. It's very destination centric and it's not creating a place where the businesses are visible. You know, they don't have good visibility. They're not walkable. You're not getting in. You're not getting foot traffic in. You're not having a place, oh, let's just go park here and I'll just go do some shopping and walk up and down, right? You're you're I'm going to this restaurant here and then I'm driving over to here. And you're not like, oh, you know, window shopping and that kind of thing. So, I think that that really helps. you know, you get to put traffic in for businesses that really helps promote business. So, um, that's just one other element of it.

Other points of view, other conversation about this? Hello. Yeah, I think that so I appreciate um Philip your comments because I think um what's in what I'm interested in in your comments, but I'm also trying to kind of understand a little more because I think what I feel like I'm hearing is there's some interest economic development wise for the colonial center as far as that encompasses. I could be wrong. I could be right. That's what I feel like I'm hearing. And that's okay. That's sure. Yeah. If if if if the community feels like and and if the business community would like to see kind of a faceelift of this area, fine. But but I'd like we also need to hear that from the business community too. Um, but what I am also hearing though is specifically the Lakewood Theater is was a heart was a was a heartbeat of the community at one point and so it'd be nice to renovate that piece. So I think if there is a vision, if there is a desire from the business community or others or others in the in the greater community about the colonial center, I would just it would help it would help it would help for that to be more transparent about what that is. To that point though, I have also felt that and we're kind I'm kind of segueing and skipping down a little bit, but that's why I think the downtown kind of needs some sub area planning because it is large and it would help if the colonial center had some sort of sub area lens to

understand what could be done or what is envisioned to tie in. um a a future theater, the festival street, um the surrounding areas because it is a walkable area. So, I just want to understand that or and that can evolve going forward. The Green Street Loop, yeah, it it it is the key that connects the Colonial Center to the downtown. Um, but I think it's a little small and there is no plan other than the the non-motorized plan to um tie in the rest of the city to the downtown from a not from a multimodal point of view. So that truly if you're going to put a bike a two-way bike track or if you're going to put a multi-use path and a whole circle around the Green Street Loop, which is a small loop um that encompasses just barely over a square mile, then that there's connectivity radiating to and from the out the rest of the city so that it's functional in use and used. um you know, how is it going to be useful if if you can't get from farther down a 100th into downtown on a bike and then expect to be on a bike once you're on 59th Street. So those kinds of of of planning and decisioning is is part of just simply designing a a green street boulevard. The other thing is that and and I'll close on this, but um I think that the Green Street Loop should encompass the intersection at Bridgeport and Gralie because transportation wise that is a huge intersection that is a is a barrier for

the neighborhoods to cross from Cel Lake Apartments from um Whitman and and uh Fairlon and that that housing area. Um, and the apartments that are ran along Graly Lake. I mean, if you want people to walk and come to downtown, they need to cross Bridgeport and they need to cross Graly Lake. And I can tell you that because of the geometry of of the Bridgeport and Gravaly Lake, it's going to be expensive no matter what you do. So, you might as well include it in the Green Street Loop so that you can at least leverage um funds for whatever we get for the Green Street Loop to address those needs.

Uh Paul and then couple comments. So, Doug, when do we expect the report on the Green Street Loop? Do we have any idea? Jeff, you give a update on status of the Green Street Loop timeline related to the raise grant. Uh the raise grant currently is working with the contractor. We're expected the finish date for that would be we're expecting to be done in 27 in terms of the planning estimate with that, but we're adjusting the initial phases. So we won't have anything to report for at least 6 months.

Okay, good. Thank you. And then and then and just on the comments, you know, our our dream was when we would when you did the streetscape on the Colonial Center that would that would um get help private investment at the Colonial Center. But and and and I I agree. I think our economic development people should engage, but the the current owner of the Colonial Center has really done nothing to that property and they've probably owned that parcel now for close to 20 plus years and and I don't think they've done anything to it. The other issue we have is we have an incredibly latigious uh um owner next on the other side of us on that park that I would expect will fight anything we do. I mean, I'm surprised we can even mow the lawn. and and it's to the point where even the the uh I guess it fell through, but there was a church that was going to move into the QFC and they were attacking us frequently with emails and threatening litigation and various things like that. So, there are real challenges. I I don't want to I don't want to what's holding everything up there, I think, is there's just there's just so much opposite. There's an opposition on one side and and and um what would be the best way just kind of this nonchalance about their investment on the other side. And that's that's what I see is just it's we've invested. I'm I'm fine with looking at future investments. I think we do need to engage with the the owner of the Colonial Center, but I'm not expecting much because neither of these owners are are they're

completely intriangent and and actually defiant and oppositional. So, this is what we're faced with over there. Okay. Uh Trust and then Mike,

thank you. Uh been looking at the map of the raise planning grant application that maps out the green street loop. Uh and Ryan and I were looking at it together and it doesn't quite match what we would have hoped in terms of the perimeter of it. Um it as it's defined now it cuts through the middle of the town center, barely touches Bridgeport and comes back on Grley. Whereas our thoughts were, and sorry to speak for Ryan, that it would go, you know, essentially following the old Tacoma Speedway, uh, which was down 112 all the way up to Gravaly and back down, right? So that that triangle, um, which then could be much closer to this colonial plaza because it is now, if you look at the map of the Green Street Loop, as it was proposed, that plaza is just a a flag pole up from the loop. um it's not really matching what we would expect. Um, beyond that, looking at Colonial Plaza and a plan going forward from that and the the property that we acquired, um, when we when we got that piece of land, and I understand it's still being contested, uh, as Paul mentioned and, uh, city manager also mentioned, um, we needed to to take a look at it and see if it still fits what we want to do going forward. ward uh or if it's going to continuously be challenged and cost us more and more what our path might be. Um I know when we acquired it, the thought initially was trying to put a community center on that. Uh and if that's not the path we're taking, maybe it doesn't hold the same value for us as it once did. So that's something to to think about. Thank you,

Mike. I think one one thing we can look at what what we want to do is in the downtown sub area plan within that there are a number of sub areas and one of them is the colonial colonial area and it is the area that has the most restrictive design requirements for development in terms of buildings and things like that. And um and whereas in in other areas of the downtown, we've relaxed what was originally there. um that this is something that I think we could ask, you know, you you you talk about reach out to the property that I think we can ask the planning commission to take a look at the the design standards that we put in place for the colonial center which are really actually quite restrictive. Okay. you know, and they were designed primarily to keep it looking colonial. Um, and and and and that that that's that's somewhat of an impediment to to do it. You know, it sort of runs from the House of Donuts down in includes the buildings that were the original shopping center to be able to go and do that all the way to include the current um or the former QFC property which which which impacts impacts that. So I think that in the next two years, okay, that if the planning commission were to look at particularly the design

requirements in that in that parcel and see how they perhaps might align with what we want to do otherwise, okay, with with terms of doing it. I mean I mean it would we even have design requirements that would make add significantly to the cost of building a community center if we were to build it inside that that that foot put foot putrint because we'd have to make it look like it is it is revolutionary Virginia to be able to go and do it. So I think I think that's an action that we can we can take that that that that constitutes a review. I don't know what the changes should be made, but I think that the what's there is pretty restrictive right now.

Uh, Philip, and then I want to kind of see where we are in our discussion.

Yeah. So, I think some really important points have been made. You know, Council Member Brandsteaders concern to make sure the design standards make sense. Council member Tabo's concern to make sure that we're really thinking about this thoughtfully and things go together and they make sense. I just want to make sure that we're doing things in the right order, which to me means let's have the vision and that will shape the plan, that will shape the standards. Let's figure out what we want there and and then we can go get it. Um, if we find along the way that it's too expensive, doesn't make sense, we can pivot, but let's get the vision first. And I'll tell you my vision. My vision is that it's a big open space for people to play in the downtown, which we don't have. Uh, that it's a place where businesses, small businesses can go and thrive, where it's pedestrian. We've created a great space there. Let's use it.

Okay. Um, several interesting conversations. Um, it sounds like everybody's pretty much in agreement on what the definitions of the areas are and so forth. Um, couple things I want to go back to the notion that they and and get a clarification and then a sense of is do I have this right? So your concept of the green tree loop and and then is there currently a project going on that's that's working that are not quite in alignment. Is that what I thought I hear heard to say?

Yeah. Yeah. Treston brought up the map of the Green Street loop as it is on whatever document this is. But I I think that it really needs to be a bit larger in scope to really get what at least what what my vision would be out of it would be creating a a green street loop that is not just through the town center but for other places to encourage redevelopment and infill and those things.

So So we agree they're not quite in alignment, not necessarily wrong, but but when I hear something like that, I want to make sure at least know they're not in alignment or agree that we're not in alignment. And with that, So the one thing we need to talk about when it comes to the raise grant and looking at the maps is that when we submitted that was the area that was approved for us to do the work to shift that now after we've already been awarded is not really going to be possible.

I thought though that there was I'm sorry I thought there was scope in that raise grant to do some form of alternatives analysis. So when you look at the alternatives analysis of what would go into it. So one this is a federal grant governed by WASDOT. So anything we needed to do would be a shift in an amendment for scope that would be significant to get through the approval process. In looking at that there are alternatives as to what you're looking at but that's not growing that we don't believe it would be growing the area that we originally approved to go ahead and look at would be viewed as an alternative analysis. I can check into it and ask about it, but um most federal grants when you look at it, you can't expand the area that you've already approved for and say, "Now I wish to go to here and do additional work."

I I think Okay. I I understand um the the what Ryan and Treston are suggesting is and which I agree with is is the alignment of the Green Street Loop. So if you're saying that the alignment of the green street loop as it is in the study is locked in the map that's as we formed it from the as we copy and pasted it from the downtown plan is um un amendable which grants are always amendable. you just have to go through the process of filing an amendment, but which is has its own legs to it, too. But nonetheless, I think if if what I'm trying to get if what we're trying to get at is is a big is a is an alternative alignment to what's in the downtown plan and then thereby what's in the raise grant, then perhaps it's the um a matter of being able to contribute additional of our own local funds that would be non-reimburseable for the grant to study an alternative alignment.

I I'm happy to look into the ability to potentially amend it. I'm speaking from experience as to the difficulty of what we're looking at and the timeline associated with where we're at. We would have to run the amendment through. It's not just a WADOT amendment and what we're looking at because it's Fed they are the the monitor for it but we have till the end of 28 to complete the assessment and what we're looking at and okay we do need to get moving on what we're doing for actual the work in the study. Ryan and then Mike.

Yeah I I echo Ellen's comments there on that. I mean, I think that when you look at what you know, most of that is just going through the town center. I mean, it is a public road, but it's there's already trees, it's already walkable, it's already, you know, everything. So, you're not getting much bang for your buck on that. There's not really much, you know, real major improvements versus if you send that down Bridgeport and and do something major down Bridgeport. I mean, that's a that's a major facelift of the entire downtown. So, I guess that's I would be open to exploring whatever we can possibly do to either amend that or, you know, do the other parts of it that are in here. Um, but do something like we've got to incorporate the other part of the loop, I think, is what at least a handful of folks are interested in.

Oh, there's no issue with taking a look at any rephrase. anything that is already in the grant included in that area the green street loop being locked in anything is that's not it my concern when I'm looking at it is the scope and the footprint of what we've got in the grant that is the more difficult portion the rest we can look at all that is what the grant is for if we don't believe the green street loop is properly aligned and we wish to do that and adjust that as we're going through the raise grant that is part of the study and what we will investigate 100% it's if we go to expand outside of the mapping scope of what we showed with the raise that can become difficult. I'm not worried about what we do inside the box. It's if we look to expand the loop outside the box, bring it back in and then we could have a conversation like council member Talbo has mentioned what funds do we have to support looking at that. But that's a discussion for council

for clarification purposes in this discussion. Nothing you're doing with the grant would preclude at a later time to expand it to to align with what you're hearing. Is that did I is that what you said? If what we're looking at is inside the scope and the mapping of what we showed on the raise grant as our area of operations and where we were going to do the work for the grant, there's no issues with anything that already exists like the green street loop to look at realigning anything of that nature. It's if we expand outside of the mapping area that we showed on the raise grant that we have to start having a conversation about amendment, get, you know, contributing funds, etc.

Mike So, I agree that the green street loop um as it's laid out on the map right now was not the most desirable option. But all all that concern was discussed when that was done. And the the problem was when when there was discussions about trying to make the loop go down and then go over along to Bridgeport and then and then and then down was the fact that Lakewood Town Center Boulevard is not a public street. The city doesn't own it. So we don't have any right of way down that. and they just like with the discussions that we had with the previous owner of the town center and now with Kite uh to try to figure out where is their space that the that the city could acquire to do that um is problematic and not a simple discussion to to come to agreement on. So not being able to run a portion of the Green Street loop down to towards towards Bridgeport and of of coming back had to do with the fact that that wasn't public right away. And so 59th was the eastern most piece of public rightway, which is why it it it it 59th Avenue is the the east access of the of of the Green Street Loop and and how that got into the into the planning and not being able to go through and and do that. Um and

and then the other thing was the uh um idea that the um if you run from Lakewood Town Center um along Bridgeport going um going going northwest uh that there that there there was a res there's a residential area that wasn't included in the downtown area plan. Okay. is it sits there. It's kind of a triangle that sits there at 59th to be able to go and do that and and and it became problem. So the the Green Street roof that was put into plans and that was put in and is being worked was in fact a compromise on where it could be. Um but it it was constrained by wanting it to be a long public rights of Okay. Paul So I I mean I think that Bridgeport is a problem. Years ago the general public when we did some outreach told us the Bridgeport I5 into the up to Gravaly Lake was a problem. I mean it's an area they really wanted beautified and I and I and I think we need to be cognizant of that. But um we do have this grant. We asked for real I think we were really specific in what we wanted. We had discussed this. So I I think the expansion of the green street loop should really be treated as a separate project. I mean bringing in trying trying to change it now. Um I I don't I don't know what that gets us and it slows down the process even more and and I you know I don't know how much more additional dollars we have to put in. Um, typically transportation projects

are this way. We've had to do pieces at a time. And so I I want to be really careful in not delaying this. I mean, we've already waited several years to even get this far. We were awarded that thing two years ago or more. And so I think I think throwing uncertainty into it now is not our our best course of action. I think we need to go forward with what we've got. if we feel that we need to do future planning or something, we can do that. Okay, Tristan and Ryan. And then I want to see where we are in our discussions because we have a break of three minutes. Okay,

thank you. Uh I appreciate Ellen's thoughts about amending the existing proposal. Uh, and I wonder if we can't necessarily necessarily amend it, can we focus the funds from that grant on areas that would be in common with a larger space? So, specifically along Bradley Lake Drive, so we're not putting a bunch of development money into 59th down the middle of the town center if that's not where we necessarily want to build. Can we limit where as part of the loop that those funds end up? The scope is general and what we spoke to in the area and what we're looking at. As long as we fall within scope, what we lay out within the picture is not defined yet. So unless you made a right-hand turn and suddenly it was we didn't want multimmodal and we wanted it to be a thoroughfare, well that would be a scope change we'd have to talk about via an amendment. But if we're still looking at the multimodal and the transportation elements through that area, there's there's not an issue with that. Yeah, I think we could focus on the things in common between those phases, work on that and then as we expand as a second phase do the rest of it.

But the one the one thing about that is holistically we're looking at this might as well assume it is kind of like a traffic assessment for a basement and what the basin and what we're looking at. So this isn't meant to be a portion of we do one and then we'll look at this portion later. Whatever we're doing within this picture we want to look at because off of this we'll be going for construction funds and granting. So, we don't want to short ourselves by we looked at one portion and changed it and we'll deal with that later. We do want to look at the full area and everything we wish to accomplish with that. So, when we go forward for construction grant, hopefully if we're successful, we get all of that funding. Yeah, that makes sense. We want to have a view of the whole strategy instead of just the individual pieces because they may not add up the right way.

Ryan, and then now I'm going to want to bring us to a break.

I'm I'm good. Okay. Then before I go, uh there's still a couple unresolved things that were said that I want to come back to. One was gee, I'd like to have our economic development team do this or do that. And uh when I hear that, that's all that gets to resources. So I don't I don't want to just assume that's going to happen out of this discussion. And then the other thing was was suggested that's sort of outside this room was so charging the planning commission with something. So we can talk about those when we come back or if you want Yeah, let's do that. But I I don't want to leave those hanging because you put that out there and and it may be nothing or something. But those are the two other things I'd say. So let's take a break. Stay healthy. Get up. Walk around.

you for uh the first session discussions. They're great and thank you for being so efficient in the conversation. We got a lot out on the table. Before we kind of I do a check-in are we finished with this conversation. There are there were two things that were said that in my view I always sensitive anything that goes outside the room in terms of an expectation. One was to have the economic development team focus on the colonial center. Someone mentioned I'd like to have that happen couple. And the other was sending something to the planning commission in terms of the design standards in that particular area. I only mention them not because I think you should do them. That's not my part. I don't want to leave here thinking there's an expectation they're going to get done that without saying, "Yeah, we're doing it." And more most importantly, we can do that. So or would would do that. So, I'm just pausing for a moment to get any input on that. If I hear none, we're just going to move on and and nothing will happen,

right?

Yeah. So, I think part of that came from me. Um, so, yeah, I would love to have our economic development folks speak to Greymore um and neighboring parcels and property owners and and continue that conversation that I know a lot of effort was put into in the past. Um my personal vote would be to wait on sending any ask of the planning commission on design standards because again we just don't quite know what we can do there and um and really focus on what we can do specifically with that potential park parcel. Um QFC has questions, Greymore has questions, there even questions on the park parcel, but we can start getting a vision for the park parcel right now. We can build a big fence behind will make Paul very happy. and move forward that way.

Okay. Any other comments?

You know, I know economic development has looked at that parcel past. I don't know if council wants an update on that. Jeff can speak to it of what economic development found of the plaza, which is a year and a half ago or something, but we can give that information to council if that helps. A year ago, we did go look at the plaza. It was identified as could it be an area for a community center. And so, we went and we took and met with the owner. We did a walkthrough of the building. We did go ahead and pay to have an assessment done of the structure and where we were at as well as what potential buy cost for that could be. It came in at about a $4.5 million purchase price with about a $4 million repair price to go ahead and correct the building. What we looked at at that time, we were also going ahead and taking a look at what else could be placed there based on the shape and the size of the property. That coupled with some of the new parking standards, setback standards, things of that nature that we have, it's a very constrained property in terms of what you can put on it uh to be to really be viable in terms of a new construction build and what we're looking at. We wondered if there might be a willingness to partner. So we did have a conversation about that but the owners of the parcel have owned it long term. It is a LLC with many owners that are not really interested in the cell is one thing partner was not something that was interested in. So the development potential of it was really not something that we could see economically was viable. We did have conversations at the same time with Lakewood Playhouse as to well what if we came in when we got to a $9 million price tag and what we were looking at to even have it ready for any sort of use that pretty much wiped it off the the slate of what was being looked at. We did talk about it at the last retreat. So I know that some of the council members have heard it before because it was a conversation and something we were speaking to right as we looked at holistically for the downtown area. How do we get more rooftops and how do we

define some of the commercial space that could grow? It would be something that would be more viable if the emirate property, the QFC was to be looked at and somehow that transition to something else. There would be an ability to do more when it comes to economic development in that because it wouldn't be an isolated property at that time. There might be more of a draw for people to come in.

Okay. Any more discussion? Okay. Sure. So that's incredibly helpful information. Thanks Joe. Um there's you know one of the ways to approach it is the way we approach the um the H barn project. Um that has never pencled it will never pencil but it's really important to the community. So there's different ways to have it. Understood. Okay with that moving on to the next discussion item. Thank you. Um, arcs. Oh, excuse me.

Sure. So, so this is just from the chief seats. Nothing's going to the planning commission at this time because I didn't see you and Cry to do that and I did and I think after this last discussion, you know, the economic development team's probably not going to take a look at it at this juncture. I'm not saying Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yep. I know. Great. Thanks. Um, okay. Parks is a general citywide equity and infrastructure. I know Ellen brought this up, but several of you brought up parks, downtown parks, all kinds of different permutations of this discussion. So, uh, would someone like to start that? Yeah, Ryan. Perfect. Thanks.

Thanks. I have one um park project that I I think was very very briefly mentioned at our last retreat and it wasn't really some of the early leg work wasn't done on it yet. I I I think that we've had some discussions with the the school district on the Lake City property and uh it sounds like there is an opportunity to partner with them um in some sort of capacity where we could not buy the property. I have I think they've expressed zero interest um in selling it. Um, but I also haven't heard from them that they have any plans on developing that site at all in part of their future uh facility plans. And so, you know, if we could get into a 20 30 year lease or something with them that, you know, gives them the right to rip out whatever we put in, you know, if they whatever something happens and they need to develop that into an elementary school, maybe we can try to have a conceptual plan that, okay, well, these part of the park is going to be, you know, where the playground would be in the future and so it wouldn't all be for loss. So, um, something like that, uh, that space is huge. Um, and it's right in the middle of an underserved neighborhood. There's no parks, not no parks. There's no like sports field kind of open recreational parks in that in the Lake City area. Um, there's one out way out to the west edge where it really abuts like the military base. Um, and it's a pretty small, it's just like a a single baseball field, but the the Lake City property is I think it's like nine or 10 acres or something. Um, there's a huge parking lot there that the the Lake City church has. There's ample opportunity for kind of on street parking surrounding the whole park

there. Um, it's flat. It's already a field. I mean, it it if we didn't have to, you know, if we could come up with a partnership to lease the property on some, you know, really cheap or free thing with the school district, do the improvements, um have another place for folks to, you know, another set of soccer fields or baseball fields, a spray pad, uh, you know, some pickle ball course, who, you know, the fitness thing, whatever. Like just some kind of flatcape park amenities. Um, I think that that would be a a a huge improvement for an area that's really just kind of dying for some sort of space to that they can go collect uh they they can go to. Um, and it's a pretty high density neighborhood area. So,

okay, discussion questions. Okay, Treston and then Mike.

All right. Uh, thanks for bringing that up, Ryan. I know that's our our next item on the agenda, but I think they they tie together, right? So, um I I think when we talk about equity in our parks delivery to all members of our community, I I think we need to look at the standard that we put out there long before I was on council where we were trying to make sure that uh every person in the city was within a half mile of a park, right? I think that was the the target. I think that was shared with us at our review with uh parks folks last uh last Monday. Um so I think there is opportunity to partner with school district uh specifically on this Lake City property but I think across all of the city properties and I know that the city has worked with the school district at Lake Louise I believe and helping develop their uh playgrounds. Uh, and I think we can we can look into the ability to have accessible space off hours for residents of our community on school properties. I think that's a thing to pursue.

Okay. Can can and I appreciate Ryan doing that. So now we have the but we should probably go back to the the item that's next on the agenda and then and then we can start discussion about that with that. I mean do that. I I I thank you for being nimble. I think what that comment though, it will stand alone in that next agenda item. Uh it is interesting though in terms of the lack of uh parks in that particular area because I think that is part of the item. So no, no worries there. And we'll revisit it back to the parks and the u I guess equity and infrastructure and just citywide parks.

Yeah. Ellen and then then or Mike. Okay. And then Ellen. Well, I don't know that this is an item that we need to discuss significantly today because I think the uh this theme is being adequately uh addressed or I certainly hope it will and we will have a chance to chime in on it as the legacy plan this year moves forward to be improved. In my in my following the the work on the legacy plan, they are focused on on on on equity around the city in terms of availability of not just to patches of green but they the the the sort of amenities that that are in parks. I also think that we have done um as a city since incorporation uh a great deal regarding the the theme of equity and infrastructure and that that is evidenced by we've focused a lot of our our our our infrastructure investment not in the downtown and not necessarily in the most affluent neighborhood. neighborhoods of the city, but we've focused early on in telecom and still doing of of dealing with sewers and of upgrading Harry Todd Park and of of upgrading the the mix of residential and economic development buildings there that the um Lake City has gone through its uh um not just the the enhancements

of its major arterials and and other arterials, but you know, they have gone through already their cycle of of and been integrated into the the chip ceiling program of in that seven-year cycle to be able to go and do that. Springbrook has gone through a number of phases of development. first of all, in terms of of of getting a park where there wasn't anything upon a corporation, and we're we're well into the phase of of of dealing with the both the combination of the sidewalk and and roadway rehabilitation with Sound Transit's help in over the next four years to be to be able to go and do that. And the recent completion of Wards Lake Park has identified the the the last significant area uh that will of the peripheral low particularly low income east side residences that have gotten them to have a a major improvement being able to go and do that. So I think we're we're doing we're doing well in this regard. uh given that you can't do everything all at once, but that we've been consistently looking broadly across the city and actually we're kind of coming to the downtown as a as the last area with the where we're focusing on it. Um, while we're still looking at doing it and the the the looking at properties and the master planning process, I think is working. I think the legacy plan program will work too. Um,

okay. I would bring up one one item though that we owe the city manager some guidance on. um two years ago we Mike in terms of in terms of part the parks. Yes. Yeah. Why don't you hold your thoughts on that and then let's let Ellen go. Okay.

Thank you. Um yeah. So where this was really coming from when I when I wanted this on the agenda was equity and infrastructure in general. Um, and not so I guess not so much parks necessarily. Um, yeah, I think I think Mike's comment is right about I can guess we've received the briefings about the legacy plan going forward and how it's looking at at that. But in the way in which we prioritize um equity in the investment of infrastructure across the city, even just like geographically um prioritizing it, it to me what and in our former comprehensive plan and in our and even some former budget documents, we have this map that shows all the CIP projects that have been completed over the past 10 years or whatnot or in the last um over the last two or four bianial budget cycles and the map I think speaks for itself which I would share I don't have it in front of me but I think the map speaks for itself in the way that um the the depth and the the number and the amount of of of the sidewalk infrastructure but also the non-motorized infrastructure that we put on our that we've laid down on our streets tends to trend towards what appears to be like one more kind of one-sided of the city. And I just wanted to make sure that I just wanted to ask that as we go forward in our transportation investments and in especially building out the not the the multimodal aspects of our streets that we we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are whole neighborhoods that we don't hear about from public engagement perspective because they

don't even have neighborhood associations. And so finally to my so yeah it's true Sound Transit is making progress and and and in the investments that they're putting in Springbrook and um to some regards Lake View but staying but but making sure that we are continue to prioritize at least geographic distribution of investments so that we're not just heavily focused on um everything kind of or west of of Grley Lake.

Uh Ryan, and then I want to come back to Mike.

Thank you. And I I agree with Ellen's points there. Um it needs to be, you know, but I think that we have generally stated that course. I would say that the other part of it is that we've also been really good over the past 10 years about getting grants, about getting external monies for projects that that we can do to make improvements and we've been jumping on those and doing those. So all of the projects out, you know, Washington and um veterans and and part of the Gral Lake stuff, you know, that's all been federal money essentially to to do those projects. And so when we talk about where we're spending city money and city effort, I think that we do need to obviously make sure that we're touching other neighborhoods um all around the city. But we've been focused on the major arterials, the major thoroughares, you know, Stilicum, the major, you know, east west thoroughares. Um and then areas that we can that are connecting to the downtown area because we can get money for those kind of projects. So, I think that we've been doing a good job um over the past decade of kind of being smart with, you know, where we're um getting what we can. Um we can we've done major improvements around the city on, you know, kind of a a a fraction of the budget really. So, I think once these these grant projects dry up, there's going to be a lot more difficult decisions to be had about which streets we're improving because we don't have we're, you know, we're going to be funding them fully by ourselves or going to the taxpayers and, you know, asking for more car tabs or whatever it is to to pay for these things. So, um I think that we've been really fiscally, you know, on the right end of this over the past decade and it's kind of drying up. So, we're going to be on the on the

verge of having some tough discussions about, you know, about those. Okay, great. Mike, and then Ellen.

Well, you I agree that we've done a good job and in terms of where we spend city dollars on infrastructure projects, particularly transportation projects. you know, we have gone through and we we develop a rather extensive CIP and that that a lot of those are we don't know in advance for which ones we'll be able to actually compete and and obtain money. So, we can't strictly prioritize them from the front to be able to go and do that. However, in terms of city-f funed projects, you know, we uh went through and funded and and identified six projects that we didn't think we're going to be able to get other monies for. And we, you know, and we and we we bonded the costs for those projects, you know, through the, you know, using our license tab fees to be able to go and do that. And we have been systemically completing them. Nyanza opened yesterday. That was a project that had no money other than city money in it and water district money, okay, to be able to go and do that. But the uh finishing uh the Hipkins and then and the Interlockan and that's fine that that's all city money that included not just the roadway people but but but but the the transportation things that we're getting ready to get started on the Mount Tacoma Drive piece over there which is a fully cityf funed project that we made plans and then we prioritize the order in which those those things are

So I think that uh as we identify funds that we have available for that, we should continue to prioritize the the the uses of that um in in in where they're they'll best deal with deal with the city. Other projects at least need to be identified as according to need which we have been doing with every year as we update the the the tip. Okay. To be able to go and do that. But the priority of doing them depends somewhat on the how the different grant processes agree with us in terms of priority and and and what we can do. and and that's caused us to be able to to do the things on South Tacoma way to and and to do uh you other things w within the city to be able to go and do. So, I'm not thinking that we need a major revision in in in in our process as long as we continue to be aware of that we're trying to make sure that that we're impacting the entire city as best we can.

So, Mike, before you sign off, you did say make a statement about giving you owed something to the city manager. I'm dying to hear this one.

Um, okay. and and and actually it it it is very much in line with the the discussion about the the the Lake City property and leasing it for the park. But one thing that I was doing is we for the past two years have put in our um legislative policy agenda to the county that we want to lease from the library, the old library site and green it up so that it became a useful full park type amenity until such time as the library district gets their act together to redevelop it and to uh do that and to remove it as an eyesore as as you're entering the city along Gravley Lake Drive that's there. um that um what happened as a city manager and I had an eye about what kind of progress were we making with the library district which is a difficult organization to make progress of any type with uh and he was wondering whether he's he says he was willing to initiate those discussions that were sort of somewhat in obeyance dur between the city manager if we still wanted to to do that with with with that with that property. And so, you know, we either need to decide that it's no longer a legislative priority for us or or if it's one that we'd like him to continue to pursue the potential ability of it to do that. And

and I am in total agreement with Mr. Pearson with regard to the the lakes lake city property owned by the school district. So before we go to the school district property I want to finish this discussion and Ellen is in the queue and then Paul is in the queue and then Ryan has an interest. All right Ellen

thank you. Um, so dialing back just a little bit. I think what's what's what's really more important to me here is when we when we're talking about equity in infrastructure to me, it's not just the conversation of the infrastructure part. It's it's the it's equity as in how connected and how we are connected and engaged with our residents as a council. And we have had great success with our neighborhood program and our our existing neighborhood associations, but we seem to struggle to make headway on forming new neighborhood associations where I think they're needed, where they never existed.

Can I can I step? Sure. Yeah. Pardon me for doing my job. So, I'm going to ask a question. is this because I've interviewed everybody on the topic of community engagement and it is on your agenda this afternoon as a big focus. So just wondering if that's better there or what. Yeah, we can move it there. I must and the only reason I brought it up here and it related it to parks was because I thought the neighborhood program was in parks and that may no longer be the case. I I I thought that the neighborhood program was still in parks, but nonetheless, well, I'm assuming under community engagement, neighborhood programs going to come up because it came up in the interviews. It's better for community engagement. We should we should do it under community engagement.

Yeah, because it's a big that there was a big lot to be walked off. Okay, perfect. Um, we'll be back. Hold that thought.

Uh, Paul, Ryan, and Treston. So I I do want to I think if on the equity side we do need to see when the parks legacy plan comes out because clearly there's a map, right? And then we can determine from that. I do I do want to address that the where the improvements have gone maybe over the last 10 years or so. the you know the for the first the the issue is is citywide like when I came on the council in 2012 there were literally neighborhoods and that would include the neighborhood I live in in Oakbrook that had not changed at all. Cityhood had done nothing except maybe they they did pull get some rocks out of Oakbrook Park and in the seventh edition and grow some grass, right? If you drove through there besides that, nothing else had changed. They they literally the city because all of the cities anytime they talked about neighborhood, the only neighborhood they worried about was Tilum. that was their almost their sole focus for teen years to the by the way to the loss of Springbrook right um they decided to industrialize and then that's occurred with warehouses anyway Woodbrook and then everything poured into Springbrook the the the planning for sewers which was absolutely positive but all these other items on the agenda I remember looking before I was on the council looking at a council study session and every item on there had to do with Spring Brook. You wouldn't even know there were any other any other neighborhoods in the community. Um, and so the the the we deliberately pushed projects out citywide. Now, there's still some areas that we're missing.

There are still neighborhoods, I think, in the Daer area and stuff like that that really have not there there are neighborhoods that we have still miss, but I think that that parks plan that we saw the other night, the parks legacy plan is eye opening and we're going to have to deal with it. And so that's that's where I would um I would I would go with that. the library property. I'm I just think pouring millions of dollars into that property and not really knowing how long we might own it, it's like we're improving somebody else's property for them. It it feels like um where the Lake City property we can put in a playground and do various things like that with with just the cooperation of the school district which I you know I'm I'm hoping we we have now but I do worry about that the the library property is we just don't know and and then what would that look like and how many millions would we have to spend to improve it.

Okay. But I also have the concern that it's going to sit there for a long long time. You know, if it's five years till they redevelop it or sell it, I'm right. But if it's 15 or 20 years, well then, you know, Mike's right. So, and I don't know that we'll get a straight answer. That's the problem. Okay. Ryan and then trust.

Um I would just on the on the the library parcel I think that they're you know if we don't get a straight answer out of them I don't think that the answer is just nothing still. I think that you know you we could do something very simple and just you know scrape the site replant it and now you have a grass you know acre and a half of grass that people can use and you know passively recreate on it. So, I don't know that we would necessarily have to put in a basketball court or pickle, you know, what, you know, we could do something fairly minor, I think, there for for reasonable. Um, uh, the I wanted to come back to Treston's one of Treston's first points about just generally partnering with the school district, not just so on the on the Lake City property, but overall, you know, is there one of what I recall in talking to the school district a while back was that um, you know, they have different insurance requirements than we do for things that happen on their playgrounds versus things that happen in our parks and that's why, you know, their their schools are kind of closed to the public after hours because they're liable for things differently than if it's a city park. And so I would want us to, if it's possible, I don't know if other school districts and cities or communities do it, but explore some sort of a, you know, um, ILA, you know, whatever, something that where, okay, we can, you know, be the operator of the playground after hours and it's not like they're they're not liable for stuff because if we can if we have some sort immunity with parks and people getting hurt on parks and the school districts don't then I don't I don't I don't blame them for not wanting to keep it open if it's going to you know someone breaks their leg on a monkey bar and now they're getting sued because they you know had

someone out there at 4:00 you know after school but it would also be a huge benefit to the community there's you know what 30 40 I I don't know how many facilities they have around the city they've got a ton you know and they're all around the city because kids and stuff for all around the city, right? So, that would open up a huge amount of just recreational space if we could come up with some sort of partnership with the the school district um to be able to let folks in to the to the playgrounds after hours. So, that would be something I'd certainly work be worthwhile exploring.

Trusted. Thank you for that, Ryan. Uh taking just a step back uh from a bigger picture, I think it's looking at public public partnerships, right? Whether it's the library district, whether it's the school district, whether it's Pierce County for Cel Lake Park, whether there's other Pierce County properties, uh, and Lakewood Water District has properties that they've said they'd be willing to give us and or let us develop recreational space on. I think looking at that whole picture, as Ryan said, they're spread all across the city. So, that gives an equitable opportunity for folks that may be underserved. Um, Mike. Nope. Okay. Uh, anything else on this? I want to now kind of come over to We kind of switched, but I want to go back to Lake City property and school district because you kind of I'm not sure you got everything out that you wanted to talk about. We didn't get much of a discussion on it. So, quick intro again or or and then discussion with your colleagues.

I'll give a quick intro again. So, um yeah, the site itself, um you know, when we when we think about how much it costs to do something like the Spring Brook Park, you have to purchase property. Then you have to go through all these other thing. You know, there's environmental constraints to a lot of properties. We're doing, you know, waterfront properties and there's lots of environmental constraints. The Lake City property is literally flat as a pancake. There's the school district owns it. Um there's a couple of trees. I don't think there, you know, maybe I don't think there's Gary Oaks. There might be some on the other side, but I mean there's it's flat. It's just a field. There's, you know, talk about a a blank canvas that you can do what you want with. I mean, that's it, right? Um and it's right in the heart of an underserved neighborhood that that there's no places for kids to go play. Um, we have American Lake Park that's right down the street, but that's really not really a park that, you know, can serve people all throughout the year and it's really just a waterfront park. There's no sports fields, there's no, you know, sports courts and things like that there. So, um, I I think that that would just unleash a huge amount of recreational opportunities for folks in that area. And it'd be, you know, money well spent partnering with the school district if we can. conversation, Preston, and then Alan.

Yeah, I think if we can make it work, it's a huge opportunity, right? So, Lake City Elementary was on that site. Uh, and I believe that that building has been torn down and now there's uh basketball courts still there that kids use all the time uh in that covered space. Uh, and it is it's value that property from the county's assessment is about $4 million. Uh, and I think that it's worth every bit of that. So, I think the opportunity to have a shared space with the school district if we can get into some sort of a long-term lease uh to then make it accessible for everyone is a huge option.

Okay, Ella. And then Mike. Yeah, I'm just going to continue to pile on and agree with that too because I I I h I I have heard from residents in in the area that number one are just tired of looking at the property, not do anything and not be anything. Um, number two, the some of the kids that like to use the skate park in Tikum um miss that skate park and have asked me, you know, you're not Hey, nobody's doing anything with the covered shelter. That would be really great for for a skate park, especially because it rains here and you can't that the current skate park even on at Kowanas is uncovered. And so then when folks wonder like, "Oh, well that skatepark looks dumpy and nobody uses it." Well, if we don't if we could cover our skatep parks, we would get better use out of them. The other thing is there's also mobile skate park mobile skate devices. You can create mobile skate parks. So you could do temporary stuff where it doesn't have to be um or where it could be a a multi-functional covered space for active active things. Um, I just I think too that like Ryan mentioned too, I mean, American Lake Park has its um advantages for boers and swimmers, but for non-boers and swimmers and and just families that want to be um in a in a safe and active space to you, you know, of different abilities. um this is a this is a space that we should we should do something with and not just be letting it sit stagnant for another few years. And I think that if we could successfully um pull partner, you know, get partnership with the school district, then perhaps that lays a template for

partnership with the rest of the school district on some of the other facilities that we really do need partnership with them on. Okay, Mike. and then I want to see if I hear some sort of consensus in the conversation.

I I agree that the Lake City School District property uh has a lot of potential for recreational use if we can in fact come to an agreement with them. Um, and like I said, one of the issues to resolve is is is is is liability on any infrastructure that we have and and whether it's for the entire parcel or most of it being able to to go and do that. Um the the the other thing about that piece of property given where it is is I would like to negotiate with as a part of that lease that during the period of the lease we would resone it to open space u and recreation and the the reason that I because right now I believe it's it's it's it's public institutional but to be able to go through and do that but I I I would definitely not like to see 20 years ago the city, the school district come to an idea, well, this is just surplus to it and then it be end up being built with a whole series of $900,000 homes on it because that's who who would pay the best price to them for the property. So any of the lease that we have would give us at least some if they decide to surplus the property, give us uh at least uh a right of first refusal or something in terms of negotiating purchasing it. But I think that getting started on on on a on a lease or or or an easement or whatever, it would be money well spent on our part to to develop it in that area of the city for uh active recreation for people of all ages.

Michael, I think we have a consensus on that that we we'll start to investigate the Let me hold on a second. Ryan, I would agree with that, but I was going to echo that and I don't and I would say that I wouldn't want perfection to be the enemy of good. So, I would keep it simple and not do any sort of reasonzoning. Just try to get a lease and move on. I mean, we we have to have the initial discussions with the school district, right, at at the at the executive level

and to see what their interests would be, what they would allow. they they can be prickly about this depending on who's who's um on the on the board. So, I think right now we have a board that's willing to look at it, but I think those initial discussions need to be made. Then we can get some idea when we do the budget, the planning for that and putting it into the capital plan and various things like that. If we're not purchasing property, you know, that that's probably pretty good. But there's leases to be worked out. There's clearly that. I think we have a consensus to go ahead on it. I don't think we need to

Well, I I think we get into details. This would be a work plan item probably for staff. So, I guess I want to hear from you before we just assume.

Yeah. Um, it'll just be, you know, we're at in the priorities. I'm I'm kind of what I took away from the earlier discussion is kind of hold steady on our parcel on Motor Avenue in terms of letting that play out. So that's not a matter of current review. Um so the Lake City definitely we can have those uh conversations with the school district and further engage to see what is possible. and then we'll know more about potential resources that it would take from a capital component. So we can at least start off with those discussions and see what is feasible from that end.

Okay, cool. Agreement. All right. Um water access and I want to point out we have about 45 or plus minutes to we're going to try to nail three conversations. Go ahead please.

The library. So there's questions on time frame related to that um parcel sent out a document yesterday that I got from the library CEO. It talked about uh the Lakewood site being 10 years out from passage of a bond bond issuance maybe in 28 or bond election maybe in 28 or 29. So just want council to have all the information before we do whatever we do with it. So I I don't know where that leaves us in the discussion, but wanted to clarify since time frames came up as part of the discussion. Okay. Any questions or comments on that?

Does that mean 10 years before they would build anything on that parcel? So it would be in that last phase of their capital plan in terms of where they're prioritized things. That's where their vision initially is in that potential capital plan. Yeah. So I think that's the impression I would take from document.

Yeah. They haven't decided not to use that property and their and their um they haven't decided not to use that property because they're ad hoc group said they wanted it there. The location is incredibly important to a lot of people. I I um and uh can they build on that and various things like that? Then my guess is they would look to sell the property if they weren't able to build on it. And so um I I I I wouldn't put it as a priority above the Lake City property. And and and so let let me just state in my mind, we've got parks projects we're working on. So Edgewater, we've got the street ends. We we're also talking about the H barn. Even though that's a different source of funding then probably the Lake City because it's doable then this falls probably below that or it even falls below fixing up the downtown park. So I I don't

okay you know I I just I would be very cautious in move on moving when we just have this indeterminate amount. And one thing I do have to I'd be remiss if I didn't provide this with council is I mean in the next budget byum you're going to be coming forward there's going to be a request for parks personnel because we're adding stuff but not adding personnel for maintaining those. And so when we talk about Lake City, even the parcel that we have in the downtown has added to that maintenance list of activities, without a doubt, if we come to an MOU, we will have maintenance responsibilities on the Lake City parcel. Same thing with Edgewater Park's going to have additional maintenance. So more than likely, you're going to be facing a budget request for more parks personnel as we come up because we've continued to add things in. So, I just think that has to be a reminder of everyone is there are second order impacts to moving forward with any of these items.

Okay, Mike, and then we'll move to the next item.

Okay, let me just say that the the fact that I brought that matter up had more to do with reconciling what we're not doing with what we put in our our our legislative policy manual. I am okay with with with with saying that we no longer have that that intent even though it's a block away from my house and it's an eyesore. Okay. But but so so I'm I'm not here advocating that we do it or not. But I just say that we should be we should it doing nothing is inconsistent with what we put in in in the policy manual and we should and we we've had it in there for two years. And uh so I I am okay with deciding that that's not a priority we want to pursue, but I would also then look to adjust the Pierce County policy manual so that we're not telling them that we want to do it. Okay, trust.

Yeah, just process check. To me, I think right now we're establishing our sort of wish list for everything and we're not necessarily drawing the water line for what's above and below the budget. So, yes, we can prioritize, but I think really just getting everything on the on the floor first and then we can figure out where that priority is strong. And I assume your budget process is pretty rigorous when it comes to making you prioritize at some point, right? Okay. Water access. Well, I mean, we have a water access plan. Um, and I don't know if there's now oppos opposite. There's always opposition. We're 30 years into a city and we haven't fixed one street end and we've had three um three studies. We actually have a plan to go forward with that and I'm I'm not sure where we're at on on that. I thought we were going forward with it, but it now it seems Is there some doubt around it? I guess that's Do is that why we have it on here? Is are there now are there now members?

You wanted it on there. You wanted it on there, Mike. So, so you're obviously your question is where's it going? Right. I I thought we had a plan and and now it's on the agenda. So, do people want a change in the plan? Are we backing off? Don't know. Let's hear from what's the plan. Mike.

Okay. Well, I'm more at a point of I think we just want to reaffirm what we've decided in the past that we want to do. And that really had uh three three strands. One is uh continue to to develop Edgewater Park according to the master plan that we've done. to the the the the plan and timeline that we that we had is to make a capital improvement at one street end each bienium. Okay. And I think we should continue to do that. And thirdly, to encourage either through volunteer programs or or otherwise um providing some very passive access to water where where it's possible at street ends, but without doing major capital improvements to do that. And I think we're on track to do that with the with with with with allowing some uh some volunteers to take access to keep street ends open to the public to be able to to do that for a limited range of of of recreational activities. And so on on on water access, I think um we discussed it two years ago and and we sort of came up with this, but I I think that that our plan is to stay the course with the plans we've already made.

Uh Treston, you also brought it up, so I thought I'd Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, this is a definitely been a critical priority for me in joining council and being on council because I hear about it all the time. So, we've got five major lakes in Lakewood, right? Wah Lake is accessible to everybody. It's the middle of For Silicon Park. Uh Lake Louise uh is relatively accessible. There's a place for people to launch boats. Uh non-motorized craft. It's not huge, but you can get down there. and I've I've gone down there as a kid and fished Lake Louise. Um, Stilum Lake, uh, we've got Edgewater Park we're bringing forward. Uh, and there's access where the bridge is, so people can get in there as well. Um, American Lake obviously has good access from, uh, American Lake Park and Harry Todd Park and, uh, the the federal boat launch. Uh, but Gravity Lake is tremendously underrepresented when it comes to public access. Uh, and it is a lake that is owned by all of us, not just the residents of Lakewood, but everybody in the state of Washington. Uh, and I think to to Mike's point, we have a plan where we are every bianium developing one street end. That takes a long time to get to where we need to be. And I don't know that it's appropriate for us to have to wait 26 years to get done with this project. Um, because there's 13 of them. Uh so to me I definitely want to pursue the limited development access ability of you know putting a trail in or a non non-large capital investment to move forward um so that we can accelerate that process. Uh beyond that uh there I I see that there is a a parcel for sale on Bradley Lake right now um that is adjacent to one of the street ends. Uh it's, you know, listed at $2.1 million. So it's maybe outside of the scope of what we can afford as a as a city and as a council.

Uh but we lost on the last opportunity we had to buy a piece of property on Grley Lake to provide access to people. Um this may be a chance to to look at that opportunity again. Um yeah, that's okay. Thank you.

Any other conversation on Ellen? Yeah, Council Member Moricella uh eloquently said it uh better than I could, but I'm not opposed to uh Mike, how you've laid it out. Edgewater Park capital improvements one street at a time and then using the volunteer program to keep it clean. That seems all reasonable and um achievable. My the the only point that I've been trying to bring forward is that it's it it's the policy. It's the it's the policy around access and it's the um actions that we take and the policy it's the actions that we take following how we adhere to um different philosophies and policy when we seek to make capital improvements at one straight end at a time. when we are in the process of trying to make a capital improvement, we're going to run into um we're going to run into issues of how to deal with getting encroachments off of the street ends. And so it's a philos it's a it's a it's a policy level and I'm not it's a policy level of maintaining and agreeing that okay we we seek to um we seek to hold public access as the priority and as our highest level of of that of access. So that there are you know either if there's an encroachment we either move to get it off and when when it's not feasible to get it off then we follow a process to do that. In doing so, when we follow that process, we currently right now, we're taking the process of vacating it as the first as the first means of action to

deal with to to clean it up and get it off of our hands and clean it and and it goes away and it's and it's neat and tidy. It's neater and tidier for staff to have to deal with because it's not our problem anymore. But in doing that, what we're doing is we're giving the advantage away of the city maning and and preserving and owning our right, the public's right to public access. And so all I have tried to bring to in these discussions is an alternative philosophy to look at that and that is dealing with encroachments by issuing revocable permits for them to be there because I realize that not every encroachment is going to be easy or possible to remove and so that's fine but just but just vacating it in a way is kind of in a form look it has gives the appearance of giving it away and and that's that's the that's the sentiment that caused I think so much outcry of what of what we heard. So that's all I'm I'm not proposing let's slow down the plan, let's change anything. I'm just ask and I'm well I guess what I'm really asking is I'm also asking for for city manager and staff to bring us that information alongside the process that you're proposing um of of vacating and we haven't heard that yet. So maybe that will so maybe that will come but that's that's all that that's all that's encapsulated in my settlements.

Doug. Yeah. Um so we brought forward a draft option for discussion by the policy makers. That's from the very beginning and at all our meetings we said that is not tied to this. This is for council to decide. At the last meeting it was requested we come back with uh the framework and the permitting component. So that information is coming back about how that would look. So I'm not sure if you're looking for more than that. No, I'm I'm I'm looking for us to have that discussion on with that information brought to us. That's all.

Okay. Any other discussion on this?

Okay. Let's move to HB Barn. Okay, I will start that. One second here. So, I will uh I I'll start with we had a um little ad hoc committee that with some some of the parks board folks, our city city staff um myself, Ellen and and Mike um as part of that and had a meeting with those folks and and the and the uh partners for parks group as well to kind of talk about what what are some key items that are needed to move forward uh to a 60% design and what are the priorities and and things like that because the I think as a generally as a council the $14 million um price tag was a was kind of a a bit uh took us by surprise. Um, and so really looking to scale that back a bit into something that I think that the the the two kind of at least where I feel um I want the project to happen, right? So I want something that's that's maybe realistic and and reasonable because I do want the project to happen. And I think that that's a little bit of a shift of okay well we just wanted to do the whole project and you know they came up with this cost estimate that was 14,200,000 and it basically the the funding potentials you know with federal grant three and a half million in federal

grants and a million from the heritage thing and you know four million from our ELTAC and all you know and the three and a half million from the parks. It got us up to like two million bucks or a little over two million shy of the total project cost at that time. And so I'm like, okay, you know, that's all of our LTAC plus, you know, multiple millions out of the general fund or some other some other avenue. So it's it's just this really big, you know, price tag. And really it wasn't I think at least we were sitting there like we're not quite sure you know there was discussion about this being the community center but it's not really in an area that everyone else here has identified as like really being the community center. Um so what does this project really look like and what what's the need for it? Um, so without being long- winded, what we uh had kind of came to the agreement of myself, Mike, and and Ellen, um, was, okay, here's some key project constraints. And one of the project constraints would be that the project could be a rebuild as long as rather than restoration, it was always kind of, oh, we're going to restore this like, well, no, we can rebuild it, but it needs to provide the visual character and identity of the H barn. That has to be maintained. It has to look and feel like the bar H barn. The silos need to be preserved. It needs to be like, oh yeah, that's the H barn, right? But it could be a rebuild. Um, and then the other element of it was that well this isn't something that we really want to spend a bunch of other money from the city on and really um the total investment would be not to exceed 4 million from the ELTAC funding plus debt services on the bond. That's correct. So that was kind of the the

general agreement there um from the three of us. And then I had laid out and I sent these over to the city manager just today. So, um, but I I want to uh to have I the goal is to have them send them out to you guys to everyone else so we can kind of have this discussion at one of our next meetings. Um, but really the it it identified the design priorities um and level of importance and the the first one was to stay staying within the the $4 million ELTAC budget. The second one was maintaining the look and identity of the H barn. The third is the south side of the H barn to kind of remain this open or unconditioned kind of flex space that people can use passively throughout the year that um you know you're a passer buyer and you're looking for a place for some shelter to take a break that that that area could serve as that. um it's right off the trail that connects to the lake there and so you could kind of funnel folks in and out and and kind of get them on. So um the north side would then be focused as the conditioned or enclosed space that could include restrooms um provide you know limited uh number of flexible rooms that can support some small programs or community use or rentals or whatever. Um and then that the the spaces on that side should be kind of simple, efficient, multifunctional rather than like a highly specialized space. Um and then to to also focus on simple infrastructure for events, you know, power, lighting, basic support um for small gatherings without like a full buildout um of a a warming kitchen and all these other kind of elements to it that seemed like those were um when they did the breakdown for the cost, it was that, you know, the power added, you know, 7% and this added 4% and this added, you know, 6% 8%. all these percentages add up to like 25% of a $14 million project. It's like, okay,

well, that's a significant amount of millions that are, you know, um adding up here. So, um and then the the fifth element here is um activation without overbuilding. And so, the design should support the daily regular use by park visitors and not just reserved events. So, we wanted to balance that, you know, this is to be used by everyone in the park on a daily basis and not heavily focused on just events, but be able to provide events on the north side or um some uh recreational uh um things of that nature. So, um and then the last element there was integration with the park and the parking lot. So trying to get circulation into and out of the H barn and connect it with the parking lot there or some other kind of site improvements around the facility to make sure that people can be kind of coming in and it feels like it's connected to that corner of the park there. So not that it's standing off as its own thing. So those are kind of the elements the six um items of you know in importance that we identified and um as right now the next steps would be um progressing you know sending that to the city staff with uh our unified um or at least uh consensus um to move forward to 60%. And just keeping that we're prioritizing the simplicity, flexibility and the cost control in this. So,

okay. Discussion Ellen. Yeah.

Yeah. I I think um uh if Doug can if if the presentation and the if the email that Ryan sent can get sent to the rest of council, the present the there's an attachment of the presentation that we looked at with the H barn. And I think everyone should take a look at that. Um, I think what's important is is that, you know, really we're trying to manage the costs within what Partners for Parks has raised plus what we've received from our current state earmark plus the 4 million uh, LTAC budget and then the federal earmark and the heritage grant. I mean, those are kind of unknown, but it sounds like the Heritage Grant is tracking well, but but because they're unknown, you know, it's going to it's going to it's going to come to either securing those funds that's going to be able to get the Partners for Parks to the vision that they want, but if we can't s sec secure those funds, they're going to have to work within the already secured funding. So,

okay, ready? Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to my fellow council members for serving on the ad hoc committee. I think it's an incredible plan. I really like it. I think you were able to convey our ideas very concisely and very clear. So, thank you for the step by step and laying that out and yeah, I'd love to see the email, too. So, thanks. Paul,

what she said, thank you for really I I appreciate the points, right? I I think we all have agreed all along on 14 million was just too much. I mean, it just the ELTAC only brings in a little over a million a year. We've got a lot of other needs and uses for that ELTAC. It's an important use. this is something we agree on preservation, but I I really do appreciate um and and we'll see when we when we put our federal agenda together how we can do on that barn. And I don't know anything about the historical thing, but I I think this is something we can all work with. I I mean that so we're not saying that the total dollar cost can't be more than seven million, but that other money has to come from from somewhere else probably.

Okay. Uh, any other conversation on this, Doug? I just And so I sent that out. I don't know how long it'll take to land in people's boxes. So when you say next up, do the are you looking for this to go back to a council work session or it ends here with guidance? Are you looking to have another meeting with partners for parks?

No, I I think that um consensus and you know, if people if if we have consensus here, great. if if people need to take a minute to read the and look at the pres presentation and stuff that's fine too and we can give consensus at one of our next meetings that works too. So um but that the the goal really from us was to come up with something that um if funding doesn't go overly well that we still have a project that we can move forward, right? and and at and what was kind of ran out there is that well even if things go well we still need a bunch more money. So we wanted to kind of scale it back and say okay let's do this and let's start here at at somewhere that you know is a little bit cheaper of an option and if if funding goes really great then we can have some different discussions that hey we've got extra money that we can add into this and do some of these other things here but at least we're going to do this right. So that was the goal there.

Okay. Any other discussion, Mike? Yes. I I believe that our consensus is to to provide not so much go back and have another major discussion with with partners for parks and that but to use this as the guidance that we're providing to the architect who is going to move forward with the 60% design and to and to and to have this guide their 60% design work. Okay. Any other discussion? Present.

Thank you. Uh really no notes, just the thanks to the ad hoc committee. I think you guys did a great job pulling this together. Uh and I'm I'm on board with it as Ryan presented. So

cool. Okay. All right. So we I think we'll move to the next topic. Okay. Uh sub area plans. I think Mike, I think in our meeting you might have raised the sub area plans for discussion. Uh I think but I'm not sure what you had in mind there. Well, I just say that in our discussion when I referred to looking at doing something the subaria plan, I was primarily referring to that needing to take a look at the design constraints in the colonial district within the plan and we've kind of covered that. Okay. Anyone else on Yes, Treston.

If we're moving on, I just had one go back because I had a question on the water access conversation. Uh before we do that, is there any other comments on sub area plans? Yes. Right. Uh so one thing I mentioned was that there is a parcel for sale on Grley Lake for $2 million. It's 2/3 of an acre. Uh it's adjacent to one of our uh street ends. Um wanted to pull our council to see if there was any interest in pursuing that con conversation. Ryan. Um I I do not uh have any interest in that. So you're not interested at this juncture? No. Not

other comments or thoughts, Paul?

So I've asked Oh, I I've asked uh Thank you. I've asked um our staff to look at um I don't know if this would be el this would be eligible under conservation futures or not. I've also asked our staff to look at two parcels on the lower part of Chambers Creek. that are available. Um, so it it should probably be part of that discussion. I mean, and and our new parks director is very familiar with how the whole conservation future singing works with the county. Uh, but there is an opportunity fund in between the I mean, I don't think they do another call for uh bids until next year. Um, but we might be able to do something under the opportunity fund. So, I'm I'm all for staff adding that to the list of things that I've already asked them to do on looking at con at least having discussions with the county about conservation futures. They do score these, right? And there is a scoring criteria and so I I think that actually one of the projects on Chambers Creek would actually score very well, but you also need a willing seller. Okay.

So, Ellen, Mike, and then Doug, did you want in? Okay, cool. I just wanted to say so Groudly Lake is the only lake that does not have emergency public access, emergency access. So, so our PD, we own real assets for patrolling the lakes. We own the ski patrols, but we can't even use them on that lake to patrol the lake for public safety. And so whatever we am I am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am I interested in um well I don't want to answer that question that way, but I guess what I am interested in is ensuring that we get some some emergency access at least for the for our to be able to get onto the lake safely.

So for clarification, is this a this a public lake? Publicly owned lake. Okay.

Well, you know, I'm um on any of the lakes, I'm interested in pursuing the potential to be able to acquire property because that's the limiting um limiting factor that we have. um that uh um and that would include looking into what it would cost and and what source of funding would we have to acquire a property that's for sale. you know, within the past couple of years, we have done that on another property that was for sale on Graly Lake and actually were thought we were going to be the successful uh bidder and then uh we were um outbid by the fact that a collection of residents on that lake raised the money to buy the property that we were going to buy for considerably more than than we were able to offer, you know. So, that's the thing. Um, and I don't know that this particular property that's for sale is actually one of those that has a very steep u approach to to the lake. So, I don't know that it So, while it while it would be available for personal access, I don't know that it's actually going to actually be a a boat launch access uh attribute given the topography of where it is. But I'm I'm I'm in favor of exploring Chambers Creek just like we're exploring trying to get the on American Lake. We're trying to explore getting the boat

launched to do that. and with this and of uh uh and and of looking to what see what sort of fund we can do that. So I wouldn't categorically say that we're not interested in almost any property on one of our bodies of water. Um but uh it starts by looking at really what would be the cost and and and and how would we fund it because I don't think we can totally fund a purchase like that out of a general fund. Preston, uh, in and then Doug,

thank you. In response to Mike, uh, there is it's a relatively flat parcel with a crisscross pathway down to the water that already exists. There's a a home on the property about 4,000 ft. Okay. So, it looked like it was relatively flat, but at a considerable elevation above the level of the lake. Uh, yes. And that's why there's that switchbacks from there down an established path. Okay, Doug.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up in terms of Yeah, definitely happy to look at the conservation futures for any parcels. There are components with that in terms of, you know, a willing seller for that activity and it does open it up into the next bianium as the mayor had said. So, in terms of this partial, don't necessarily know if they're going to have a seller that's willing to wait. So, I guess the question for here is, do we move forward outside of conservation futures in an acquisition of property? I have a quick question just on the generic question of of does the city have a responsibility uh guess your city attorney's gone but um for public access for public safety to public bodies of water within your jurisdiction. I I I I don't I mean it's a genuine question because

well it'd have to have a legal opinion put forth. Um the nature of what it occurred is what the city inherited at incorporation was a county buildout. Normally on a municipal buildout, you'll have dedicated parkland with any subdivision. So wouldn't be an issue. Here we're having limited components. Um you know ultimately any liability is determined by the courts if there's not a component. But the argument against that is is in at the point of incorporation if you don't have public access or even emergency access that becomes a nature now goes along the lines then if you want to you could make that argument by condemning property but that's then the same discussion that we're almost essentially at

I didn't know I just yeah uh so so my thoughts on this is I appreciate the conservation futures opportunity to to go forward. I I do worry that it is a property that is currently for sale and the timeline may not match with that. I'm also cognizant that as a city we are in challenging financial times. Uh and I don't know necessarily that we would have the funding to pursue something like this, but I think it is worth at least understanding the possibilities and what city staff thinks on it.

Ryan So, this falls like down at the bottom of my list on priorities in general, you know, that we're talking about today and stuff. I think that we have a lot of waterfront property already that we're not doing anything with or that we're kind of in the beginning phases or we're we're now getting to a point where we're doing some work or potentially doing some work at Edgewater and things like that. So, um, and and I think that we've we've spent a lot of time and effort and money improving our waterfront over the past handful of years. We've done, you know, American Lake, um, all these other areas, and now we're starting to get into these, you know, kind of street end projects and stuff. So, um, personally, I, um, you know, would rather get into, uh, areas that serve larger volumes of of of parkgoers, like a lake city, like a downtown park, those kinds of things, because I think that we've spent a lot of time and effort over the past couple of years kind of doing improvements or doing planning and stuff on the lakes already. And so I'm not interested in really adding more uh real estate to the

portfolio to the yeah to the portfolio that we aren't going to be, you know, improving for a while potentially. So I I I want to focus on what we do have and try to do some other work in areas where um we're meeting underserved communities and neighborhoods or um areas that don't have any parks already. um not trying to just to get you know a smaller access to a lake I guess at this point. So okay Ella

and I guess so yeah I I I'm with trusting too on recognizing that and Ryan too like recognizing that the cost of you know we have a lot on our plate. we are trying to get through a a tight um upcoming budget season, etc., etc. But could we do we also have the ability to look at perhaps exploring easement rights on the property on the adjacent property? What kind of rights? Like a prescriptive easement or just easement use. Oh, for safety or something or

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Conversation dressing. Just one last note. Um, this specific piece of property is about a mile from the nearest park. Other conversation or thoughts on this? Ellen, just to clarify, my my question was probably more for staff, but which it doesn't need to be answered at this time, but just getting some understanding on if we have options as far as easement use, prescription.

So, well, only if one exists. I mean, if if it's private property and so we check the records to see if there's any type of easement um you know, prescriptive easement is only something that you've been already using for x amount of time to try and make that declaration. You know, we can ask a question in terms of I know that there's at least one street end on Grand Lake somewhere. I don't know if that has access for emergency access or not in terms of where it's at. Uh so then you know you'd have some limitations. We can try and answer the question about responsibility components, but to gain access where you don't, you'd have to acquire it through the eminent domain process or a willing seller.

Yeah. And I'm just and and I'm trying to troubleshoot a way without being a I'm not a title specialist, but if if there's a way to either if it's a matter of like sending a letter to either the title company or the property owner just in at least to notify them, hey, they're that this property is adjacent to to a public right of way that may or may not have encroachments on it. So perhaps it would be wise of you property owner to ensure that your title is free and clear of that or you know have some mechanism to deal with it. I'm not sure if that's direction council wants. You know, that's what the title company is supposed to do in terms of their on any cell is identify encroachments or encroach, you know, those border lines and those easement type things.

Good discussion, Philip. So, I'm wondering, council member Tabo, would it be helpful if you had staff look at what it might cost to acquire an easement on the property that's for sale? Because obviously any property owner can sell an easement. Is that what you're asking? They they could look at that. I was trying to I I was trying to propose a solution so that it so that at leer is aware that they may or may not have encroachments which then, you know, kicks off a string of of of different legs attached. Okay, Philip.

Yeah. So, as part of the purchase or sale, they're going to get that full title report and it'll have a a report on there identifying easements for encroachments of any kind. Yeah. Okay. Preston. And to that end, uh from the unofficial county GIS survey, which is not a real survey, um there is a structure that is over into the right of way. Um that's an encroachment from this property on the roadside. Yes. Okay. Any other conversation on this? Okay. So, go ahead, Doug. You want to make sure?

Yeah. What I take is no movement on this outside of the conservation futures. Philip, I I heard a couple other things. I mean, I I may be with Mike. First of all, thank you for bringing this to our attention. That's really helpful and important. Um, you know, I heard Mike say that he'll review any parcel that may be of interest to the city and you want to stack it up compared to other priorities. Um, you know, Paul obviously brought conservation futures as a possible way forward, but maybe not the only way. Is that I don't know if that's what I heard. um the property.

Yeah. I mean, for me personally, whenever the city is looking at acquiring a piece, uh I want to make sure that we have a vision for how we're going to use it. I want to make sure that it pencils and I want to make sure it compares well to the other priorities we have. Um I'm hear I personally hearing enough interest to say let's learn more, but I'll leave that to you. Well, I want to check that uh because that will then translate into some something on your end. So, uh let's let's let's push this a little bit more. Not not but what is it the council would like to have happen here specifically? I don't know what learn more translates into and what does council want back related to this parcel?

Ryan, I would request no action at this time. Paul, I I think what I hear is on all three parcels mentioned, the city needs to reach out to the seller to reach out to the seller to the seller and there's an interest in putting it into

conservation futures or something like that. Okay. At least in the two parcels that I'm talking about on on Chambers Creek. That's what I would like. And I think we also eventually you have to reach out to the owner. So, I see two heads nodding, but you'll need more than that. Three on the chambers. Yeah. What's looking for direction?

I'm I'm saying reaching out and expressing interest in the property and finding out what goes on. You know, historically, properties on Gravity Lake sell slowly. they stay on the market for quite a while because the original asking price is generally not within the range of a significant number of folks. So there's time to both evaluate the property, talk with that, also evaluate whether it's a conservation futures um doable fits within within their piece of things to be able to go and do that. I am less concerned about the public safety access because I'm not sure about the police department, but I know that the fire department has agreements with a couple property owners on Gravity Lake that if they need to trail in their boat and and and do something in response to a drowning that that they are available to do that. It isn't that they have to figure it out when something happens. They have a plan.

Okay. So, uh, Dresen.

Yeah. So, uh, Mike is spot on. Uh, at the north end of Grley Lake, there are property owners who have given permission for the fire department to launch their their rescue boats. Um, it's not city involved, but it's an agreement that I'm assuming is documented somewhere between those property owners and West Pierce Fire. Uh so personally this specific location is not of any benefit to me because I also live on this street that has that street end and if it gets developed conceivably there's going to be a ton more traffic and people parking in front of my house and all the other concerns that people have had. So, um, me bringing this forward, uh, is, I feel, in the best interest of the city at the expense of myself. Um, so I just want to make it clear that I I wouldn't benefit from this at all. Uh in regards to how often property is available on Grley Lake and how long it sits on the market, uh when we bought our house, uh we were talking to my neighbor who's been a resident of Lakewood uh for a very long time and he talked about property on the lake and how you get property on the lake and you either marry into it or you inherit it is what he said. Um and really that's you don't see much turnover. Um, I think you see properties for sale every few years you'll see something that comes up for sale and as Mike said, yeah, they they stay on the market for a while because there's likely not a lot of buyers at the $2 million range in Lakewood.

Okay. Um, but that with that said, uh, I would be interested in the city understanding what the feasibility and ability to fund a purchase like this would be, whether through conservation futures or other methods. Okay. Is that the direction of the council then? Patty, thank you.

I was I I I agree with council member Brandstead that we should always take a look at any sort of property that is out there and not cross things off of a list. So I think that that yes is a solid point. I am definitely supportive of the Chambers Creek and looking at the conservation piece. I agree with you that I think we should definitely look at this piece of property. It's something that comes up. It's something that we hear from the community. I don't know how realistic it is. So, I do think about that and I think about um resources that we have on the staff side of having them look at things that we know we're most likely not going to be able to do much with at all. So I want our c my fellow council members to be cognizant of that too of our asks that we're putting forward and our priorities that we're putting forward that it always does require staff time and resources and then we have to repri prioritize. So I love the whole sentiment and idea that we keep our eyes open for property and um spaces around the city. I 100% that I just don't want to get stopped about moving forward and progress and you know developing Yeah. and getting in our own way. And I think that I don't want to even have the tendency to be that way or even start to lean that way. So that is why I put that out to my fellow council members. I love all these ideas. I think they're great. We just need to really focus and figure out all these grand things that we want to do and how we can do it and what is most reasonable and the best use of resources. So I am for it for the conservation portion of it and uh learning more.

Okay. So I hear consensus on the conservation portion and that I'm trying something here the Chambers Creek piece. Not sure. I hear you and cry from the total council on the on the lake piece. So if I'm missing that then correct us. I would I I support the looking at getting more information on the lake piece even if I'm in the minority and that's fine.

Okay. Um, I also would like to hear from Heidi when we can of getting an answer back on the question that you posed about do we have an obligation to provide emergency access on public water bodies and and that doesn't have to be a response that we get back today but just I think that's a good question to ask to get due diligence

that require might require look okay I'm trying to help you in terms of direction So, in terms of Chambers Creek, Mike, I'm I'm pulling the council and and the and and the lake and there's there's Okay, so Chambers Creek uh Grley Lake looking into that. Huh? I'm just wanting to see if you have a consensus on it because if you do then your manager Okay. A low-level look, whatever that means. Okay. Is there council?

Okay. Yeah, that's I guess that's a question. Are we approaching the owner of the lake property only on the conservation future side if they're willing to go through that process or multiple avenues conservation the I think we should look the all of them from the standpoint of conservation futures because there's available money for that we don't know there are two parcels actually on Chambers Creek one is kind of but budding it. The other parcel is very large and actually in some cases the creek runs it's on both sides of the creek. So high conservation value in a salmon bearing stream. The other piece is much less expensive because it's a much smaller piece. We might might be able to pay for that at a reed or something like that, but I wouldn't wouldn't recommend it, but we possibly could because it's a much lower price. But in both cases, the Grally Lake case and the case of the large parcel, these are millions of dollars, or at least that's the asking price on both of them. Um, and so the only way I see out of this is to fund it is the conservation futures. We pay into it as a city. We've been paying into it for millions of years, ever since the start of this thing. It's a countywide tax. We've only used it like once or twice over in Spring Brook Park as far as I know. Three, four times. I get I'm getting that. We've used it four times. Um, other areas of the county have used it much more intensively. I I think these are that my deal is we'd all So, you have to make that initial discussion with the seller. So, dancing

around, you know, I'm giving direction to staff. Somebody eventually has to talk to the seller. And so I that's or or their realtor I guess through their realtor or something like that because in all those cases we're going to be it's going to take time. It just is. So once in a while you'll find a seller that says, "Hey, yeah, I get it. there's conservation value here and I'm I'm willing to to wait on it to wait on you to give you time and I and I don't know how the legalities of it work but that's that's what we'd be faced with.

Okay, trusted then we we're going to break. All right. Thanks. Uh, I am I am all for understanding the conservation futures direction on this, but I'm also interested in the city spending a limited amount of effort to determine if there are financial avenues to pursue it outright as well. Okay. Does council agree with that? I know Ryan doesn't on one of them. Yeah, I I'm I'm all for the um conservation futures. So, yeah.

Okay. So, I hear consensus on conservation futures, but not on private correct me if I'm wrong. I agree with that, but there's not consensus. So, pardon me. I I agree with Tristan as well, but I don't I think we're in the I think we're the only two. Okay. You want to look at the whole thing? I know one does not. to do. This is not direction. I'll just give where how I'm thinking about this. You know, as I mentioned, for any piece that we purchase, I want to make sure that we have vision for it and that it pencils. I would be very surprised if this pencils uh maybe, but I'd be surprised.

So, the question is, did you are we directing staff to look into this because they need to know. And so yes on conservation futures. I'm not hearing the majority say yes on the other. Okay. Wow. Thank you first of all for working so hard and and drilling down. We knocked off the morning. We're a few minutes late for lunch but it's here. So let's take a break. Thank you.

Michael Michael Pendleton,

whoever that guy is. Um, so hey, thank you again for working really hard. We we went through a lot of of really important topics to you the morning. We have a similar lineup for the afternoon and we'll follow our same process. And the first big discussion uh was identified by several folks in the interviews generally defined as community engagement but it has some subpieces to it. Um I think Alan Patty and Tresen specifically wanted to talk about it probably from different points of view but uh they always converge in this general area. So I would invite one of them or anyone really to start us off on our conversation for the first discussion module of the afternoon. Okay,

sure. I'll go first. Um, yeah. So, I what what was what I wanted to try to talk about in community engagement is the neighborhood programs. Um, we've had success with it. Um, but like I mentioned, there have been some neighborhoods that have had a tough time getting activated, being activated, and um, and so I was hoping that we could maybe take some look at a concentrated effort to help Chris or just that program start to activate these neighborhoods that haven't had um, a reason before. So like for example the Lake View neighborhood um maybe kind of the Dower area and I know we are making there is a Kuster neighborhood association that's trying to get started um but also the Silen Park area and the neighborhoods and resident and residences along South Tacoma way because we've never um you know if we have participation from those areas um that come out we just we we don't we hear from them in sporadic ways. I think that what is nice about the neighborhood associations is that number one they are not HOAs. They are not um they they are more of a broaderbased uh way form format and form for uh parts of the community to to gather to discuss the the things that are important to them like public safety. But it's just those parts of the city where I'd mentioned before that just um haven't had a chance to, you know, to they haven't been asked or whatever. We it's just been hard to coalesce them. And so um at the same time uh the engagement that we do

um we I think have been the city's been very good about kind of we have this like formulaic way of of of programming for Fort Stilicum Park. We have festivals constantly. We have the the we know which we know when we're going to put on Summerfest. We know we're going to put on truck and tractor t trailer truck and tractor day fiesta day familia and so on and so on and and and and the festival at Moav and you know and then we we check our we check our boxes on our list. But I'm just wondering if maybe if it's time where we can mix up maybe some of the engagement activities that we do so that things like, you know, we could continue, we could and we should still continue to do the mayor's coffee house, but if it's things like um walk the block with a council member or um just kind of like or if whatever you want to call it, fireside chats or just sort of like a a a walk like a walk the block with a council member that that we're getting out there and into these neighborhoods or at least offering the opportunity for those for these areas to to come to to be where they're at and come meet with us and hear their concerns. So, I just want to put those ideas out there.

Cool.

So, I'm really excited about this. I I've been thinking about this in all the ways. You and I spent a lot of last year campaigning where we're going door to door and we're getting really direct feedback from folks and now we're not. And that's really uncomfortable because I really like knowing how our community is feeling and there's a certain segment of the community that shows up to events and there's a larger segment of the community that doesn't. So different jurisdictions do different things. I love the idea of like you say lock walk with a council member. Our mayor is certainly doing his part. I like the idea of saying council member is going to be at Applebee's from 5 to 6. Come hang out. Whatever that is. There's so many different ways to do this. I still like doornocking. Call me weird but I like it. So, uh, all the above, I'd be down. I think it should be a council program, something we all agree on and we're excited about. Um, but yes.

Okay. Tristan.

Yeah, I really appreciate this topic, too. Uh, and some of the challenge I see, and Chris is doing a good job, but we have it with our boards and commissions, too, is getting folks engaged for these volunteer type stuff and getting them out of their homes and and getting them excited is is the challenge. And I'm not sure what the solution is other than just continuing to knock on their doors, right, and talk to them. I I really love the idea of council member office hours, right? And rotate businesses uh in each part of our community on a regular basis where you sit down and say, "Hey, I'm going to be here for two hours. Happy to sit down and chat with you uh and just tell me what you care about." Uh and and I think we're we're heading down that path for our residents. I think we also need a parallel path for our businesses, right? So they have a chance to share what's concerning to them because I don't hear from any of the businesses in the city uh about what's important and what's going on and I think that's a a side of the coin that we need to make sure we as well. So, thank you.

Okay, other comments Mike. This is u a topic that has gone on for decades. You you get spurts of input and then you get lengthy periods of of silence or you get input from a from people who are largely dissatisfied with something and you don't get much positive feedback. I think Chris has done a good job. Okay, we we have got uh uh several embryionic neighborhood associations that are new that were not with us two years ago. Um we have a couple of neighborhood associations who were uh are not active but but that were were ancient history. And um I I think the original neighborhood associations established 20ome years ago were um forcefed as public safety u actions and and and their formation was generated by the police department uh almost as a requirement to be able to apply for what were then called weeden seed grants. So the original so so so that things go on but I do think that um community engagement has several levels. Okay. There's the community engagement of the city as a

whole and I think that u we try um that um I think maybe sometimes we're over reliant on social media to to to to do that. Um, but I do think the mayor's coffee houses and and and the fact that many neighborhood associations get more than one of us at is is helpful. um that but there's then then but then then there's a level of of of engagement of the council with the community and there I think we're over reliant on public comment at meetings which are not two-way conversations and often leave things needing clarification on both sides. Um or you end up with uh um yeah public meetings which work which work better because there there is conversation with them and we tend to do them around um planning whether it's for transportation or parks projects or other things to go and do that. Uh and then we we we we use our website. I I think that it's a every time something new comes out on the website, I uh I read it so that I understand what other people in the public are reading. Um, occasionally I find some some inaccuracies or some some some voids in between the lines that can be better addressed and and and generally when brought to their attention staff

make a pretty quick correction on doing that. But in terms of each of us individually in communication agreement, it really is a matter of what are we comfortable with. I think we're all different. I like Philillip and am very much like uh knocking on doors and talking face to face with people and and being able to go and do that. I'm less likely to want to announce I'll be somewhere and anybody who wants to come and talk to do that. Uh but you know, but I and I but I f I found that that that that when there is something that we're considering that's going to affect a particular neighborhood, it's worth my time to go out and knock on some doors and ask people or stop people on the street and ask them to to do that. It helps me. Okay. Um and I hope it then it helps me influence things in a better way that folks do that. So, we each sort of need a personal strategy. We need to, I think, take a look at expanding our ways for us as a council to do things that are are able to be two-way conversations. Um, and I think that the the city needs to be proactive in as many ways as they can to be able to go and do that. Um so it's important topic but I don't know that there's a there there there are magic solutions.

So you covered in that brief span all of you some ground. Patty are you wanting to speak?

I am because I haven't spoken. So, so I I agree with my fellow council members that this is definitely an area that we need to improve on is our engagement um and figuring out what something that I firmly stand behind on is that we need to meet people where they're at. I love the idea of having office hours, but I would hate for them to for to say come to here, come to, you know, chambers or come to our office. I want to find the places where we meet people. So if we're already have an established neighborhood meeting and we have staff on it already, what can we take from there that we could enhance it? So okay, it's a neighborhood meeting, but maybe now we're going to go do at this specific neighborhood meeting. It has to do the council walks. So that would be a different component that is integrated in with that. And I think you're right, Council Member Brandsteader, it's stuff that we have to feel comfortable with. And I think that there's different venues that we could fit into some already established places that we have. It just really needs to be amplified. And that's where I get back to the meeting people where they're at because we do have some already, you know, the mayor's coffee house, all different types of things that are out there. Um, I think that they aren't consistent. So, I think that they need to be consistent and on a regular cadence so people get to know about them. Oh, they're going to have this. I missed this last one, but I know they're going to have another one next month instead of them being more like popups. Like they're very random right now. So something that's planned and scheduled and regular I think would be great. I also think regular promotion of these places that we're getting out and there's a million different ways besides social media, which I think we don't use social media enough, Mr. Brandsteader, so I will disagree with you on that. But there's different places where we

can get this promotion out and we can let people know. But it does have to we have to lean on some expansion of what we do for communications here. We're really far behind on a lot of stuff. And I just think about our website offhand. It's not even under say a granus or a civics plus which are two big entities that have most of the government websites. They offer extra things besides the precautions of audits and we're going to make sure you have all these safety pieces up. But hey, guess what? Now you have a newsletter so you can send out those drive Lakewood alerts that people can sign up for all these newsletters or there's a texting operation here. So there's different ways that I think we could leverage but would take um some guidance from the council of expanding. It's going to take some putting some some resources into expanding our communication efforts here in order to get everything that we're always asking for because right now the status quo with what we have as resources, what we have as technology, I mean these mics are great but in my head I'm like there should be a camera here, a camera here. This mic should be this way. like I see all these things that we're really far behind, but we want to do all these wonderful things for our community and connect with them, but I do think it's going to take some another place where we need to have investment um in order to get what we want. And I just speak from that from my own experience, my day-to-day and what I know it takes to run a successful communications area where the council gets out, your mayor gets out. You know what's happening in your city. You don't hear a lot. You hear like, "Oh yeah, I got my my drive alert. I knew that this road project was happening because I got it a week ago." But it takes investment on

our part with some technology that we don't have. And so when we're saying, well, I wish that the community would get more information on this, well, we don't even have the tools right now to put that out. So I wanted to bring that up as part of this community engagement that I think is broader than, hey, we need to get out there more. I think we as a council really need to look at how we do that, how we grow, and how we would get out in the community more, but it does take resources. So I love all of it. I think there's a lot of really good ideas. I think there's really good potential for us to do a lot of these things and to build on them. So, I just want to encourage my fellow council members to know that it it's a buildout.

Okay, other comments? Brian and Tristan.

I I agree with all the sentiments that we've heard. Um, not to be pessimistic on it. Um because I think there's kind of two different avenues. Um so many of the neighborhood events I've been to or other things you show up and it's like four council members, a parks director, city manager, a police officer, a fire, you know, chief, and like two or three rand, you know, residents, right? And you're like, geez, we've got a whole entourage here. and this whole production for, you know, we're talking to two people here, like, but we filled up the room because there's 12 city staff here. So, I want to be mindful of that and and and that's in some of the areas that are the more wellestablished like neighborhood communities, right? Like, so how do we not have something like that in areas where we're you're struggling to already get folks to come in and meet with you and stuff? And and I think my part of it is staying active in the community and going out and like Philip said and Mr. Brand and my and Brandet are kind of the door knocking and trying out some different local businesses that you haven't tried and taking your kids to a different park and just meeting people in the community. And that I think is a lot more of meeting people where they're at than it is putting on some sort of formal event here. It's us doing our part in going out and trying different things and going to different places and going to different parks and, you know, signing up for kids sports leagues and meeting other families and staying involved in all aspects of the community, not just something that, you know, we've kind of said, "Oh, we're going to do desserts in the driveways or whatever we're going to do is is our way of getting out." It's it's going out and, you know, going trying out a new church one day, you

know, because you're going to go see what this other church is or your friends go to it and and and you just kind of get out that way. So, that's that's I think personally that's that's my preferred alternative is is getting out in different ways like that. Um, and not having something that's so scheduled and, you know, kind of rigorous as putting it something that's been put on by the city. So, Uh I again agree with everything that's being put forward. Uh especially meeting people as I talked about office hours. To me that is going to the corners of the city where you meet people that you haven't interacted with before and it's you know maybe it's a coffee shop, maybe it's a pub, right? Just being available. And I think from the city staff standpoint uh in order to really grow this level of engagement, it's a matter of accessibility, stronger communication and transparency in everything we're doing so that people know what's going on and they have that opportunity. Doesn't take uh following a search with three phone calls and not being able to find the you need. um and having counsel accessible to our residents and making sure that they know how to get a hold of us that I'm not sure that people do.

Okay. Well, and I'll be brief because I spoken on this already. So, you know, I'm hearing Patty express concern um we want to make sure we're meeting with people where they're at and also we need to ramp up our communications. You know, Tristan, I love your idea of being in the businesses, not at least so we can support local businesses. and Ryan, you're concerned about, you know, if I'm gonna if we're going to go do this, we're going to spend that kind of time, then we want people to show up, too. There is a really nice middle ground here. If you have a if you have a partnership with Jersey Mike's in June, you're going to have a city council member there from 3:00 to 5:00 on this day. One, they'll help promote it. Two, uh, folks who go to Jersey Mike may not know that there's going to be a city council member there, but they're going to have interaction that they wouldn't otherwise have. You're promised that there's going to be people in the room. They may or may not stop by, but they see you and that there's value in that and and we don't need any extra necessarily communications for that to work and make sense. There's a way forward to do that.

Okay, Ellen.

Yeah. I what what I like about what I'm hearing about in this conversation is is I think there's room for um comfortability for everyone. I think that it sounds like there's those of us that do feel comfortable being at the doors. I miss the doors, too. I I have no problem um going out and talking with people, but excuse me. that that there is that comfortability among us that that that's actually helpful because for like trying to start um new neighborhood associations like the Kuster Neighborhood Association, I think that's kind of I think that's really kind of the key piece that is needed for that startup is they kind of need some some doorbelling or just flyer distribution physically to get to them to let that neighborhood know. And we could say, "Okay, Doug and and Kelly, could you just go mail about a mail out? Could you do a simple mailing?" We could do that. But I think there is value and um and our our our staff rate is cheaper, so to speak, to have us just go out to the doors and and knock out, you know, 150 doors, 250, whatever it takes among a couple of us just to get the word out. There's nothing wrong with that. And then at the same time there's it sounds like there's comfortability um for others to be at the businesses and do like council office hours at at businesses. I like that idea too. There's two things I want to touch on. Um, and I agree about absolutely leaning into our communications system and if we need to redefine that system, but I think really just robusting it for sure with uh with with resources and I understand that's going to take some

investment. But I think that it is something that we should uh com we should commit ourselves to in some form. But um also transparency with our with our community. So we do well a state of the city is had but it's only had um at a venue that if that you likely have to be invited to go to. And I think that it speaks volumes with our residents if we make our if if we if we make our state of the city transparent and openly available and if that's just having it here at chambers or if that's even just recording it in a video and posting it on the website just so that it doesn't come off like only the business community gets to understand and know and hear the state of the city. I I think that that's an important touch that we should we should consider and that we should try to pull off before the end of the year. And then also um we have a practice of doing the business showcase where we choose a business that is respected and and um because of their longevity in the community and their touch and their outreach in the community. But I think it's also just as fine and should be uh we should consider um using that business showcase to promote some of our our newer businesses that come in the door. I think as a starting up any type of new small business is not easy or cheap for any um for any small business person and any enhanced augmented um support that we can show them by giving them just a small piece of acknowledgement to know hey welcome to the community you are here everybody you know please come you

know you We should, you know, we should be inviting our community to know about some of these some of our new smaller businesses that are popping up. Okay, Paul, then Doug,

thank you. Um, I am going to go I'm going to touch on what Ryan talked about. But I I do have and I've had this concern for a long time about the number of staff members who end up and and actually council members, but that's our our time. And that's as elected officials, it's you're right, the the the ratio of of staff to to uh participants in a lot of these community meetings. And so the other night we had a very good meeting out at in Tikum and they had 11 or 12 people and at one point in time we had at least six people who work for the city of Lakewood in that room. I've been at meetings where we've had more people than participants. Um and and now we've added exponentially with desserts in the driveway um and and the additional members. So, I I I do have that same like this is off hours for most council for for most city staff. Um I don't know from a standpoint of overtime and various things like that, but I think we need to be judicious in the use of staff at these meetings. Um I also find different different groups really want to hear different things. I I I both Lake City that has always worked really well and tilum that seems to be working better. They have their own plan, right? But when we have the North Lakewood Neighborhood Association, they would start the meeting, they would bring in a police officer and they would talk for an hour. The only people they wanted to hear from were the police. That that's it. There were, as far as I could discern, there were no other interests in the group at all about anything else going on in the

city. They they could talk probably all night about crime. So, I just thought, well, this isn't so why do five or six of us have to be here, right? Why why why are we here? And so coordinating those I think as we build out this and then desserts in the driveway coordinating who needs to be there how this and and I I think we need to give that uh ability to the city manager that not you know we don't have to have tons of people at these events right we need to understand what's going on in the event what do you want do what do you want us talk to but I I do have the concern ern that now that we basically have one or two of these a week now starting really now because we'll start doing desserts in the driveway. I mean, last year we had competing events on the same nights um you know and and one of the um I think it was the Tilican people were really mad because we were at an event for the Korean delegation right and they ripped into then Mayor Whan I mean the guy was really steamed and it's like well we're double scheduling we're double booking things and so I I think we really are trying and I'm not fighting here for the status quo because we're in the expans expansion mode of these. We just need to make sure that these are actually worthwhile and and as as we're willing to expand these things and pushing to expand these things, we need to know that they're effective. So, if two people, three people are showing up, that's not effective and we need to tell the group this isn't this isn't a good use of anybody's time. It's clearly doesn't this this mode doesn't work for you. So, we need to be willing to to to push back on some of this stuff. Okay, Doug.

Yeah, just a couple of responses to some of the things um brought up. One, um I'd encourage the council to be able to acknowledge the initiatives you've taken in trying to enhance neighborhood association participation and desserts in the driveway. Um, I actually called interim manager back in Montana said, "Hey, here's something that you may want to consider that honestly is a great idea that had never seen done before at the at the level that's being done here. The things with the desserts in the driveway. Same thing to neighborhood associations. Remember, those are independent entities that we've established a coordinator for to try and get out to help facilitate it. So universal discussion here about how do we have more engagement in the community, but don't sell yourself short on the on the efforts you've taken and to be out there and to try and and get that. So I just say that to begin with some of the other components. Uh appreciate council members comments on some of the technology components. You know, we are looking at Civics Plus upgrade in terms of the website. um underneath the covers probably going to have a request for more staff for communications. Um there are some things that we can do to enhance and I say this going by the service level I feel is expected in terms of some of these things that are just going to require more staff people. You know look at any things on street projects especially with the amount of work coming forward in the next five years with street projects. You know, if we had someone dedicated in streets as outreach, you know, you're talking about potentially a weekly meeting for every street project in town for that neighborhood. Uh email lists that are going out. So when something changes, be it weather, be it something else, that alters that plan, you have someone dedicated to do that and trying to shoehorn other personnel

that maybe a project engineer and oh wait, wait, I need to go contact this. But if you have a dedicated outreach coordinator, I think it's a good opportunity to have a lot higher level of service. And from the feedback I get, I think that level of service is being asked for. And but it does take resources to to match it. And honestly, I'd love to put that together because despite that it may seem that I get energized by public complaints or complaints on social media, those are like the, you know, thousand razor blades I've written, too. I get them, don't like them, and I do know more effort into those would reduce them. But I I I I can't sugarcoat it. sometimes going to take resources and there's avenues within there to expand communications, but it probably is going to take more people because right now they're juggling schedules on how to cover the youth academy today and still meet other things throughout the week in in in those components. So I say just some components to think on state of the city I actually want to talk about at a broader thing because um usually I was kind of surprised that that was an expectation of city manager for that. Not that I don't give a state of the city every time I go out and speak, but I've never had that of an expectation as a appointed official to be the focal point of a state of the city. So that's just a future discussion at a later time. Try and give those really neighborhood associations. I'm talking about those things, those same components, but you know, a formalized one, maybe an avenue that we're all participating in on an event. I don't know. It's just something to look at because I've been watching other jurisdictions around the subject. How are they approaching it versus I say in the past elected officials have tenally kind of thought why is the city manager out there doing something of that nature? Now I'm more than happy to

expand on those but just different components.

Other thoughts and conversation? Right. I I liked Philip's comment about um expanding it to the businesses and that way, you know, I I feel like the only kind of neighborhood association that we're really getting involved with is the downtown neighborhood association where you can have a chance of hearing from some businesses potentially there. Um, I like the idea of of, hey, you know, you're going to be at Jersey Mike's, you know, on this day and they and they'll promote it and maybe the owner drops in because he knows that or she knows that, you know, a council member is going to be there and you can at least talk to one business owner and maybe a handful of people and and that's a productive use of time, right? Um, you also might get, you know, some more folks going to Jersey Mike's that day or wherever, you know, wherever the meeting is at. Um, so I I like that idea and I think that uh we do a fair a fairly good job of promoting new business. We do ribbon cutings and things like that. So I I think that we are trying to recognize new businesses and help them get on their feet as well as established um you know the showcase businesses. So, um there's always more that we can do there, but um I've had good experiences so far with with going to the ribbon cutings and and chatting with people there. Um those are usually pretty successful events. There's usually, you know, 20 plus people at these uh ribbon cutings and so um they've been pretty good so far in my experience. Anyway,

Bill, yeah, just very quickly, I think it's incredible that we're supporting businesses for the ribbon cutting. Anyone who's run a business knows that the first six months are the the easier part. It's after that when you're trying to get attention in customers and keep people interested especially in food. So to the extent that we can support that that'd be great. Okay. other points that Mike

well around this topic and again I think we have been putting a lot of effort into it and much of it successful but if we look for an area that we might change I would contrast how we deal with neighborhood associations and how we deal with our advisory committees and each of our advisor advisory committees. We have gone around the table and there is there is one of us that is the focus to be able to engage with them and get feedback and bring it back or take it to them from us. Whereas with neighborhood associations and some other groups, we rotate that. And so that that that group will see see one of us and then they'll see that same person five months later or so of being able to go and do that. And um so so we we could consider whether we wanted to make amongst the seven eight neighborhood associations designate one of us as as as kind of the focal point to it. And um I think that one reason why we've not done it is that we'd all like to touch base and so we do that. But I don't know that once every five months is is and I don't know that we have asked the neighborhood associations would you like to have a dedicated council liaison

come to your meetings although others might to do that. Uh but I don't think we've asked them whether what what what they would prefer or if they're just living with the process that we that we've come up with. I'd like to look at our schedule. Yeah,

quick follow up on on Mike's comment there about the neighborhood associations and assigning a liaison. I think we could potentially do both, right? Where you have someone who is their go-to person there for all the meetings and then we rotate everyone else around them. So essentially, you're going to two of them a month. one of them is your normal recurring one and the other one you rotate the other ones for each member of the council.

So in so in this discussion you've covered a wide range of things and from proactive to reactive to programmatic to technology and and and this is a big area and we gave it 30 minutes. I think the value in this discussion probably would be two things. One so for Doug to hear the range of interest and concern. One of the things I hear is you all seem interested in it at at one level or another depending on the different spokes of the wheel that we've just discussed. I think what's also big is you I heard your city manager say you can expect a resource programmatic approach that that might reflect as much of this as possible relative to the budget and so on. It's going to cost you you funds beyond this discussion for 30 minutes a huge area. So I I think it's actually been productive from the standpoint that I now know all of you have an interest at one level or another way range of ideas some pro I mean I have a ton of questions there's no time for just from the standpoint of listening to this but I think it was a good outcome from the standpoint of you being able to say look I hear you and stuff coming so I'd like to move to the next topic um but great participation and any questions you have your of your colleagues before I move us along Yeah. Well, on a lot of the items today, we've looked for definitive. Yeah. I I think on this one, it's like I hear wide range, as you said, some from additional resources, but also interests and and I don't think that there'd be any concerns, objections if council members wanted to go out and have hours in the business or anything of that later. So that may just be more of a future topic that we hit in relation to how does that look from a roll out because you don't want you know just to make sure everyone's on board

with together so everyone feels behind whatever one may want to do an official capacity versus a rogue effort or something of that nature if that makes sense. Okay. So, I I'll just plan on at some point bringing that back out maybe when we have a lighter study session agenda.

Yeah. More time and a focus. Okay. Great. All right. Next one on the agenda, public safety. Uh a number of you raised it as an issue. It's it my impression having worked with you two years ago is that that yes to public safety and certain criteria by which you wanted to make judgments about that being a safe community crime and all the kinds of things that are there in reading this plan it the kinds of things that were going to be addressed were prolific and so on. So, um, I would throw it out to you to say, you know, in in in this retreat setting, what are the things that you think is important to share with one another or and particularly your city manager in the in the time that we have to do that now today about public safety? So, and Brian,

this was one of the priorities that I threw out at our last council retreat and it wasn't one of the, you know, fun projects to talk about, but it it unanimously had a lot of support that everyone felt that public safety is obviously one of the most critical things that we provide for the city. Um, the other part of it is not just public safety, but perception of public safety. And I think that the police department has done a a great job of of doing both really. Uh, over the past year, our crime numbers continue to drop to historic lows, which is fantastic. the police chief has done a good job with, you know, whatever they're doing out there, uh, ramping up the the patrols in in the town center and having more of a presence in our retail areas. I've heard nothing but good things about that. They the police department used to do I think they called them like kind of an emphasis during the holiday seasons on that kind of stuff like shoplifting emphasis and things like that. Well, now that's kind of become more of a permanent fix in the town center. The other element of public safety that I kind of keyed in was through our we had park surveys done and outside of like the top two items, the next one was public safety at parks and people didn't feel safe at parks and that was kind of throwing me off for for a loop because our parks are closed at nighttime. So clearly it's not like they don't feel safe because it's not illuminated and it's just, you know, I'm like people don't feel safe during the middle of the day, right? Like you're you're going to the park during the middle of the day. Why aren't people feeling safe at a park? And so if our crime numbers

continue to drop, I think that the perception of safety and I think that maybe, you know, I don't know where the the survey came from from which parks, but you know, I've never not felt safe at Fort Slicken Park, but there are other parks in the in the city that you may not feel the safest because of the crime in the area. Um, so continue to work on crime. It's not just our, you know, our police and the public safety that they provide, but it's also the perceived and real safety of of other folks in in other areas. So, I think that we need to continue to focus on that and we're we're making a ton of progress in that area and I just want that to continue.

Okay. Other comments and thoughts, Mike? I agree a that that out in the community um I I think that uh it's the perceptions around safety that uh create dissatisfaction among some. I think that we've done a good job over the past couple of years in the fact that we're we don't just tell people that things are safe, but that we've been sharing real data. Okay, which is convinced me that we're we're doing the right things to do that. I think going forward I think we are under some pressures budgetarily around some things that have um driven our positive statistics and I think we need to be committed to keeping um the uh body and car cameras systems uh modern and operating. Uh I I think we need to well we have to comply with the new state law that I don't think makes things safer but but with respect to to to the flock system or equivalent cameras uh I I think that's an investment we need to do but I think we also need to be aware that the percentage of our budget that is going to public safety um warrants periodic reviews of are we using all of those dollars efficiently? And I think that we should be supportive of the city manager's efforts to get uh an outside review, okay, to look at our

department from a from a from a from an operational efficiency standpoint and see what recommendations there are. not not not solely to save money, but with a first look at uh can we be as safe as we are now or better for less. Um and um so that those would be the the things that I would want to for us to be looking to go and do forward. Not that I would necessarily put them into their immediate council goals about big things because I think it's sort of an ongoing uh always goal for every municipal government.

Okay. Other comments, Paul?

So, I I agree with what much of what Mike said. But I know the flock safety cameras are a for some people are a um a controversial topic. I I think they've been incredibly effective and and um and I believe the people who make it who believe that it's controversial haven't had their car stolen or certainly have insurance to cover the loss of their car. So I think it's been very effective. I think we need to keep it with but we have to stay within the parameters of state law. I mean there's there's no doubt about that. I'm also a supporter of the body cameras. Um and we need to continue those because I think the public's expectation is that everyone will have a body camera. So um I mean that's it's it's like they'll have cars and they'll have body cameras. I mean it's just the the nature of that. So, and and I also agree, you know, everything's subject to the budget, right, and to our to our fiscal preservation as a city, which I I think, you know, we're going to receive the year- end report here on Monday night. And um I think is going to present some challenges. So, we have to keep an open mind.

Any other comments on Tresen?

Thank you. Uh, I also agree with what folks have said and I think I'll start with uh we've gotten feedback that our community wants more of a presence in parks and on the lakes and maybe it's a a vocal small group that's bringing this up, but I think it needs to be assessed. Uh next week we're going to look at speed cameras on our agenda uh around the city and those may prevent or may present opportunities to assess our resources across uh across our police department to make sure that we've got the right folks in the right place. Right. So, um, an overall resource assessment to drive efficiencies to see where the most critical needs are, uh, and where we're potentially understaffed in some areas, I think is going to be important to do. Uh, beyond that, I think because the police department is our largest department in the city, uh, they should be first, but I think we'll get into this later, but I think we should do that across all our departments to make sure we have the right resources and doing the right things. Okay, Josh. Yeah. First thing I want to do is just uh identify you'd mentioned speed cameras are on next week's agenda which they are not. Yeah. So, okay. I just Yeah. From the discussion that last Monday night. The other thing and just go back a couple mentioned it in terms of uh the workload analysis and as a component of the budget and as a city manager that's always been uh every community, you know, you have a segment that says, "Hey, we need a lot more officers." you have another segment that always says we need a lot less. What's always been good is to identify what is a benchmark so everyone knows and we're all working off the same standard. So that's really where that workload analysis comes from. But it also goes through and identifies you know the resource allocation and where they're at and where they're going and what's best

practice across. So, you know, that's kind of what the uh item that I intend to bring back for the council to essentially you'd have to authorize, you know, a contract for with that. But, um I think that's a great step, especially as we're looking at some of these challenges and and pictures just to identify what is a you know, benchmark for, you know, our workload and how does that fit in within the department. Ryan? Yeah. And quick comment on that, Doug. I I understand that the city hasn't really gone through an extensive study for its police department as a whole. Is that a fair

Yeah, not that I'm aware of. I think, you know, it's been essentially established and uh in terms of an overall, you know, third party review. Yeah. So, it's a it's a it's a large department, a ton of funding that goes towards it. think that we would be remiss if we didn't partake in some sort of a study to kind of establish a benchmark and see see where things are at and you know see what the average is. Do we want to okay now we've established this do we want to you know take it to this level where are we at you know we're funding at this level but are we getting this level you know types of things so we can have more robust I think better discussions once we have that information established so I'm I'm in full support of that other conversations on public safety

okay um couple interesting things so there's the reality of crime, the objective and danger and sense of safety, which has a hard data feel to it. We can count that. We know what that is. And then there's the perception of safety. And I I'll leave you with this thought. It turns out that the least victimized segment of our population, okay, is has the highest fear of crime. and that's seniors. So, so what does that say to us? It says, well, their sentiment about it does not match the actual reality of it in terms of that that particular population. Now, I just leave you with this. Both are valid. So, you're not you're not just managing the objective data, you're also managing sentiment. And what finally makes this really fascinating conversation for me is the topic of parks and and why parks could feel safe or unsafe in terms of that sentiment. So, um anyway, just kind of kind of leave you with that. I think we can go we're scheduled to take a break. I'm kind of a well, let me tell you why I would want to take a break. The worst time for your mental abilities, right, is right an hour about an hour after you've eaten. So, I'd kind of like I know we could you just take 10 or so. I mean, because I know we're we have some other topics, but I I want to it's your freshness. I'm actually thinking about now. It seems like a natural break and I want to make sure we got that. So uh we can take your 15 but we can come back you know say 5 7 10 after somewhere in that zone but just please get up and if if you can maybe

step outside whatever it takes because this is the lethargic moment of your day. So let's do that. Well this is more this

So, so back when there was lots of discussions around libraries, we purchased a property on Union Avenue in Tikum. It's about 1.4 acres. It was it was a rather decrepit mobile home park and it it's sitting there but it does not look at all like the library is ever going to have an interest of wanting to use that site to build a library which was our original thought. Um during my time of working with with with shape and as and as we've seen there there is uh um an interest and some encouragement uh and even some resources available to help convert excess public property u for towards affordable housing. And given the neighborhood that Tilikum and the the size of that property um and I think that that we should explore with Habitat for Humanity or a similar organization them developing us de and developing that property uh with the the model that they have where where it's uh it becomes owner occupied property but with a underlying land lease that will keep it affordable. uh can be be done to do that. And and we have we have moved cityowned property to Habitat for Humanity multiple times over the past decade, which has know gotten us to 50 plus new homes over out there in Telum. And doing that to for owner occupied homes

is uh satisfies a a goal that the city needs to have in that we have a you know it's nice to get more units but if you make it all as rental property you exasperate the the mix of rental versus owner occupied homes in the city. And we are far out of the norm with that. So, investing in doing that and this is be the same model that Pierce County is using with Habitat for Humanity in Frederickson on a slightly larger parcel, but that um uh but but that Habitat for Humanity is engaged in. And I think that would be a uh you know, a positive move. And in TICOM I get a small number of folks that have concerns about some of their neighbors that that occupied Habitat homes, but that it's not going on. And and actually the most positive feedback that I get for that project come from the succession of principles in the elementary school that having those homes most of which have children there has been a slowly increase in the tenure of how long students stay in a single elementary school. you know, they have started to see that that that as they get more children that are in because most of the most of the owner occupied houses in in in Telum U

actually don't have kids. They they're older property owners.

Oh. Uh and and so so so that has been helpful. So I think we should at least approach Habitat for Humanity about how we would go about being able to transfer that and for them to look to develop it. Obviously, they'd be on a that'd be something that would get started and it would take four years or so before we'd start seeing homes with people in them there or or longer to be able to go and do that. But it is a a a lot that is fully accessible by utilities. Um and um could could serve that need and would uh help us be able to say that we're that that we we are being proactive in the affordable housing arena.

Okay. Paul,

so I I I absolutely support that. Mike's on the shape board. I was previously on the shape board. South Sound Housing Affordability Partners, they uh were actively involved or are actively involved in in the the property out in Frederickson, which I think is a very good template. It's larger. It's a much larger project, but I I do for the the reasons Mike has detailed support this. I think it because as a member of shape they're always like hey are you going to get involved in actually building housing or are we just there to make sure that that low-income housing goes somewhere else right um which I think some of the cities are. So I think this is a a really good ex I think this is a a good opportunity. I think it shows good faith towards what shape is trying to accomplish and and what we're trying to accomplish in our housing goals.

Doug, so I just need some education and background. What's the association with that property and potential library? And if it is association, do we need to clarify that with the library district?

Yes. Yeah, we bought. So, this goes to our previous conversation about the library. We were also looking here in the city to for property that we could co-use with them. And out there, uh the previous city manager identified a property and we agreed to purchase it um on Union Avenue that we and we said the propertyy's there for you to purchase from us when the when the time comes. It is you you would have to make sure you would have to contact the library and officially get the official word you are not interested in that site before we or I mean we always have the ability to say no the site isn't available for you anymore but that's another discussion I don't think that's what Mike's suggesting I think Mike's suggesting they're not going to use it so we need to dispose of it this is a great way to dispose of it and I and I would agree with that I think we need to ask the library hey we we have another use we have in mind. Do you have any interest in this property? And I and and their board, the same board that says we got to be on this property at Tendler has also said they want to stay in the the community center. I don't know that they're going to do that. But that's so um if they just give you a we don't know yet and it could be five years before we decide, then we're going to have to have the conversation that the housing is more important than that. But Mike's indicated to me that they they've said they really don't want it to be on Union Avenue.

Okay, Treston, thanks for bringing this up, Mike. I I fully support having uh an actual use for this property that's sitting vacant and not serving any purpose at all at this point. Um, and I would go so far as to say we don't need to ask the library. We just need to tell them what we're doing with the property that we own. Okay. Any other comments on this? Okay. Any questions? Yeah. My only question is what's my next step?

No, actually I think the next step would be is to confirm some interest by Habitat for Humanity and have them them look at it. I don't think the library has any stake in our our ability to inform them that we're going to make another use of the property is is more a matter of being polite than of having a requirement politely talk to the library. Again, I'm just I'm just covering some some back here in terms of I'm not sure what the history is behind

all things library. So, I'm just laying out so I don't run us into something otherwise. Okay, cool. All right, let's go to the next one. Philip, home ownership. Well, Michael, I'm glad you asked. So, right now, roughly 45% of Lakewood residents don't own their homes, which means that most people don't own where they live. And that matters because home ownership isn't just about housing. It's about stability. It's about people staying in their neighborhoods, investing in their homes, and building long-term roots in the community. It affects everything from public safety to school continuity to the strength of our local tax base. And we're behind Pierce County's over 60% home ownership rate. Gig Harbor's 70%. And the reason is not complicated. We're not producing enough ownership level housing in my view, especially for seniors and first-time home buyers. Most first-time home buyers are not buying large single family homes. They're buying town homes and small out homes and other entry-level type options. And we simply don't have enough of them. And seniors want to downsize. And in Lakewood, we don't have enough options for seniors to downsize, too. So, I'd like to ask staff to explore how we can facilitate and plan for multimodal housing. That could mean looking at the both model, which I've discussed with Mr. Remac, where they've increased home ownership with great success. It could also mean reducing barriers or exploring incentives. Maybe we can partner in some way with a down payment assistance program. I don't know. And to be very clear on how those programs typically work or a silent second. This is not the city just giving money. It's interestbearing silent second. We're being just really intentional about where we want ownership to grow and how we do that. Um, other cities have done this by changing the environment in all kinds of ways to make ownership possible. And I like to ask staff to help us understand what that could look like.

Conversation. Treston. Yeah, it sounds like a a great idea. I I do know that some of our residents may drive home ownership percentages down because they are transitional through the JBL. A lot of folks are coming in and going out and they are more likely to be renting during that short period of time. But that shouldn't preclude us from trying to increase home ownership in the city because I think that's really important too. So, thank you.

Other comments? Uh Ellen and then Philip. Yeah, thank you um Philip for bringing this up because I also I have also heard from our community as well that that especially like from first firsttime buyers who are interested but just feel like it's such a hurdle to get resources or just that first hurdle of making that first down payment. Um and and I have also wondered we we have our home program and and the program that um Jeff Gum runs is I feel like one of our kind of bigger underrated successes that we do here at the city because we provide um a lot of really good services out of it. But um but I have sort of felt and feared that we may not have enough staff in that in that um program. And so I do support um Philip's ask to try to get us some information and and and just and look into um some better ways that we can either whatever partnerships we need to do, but also um when we do the next update of our home program, is there a way that we should be maybe um repositioning some of the columns of funding in that program that we dedicate toward? We we put a lot of resources into the home renovation program, but we put fewer resources into I think the activities that are eligible under those funds to do this type of partnershiping that Philip is talking about. And I would like to see if in our future update of the home program that we can um shift towards more of more of

getting people opportunities into into ownership. Oh yeah, thanks for that Ellen and and thanks for your remark. The the military piece is a really important one. Um I will say we have a really large guard community that doesn't move around like a lot of bases do and I've also noticed this is anecdotal when I was in the service when I talked to a lot of folks on JBL they come here to retire and stay and a lot of them do buy abnormally high me number of those folks do by so that was encouraging.

Okay, other comments weighing in and Mike I think this is indicative of uh us needing to pay attention in not overly incentivizing multifamily housing. Um you know 10 10 years ago when we were developing with the community's help uh the the vision for the community one of the things that there was great consensus about amongst the public was don't build any more apartments. and then the state legislature and and and and and quite honestly the the the the the Pierce County Regional Council got in and gave us obscene numbers of more units that had to be built in Lakewood to be able to go and do that and inflated our numbers so that other communities could deflate their numbers. But we need to be focused because we have had a significant number of market rate home subdivisions built and they have tended to not fall into the affordable category. And so we need to look of how we can incentivize not just more homeownership but more middle income lower income home ownership opportunities to be able to go into that. Okay.

And I do think that the home and CDBG programs that we have um do uh have been functioning well and they and that they they they've been successful. Um although they the the easiest successes have been to keep older residents able to continue to afford to live in the home they live in now. Any other comments on this one? Okay. Is there a to-do out of this or an ask? I didn't hear. I always check in here. So, what I'm feeling is direction as it relates to our community development block grant and home program through there in terms of potential opportunities to assist home ownership. Uh, another area that could be considered is looking at our social service agencies that are active in this area and encourage them to participate in our uh 1% fund in terms of, you know, with set aside goals for contacting specific people. Um, and then just the general information around it. you know who does these types of services in the community type thing that Kathy I'm missing something I would just add to that I really am interested to see if the both model works here and and it's called the both model that's not a formal name it's just what they did in both worked very well to increase home ownership there it requires some things that Lakewood may or may not be interested in doing um but it's worth looking at

do you have any description of the bath model what is it is it like a land trust so part of what they did was They they found that you can only have certain strictctures around requiring home ownership if you're a private party, if acting as a private party. So, one of the things they did was they acquire land and then they built it and sold it in certain ways.

So, I'm very careful to have a to to really not have much of a capital ask here, but I'm curious to see what lessons we can learn from them. Right. So, trying to divide this between this and my fiscal topics piece of it. But yeah, and and they're both interrelated. Uh so, and we've in everything we've talked about so far, we've had concerns about resource allocation within the city and being able to accomplish all the stuff we put on our plate. Uh and I and I think in order to tackle that, we need to have a resource assessment done across all of our uh internal departments to really understand again where where we have what we need, where we don't have what we need,

uh and where we may have too much of something we don't need. Um, so I would I would ask that we pursue that path of uh doing an assessment for each of our departments in terms of resources and what they're doing uh and finding best practices from other municipalities on driving efficiency through what we do. Additionally, I think it would be beneficial to do a a cultural cultural assessment to measure employee engagement uh because I have found that that is a multiplier in the effectiveness of what people are doing. Uh and I think that is something we need to really wrap our head hands around to see what's going on.

Discussion. No. Okay. Okay. Uh, Ellen, I I do agree. I have a question though. I'm just Would that be some would that be something that we budget and tackle for in the 2728 bienium? Uh, it really depends on if we think we're going to run out of resources before then. Uh, which I think we've been messaged by staff that that's a concern.

Yeah. And the reason I ask is because I think that what I kind of foresee in this upcoming bienium is we are still going to have to make some hard decisions um even about staffing levels or at least those those those I think that that can present itself. And I just think that we run I think city hall is run on as as tight of a shoestring as we can. And if we get to if we get to the point where we find ourselves um trying to run any thinner without having done that assessment, you start to I think kind of the morale starts to suffer as as as well as just a lot of operational um operationalities as well. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is getting to that sooner than later has its benefits.

Yeah, I I fully agree and I think it needs to be a precursor to establishing a new bienial budget. We have to know where we're at before we try and make decisions. Uh as I understand it, when we had around the time that our previous city manager started, uh there were some significant challenges with uh um availability of finances and budgets with the city and there were some uh furls and layoffs and morale really struggled at the city at the time and it would be good to get ahead of that to be able to balance things so that we don't run into the same sort of challenges. Philip and then Paul. Um I don't know that I had anything to add.

Oh, okay. I just saw Paul. So Preston, are are you are you seeing this as we hire an outside firm like Mercer Consulting or whatever? Go through the entire city and then tell us tell us what we should be doing. I'm not familiar with that firm, but I would think you'd want a non-advocate third party to do that sort of assessment uh for the city. Uh because I think there's a conflict of interest. We're doing it for ourselves. Okay. And I

Okay. Well, I mean, part of it is called budgeting, right? And the priorities of government are the council's responsibility. So while while I'm and we're I think we're going to talk about some specific things in a little while, I think. Um and I'm and I'm open to that I don't you know a general I've lived through these and and it depends on how you treat it. So, if if we announce we've hired a consultant, we're paying them $800,000 toptobottom review of city government. The employees know that. And they and consultants don't get paid a lot of money without telling you that they're going to get rid of people. So, are we using this as a precursor to downsize? I mean, is that the goal here? Um, um, just rearrange deck chairs, right? I mean, what's what's our goal? I've never I've never seen a consultant come in a companywide and not create you. You know, I get it piece by piece or how do we do our roadway contracting, which you know, we could talk about should we have a district court? We could talk about but an immense overarching look. You want to talk about bad morale. You got it on the Tuesday after we approved that contract. So, all I'm saying is when we go forward with something like this is is be aware of the consequences. I've never seen a company not

tank its employees for a year or more while you're going through this process. So Mike and then trusted.

Yeah. And again, I'm uh I'm I'm a not make not quite in agreement with Tristan on seeing the severity of problems w within the city. You know, I I see a staff that by and large is is is is focused on doing a good job that I think they're focused on pretty well on working together as a team to be able to go and do that. Uh I I think there is always rooms to look for efficiencies, but I think in our case, I would not want to start with something that is top driven. You know, I think that when you talk about what would the goal be of starting a a formal initiative and spending money on it, that I would like to internally have the employees help identify what is it that could be addressed, okay? or or or that should be and and and kind of have the initiative for this be from the bottom up rather than top driven to to just start off and announce it to to to be able to go and do that. Uh cuz I I I I I just don't particularly see um the city staff being so introverted and self-centered and non not community centered as I perhaps hear you defining the problem.

Yeah. So uh your point is well taken Paul and and Mike as well. Uh my thoughts on this would be going into it from a results agnostic perspective where we're also looking to see if we're underresourced and we need more people to accomplish the things that we're setting out to do and get a full assessment of that. Um and maybe we have to be really selective about what sort of firm we bring on board to help with this so that they're not anticipating that we want to just cut staff and lay people off. Yeah, as the individual uh responsible for implementing city council policy, I would ask that you not do this at this point. Um, you know, give some time to have an adaption to where we're at. Um, I've already in this meeting said, anticipate more requests for personnel coming forward. We want higher levels of service. Now, that's a mixture of resources and efficiencies. I would say let this play itself out and put some a pause on that type of activity. Unless you see something specific that you think is wasteful, please come talk to me about it. I'm happy to have that conversation. I think just to set out an organizationwide without different components and and I say that saying, hey, I'm talking about a, you know, a workload analysis in our police department, which is similar to the same thing. However, that's very specific in terms of what is that level that we should be at. It's a very easy component. What you're asking for in this one is much different because as mayor said, well, we kind of establish our different service levels. So, it's there isn't a that benchmark in terms of let's say neighborhood coordination isn't benchmarkable across the city. It's dependent upon what council wants in terms of that level. So, I guess my request as a city manager is let's hold off on that for a while. We can always revisit it, but to come out of here with

that as a directive, I think may have some negative impacts. Any other discussion? Bill.

So, I think this is a really important conversation. Uh we've we've just raised sales tax here as a council and anytime we ask for more money from residents. Uh I think we need to make sure that we're being good stewards of what we have. I don't assume necessarily that more money means more service, less money means less service. Sometimes it's just different kinds of service and and that's obviously driven by priorities. And so I I guess when I said I agree with Tristan's impulse, it's not because um I think we're our staff is failing. It's not because I think we need to cut x number of FTEEs. Um it's because I want to make sure that our budget um not just reflects council priorities, but reflects efficiencies. And quite frankly, we we've had a budget, you know, presented to us. We've had many fiscal conversations. Um I don't know that we as a as a council have have gone through and said, "This feels good. This doesn't." And and unless we do that, we're relying on our city manager who is doing a great job to do that for us, but almost kind of blind because we're not in the room. So, so that's where I was coming from when I say I agree with this. And I don't know that I heard from Tristan saying there's major failures happening.

So on this one, you're in city manager formal government. Okay. So if if the on-ramp for the council is money, okay, then I I I think this discussion has full standing in terms of the way your structure is designed. if it's coming to you because I think the city should be operated differently and you're wanting to now operate down inside below the manager. That's a problem. Not just for you. I'd be saying this to any of my clients. That's a big problem. And it's a big problem in terms of the law. And it's a big problem in terms of just overall. I hope you don't skip over one of the points that was just said and that is how you define this is huge because the impact on your employee base. So if you walk in the door saying I've got to cut 10% of our budget. We're going to do a study to find out. The next day your employee base is going well I hope I'm where am I on all that? And in my experience over many years, that is not a productive outcome for a staff and creates problems that probably didn't exist in advance for for managers. I don't think it's wrong to be efficient and want to look at better ways to do it. But I I would urge you to work and this, you know, if you've got to cut money, I don't know what your money scenario is. I would urge you to work through your city manager on that. and in in his cases in this case he but my clients he or she I have another client that's going through this and trust them to come to you if they come to you and say I want you're not far off an organization this size you you spend a half a million dollars on somebody to come in here and look at something you know I would want

my manager to say to me I want that to happen I need that to happen and especially a new manager and I'm just kind of I don't mean to over say especially a new manager who's in this case trying to get a sense of what's what's going on. I don't think your interest is misplaced, but I really urge you to think through, you know, how you would go about it because I think there are some other touchstones here that are that are there. Just saying. So, well, you know, there are there are areas outside of our expertise that if we want to make decisions about, we really do need help. But the other thing about the budget is there's just a lot of policy in there. So, so an efficiency person would not, you know, if I came in from some consultant, I would say, well, the 1% you set aside for human services is not a core part. State law doesn't require you to do it under the RCW. So therefore, it is I recommend the the reduction, the elimination of that program. You could say the same about public art. we could just say, well, you know, it that's extraneous to the thing. Those are policy decisions that councils made uh in in regards to all those things. It wasn't the most efficient thing, and those are council decisions that we have to make if we want to get rid of them. Now, if there's certain expertise we we just don't have, like I don't pretend to know anything about contracting for public works projects. Do we do anything outside of of that? Well, that's in my mind. I'd sure like to know. Um, we're going to talk about something here in a little while. There's there's other things that I could point out specific that where we could hire somebody for tens of thousands, not millions or hundreds of thousands and say, but but we quickly get into policy decisions where we've made any anything

in parks, right? Nothing in the RCW requires that. So they could say, "Well, create a parks metropolitan parks district and get out of the business entirely." Again, a policy choice, not a not a, you know, something that anybody can tell us what to do except the seven of us really is how I feel.

I mean, one pointed example of this would be if you did a study like this, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to come back and said, "Yeah, you know what? you could probably save this percentage of money if you just fire your police department and contract with Pierce County or or whatever. And I just think that that I I don't think it's wrong-headed to to want to know. I think knowledge is great and and I think it's the on-ramp to that. I just because I don't want to squash the sentiment. I think that that's huge and that's your role is to be efficient about that. But how you go about it? Another piece you have not talked about here that absolutely depending on how you act do this you're going to activate people in your community and it'll be on one side or another someone somebody who's not doesn't live in this community does a study and comes in I says yeah I think we ought to just eliminate this and then all of a sudden your community is going wait a minute because they don't and that's the other piece of it a lot of that impact is not down in in terms of of the actual impacts on the community if you did a study like that that went all the way down that'd be serious seriously expensive because because most of those studies are contained inside the organization. What they don't look at is if I pull this out, what happens in the community as a result of that. So I'm not saying you shouldn't do something and but I would ask my manager if you really felt like you needed to do that and a lot of councils are doing stuff like that now because they're having budget problems. You know that the you know the co money's gone away so now they're trying to figure it out and and and and so you know I get it trying to figure that out. But anyway, Ryan and the trust

and I get that folks are having budget issues, but I also feel like that's part of the city manager's job is to figure out those budget issues. And so I I think this is a I think it'll almost be inappropriate for us to to do this really. I think that what would be appropriate is for the city manager to say, "Hey, I think it's really worthwhile for me to do this police study and here's the reasons why." And I'm like, "Okay, yeah, we've never done one. You know, it we don't have a baseline. That makes sense. Sure, that makes sense to, you know, again, on the budget side, this is going to cost the city x amount of dollars and, you know, we include that in the budget." So I think that's generally I would agree that that's the way that these should go. If if city manager comes to us and says hey you know I want to do this or this kind of study to evaluate XYZ I need to do this for my job to to meet your goals that you guys have established. Okay let's talk about that or um or you guys need to change policy to you know increase this or decrease this or whatever it is. So um I I agree. I think that it there's a fine line of staying above and below the line of what we do versus what the city manager does and um I want to be respectful of that too. So

Sure. Okay. Other comments, Ellen and Philip, what are you in? Yeah, I understand Paul your your I I think that I I think your point is well taken and I I certainly understand and agree with there's the level of sensitivity indeed with this type of ask. I I also have a feeling too that I think what's going to be important for us um going into this budget season too is the way in which the the way in which we receive and that the in the way in which information is brought to us about this budget so that we fully understand because so that we fully understand kind of what the um uh high, moderate, low severity uh issues are if any with certain points of the budget. Understanding that that we're a spectrum of we're we're we're we're a spectrum of the council with with a lot of veteran knowledge and a lot of new knowledge. So it can't be assume I it would not I don't think it would be safe to assume that we all have even the same um um you know levels of of understanding and knowledge of of these very these very uh nuances of of municipal bud budgeting let alone our city's budgeting and in within that too I I think I I think there's also um there's just a the culture of of I think

there's an interest from some of us on council that just want to get a a sense and assurance of okay are are the things that need to change um if at all can are there aspects that they can that there's levers to easily tweak or, you know, are there like some cultural things here that we really kind of need to be aware about in in and through city hall that affect or that have, you know, be that have um grown that have resulted in in the picture or that the the ongoing problems that we have to see that we're trying to solve. Like for example, I think revenues is going to be a huge discussion and it should be it should be it should be like a we should have a full comprehensive um kind of frontto back look of of our revenues so that we're fully on board about what we think is out there what versus what we know to be out there.

Okay, Philip, then we're going to check our time, see where we are on our

Yeah, and I'll try to be brief. I think it's really valuable that we have municipal employees on council here. I don't have that perspective. The perspective I have is coming from running a company. And when we run a company, if you want something, you have to decide where you're going to raise money or where you're going to cut. And in my very short time on council so far, I've seen lots of um of conversations around this is what we need to do more of or this is where we need to spend more of. I haven't seen the conversation of where we're going to cut. And I just want to make sure that's part of the conversation because we have more asks coming. We're identifying priorities today. They're going to cost real money. So, I just want to make sure we have those options available to us as we're making these decisions.

Doug, no, I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

Um, so I think it's really important that we as a council realize what our responsibility is as a council and what our city manager's responsibility is as our employee. So, if we don't have the faith in our city manager to come to us and say, "These are the areas that we need to look at. These are the areas that I'm looking at for the budget. These are the areas that we possibly need to make cuts at." Then, we've done something wrong. Those are not places where we as a council should be looking. Yes, we need information, but it is not our job to dig that deep into where those exact line items are. And I think a lot of times I've noticed when we're talking that we're getting way too far into stuff that is not our responsibility and we need to make sure that we know what our responsibility is for policy and like you mentioned there's a lot of government employees on here so I think we kind of know and that's why I'm bringing this up as a topic because I'm thinking from my staff side this is not the respons responsibility of the council. What is happening? So, I think we need to realize that. I love that we're asking the questions. So, please, like you've said, Michael, the sentiment, we don't want to lose sentiment.

I want to keep asking those questions, but I want to know I want us to know where the lines are and where we need to stay in stuff. And so, that's why I bring that up as we wouldn't make those cuts. we would be proposed those cuts. So, it's little things like that where we need to stay at the policy level. We're the execut, you know, not we're the legislative branch. So, I think that that's just really important to understand. But I love the sentiment of where we're going with everything, asking the questions, wanting to know. It's just how we get it presented to us, I think, um, is what we need to consider. So, I just am bringing that up to my fellow council members. Tristan, Doug, and Phillip.

Uh, thank you and thank you for that, Patty. Uh, thank you to everyone for acknowledging my intent with this, right? Because to me, it's our community holds us accountable to be good stewards of the public trust, whether that's funds or services. We are the ones who are accountable to our community. So, how we execute on that, I'm still open to figuring that out, right? Um I understand the city manager is our employee and he gets the the scope to manage staff as needed. Uh and if he's not meeting our expectations, then that's a different conversation.

Thank you, Doug. And then Philip. Go ahead, Philip. So I agree it's incredibly important we understand our role and what is our role what's not our role. You said it's not our role to make cuts. It is our role to approve a budget which is which is right. Proposals are made to us and then we decide what we're going to approve. So if we're being asked to decide where to spend we should also be able to be asked where we're we don't want to spend.

Okay. And I no, Doug, did you want to Okay. Um, I would assume that your city is operated much like all the cities in the state of Washington that you will have a very vigorous budget process and that process will bring exactly what you just said to the for and it most councils and particularly at retreats and it's really important that you have this moment. I I hate to see a council stifled by money at a retreat. And the reason for that is this is one of the few times you get to talk about possibilities, what could we do, and so on. Your manager's listening to this, he knows, and you all know that that at some point you're going to talk about more things than you have money for. And so, and that gets squared with the budget process. But I don't want to inhibit this. I think this is really important. and and and yes, at the end of the day, you're going to you're going to pass a balanced budget and so and all that that means. So, I don't want to inhibit the ideas. I think this is a good thing for you to have. Anything more on this one before we pop to the next one. Great discussion. I think this is good. Um 30th anniversary, is that you done? Yeah, I kind of took some uh liberty and putting that on the council goal retreat session because initially it was a broader discussion that was going to be about you know recognizing plethora of different groups and council activity they were taking a long long time which is why I wanted to bring it here. I think the committee has shifted to instead of going that avenue something a little bit less intensive less time demanding of the council more just like a big birthday celebration at the summerfest type thing. So I don't have a banner drive by happy 30th type stuff. So I I don't need any of that discussion anymore because it would have been a lot of council time somewhere

some either at the event or beforehand and a lot of stuff. So don't need that anymore. So thank you. Okay. All right. We're making up time here. This is good. Fiscal topics. Treston. All right. are uh I guess all three of these are my topics, aren't they? Well, they are and they aren't. Yes, you are sponsoring them, but I'm quite sure your colleagues will have an opinion on them. So, they're they're everybody's

undoubtedly there will be a plethora of opinions. Uh so first to start out uh we visited this two years ago uh and I know it's been visited numerous times in the past and now that we have a new council and we have some new information from city staff. I'd like to revisit the potential of cannabis retail within the city. U the numbers we got back from staff were between 230 and 250,000 a year in revenue. Uh, and I'd like to open the floor to get people's feedback.

Discussion, please. Mike. I don't think this is a fiscal topic. I don't think that we should be taking a look at the the issues around cannabis from the idea of how much budget dust we could raise to be able to go and do this. um you know 10 years ago when we as a city the city council at that time decided that we weren't going to allow commercial cannabis businesses in Lakewood. We had the same sort of information about fiscal things but the issue is what's the impact on the community. Okay. In terms of having them have having visible retail cannabis sales in the city. You know what was the impact on youth seeing them every day? What was what is the impact on on what sort of magnets for what types of crime would it be? Will there be some increases to do that even though all around us were doing it and what were things going on? So I don't think this is a fiscal topic and I don't think the dynamics of our 10 years experience as a city not having cannabis retail sales uh has resulted in any real negatives. We occasionally get public comment of folks that come and urge us to do this. And for the past three years, the commenters, to include a state legislature, have entirely been focused on they or them wanting people to be able to open businesses, not members of the community

having a ground swell of wanting this to be here. And I think that's still the case. on a personal side. Okay. Um, this is for me somewhat of an ethical issue that when we both of offices and I've been in the army and I've been in other things and I've done a lot of things where I haven't we support you know the state constitution and laws and the federal constitution and laws and and almost always those do not conflict. I have voted for a variety of ordinances here while I have been here in favor of them. Not because I thought they were a good idea or they were better for the city, but because state law said the cities must do this. And so I'm complying with with with doing that. In this particular case, there is some diversion between federal law and federal things over there regardless of how stringently they're enforcing it and the permissive law of the state. But the common ground of being able to comply with both is the that is that the state law allows us to not permit retail cannabis businesses in the city and we can so we can comply with state law while still complying with federal law and that's where I would ethically end up. Other discussion Ellen So cannabis is I I think if if we don't

want to look at this as a fiscal issue, fine. If we want to look at it as a social community impact issue, fine. But I think that it's not I think that it's within I don't think there's anything unethical about talking about it. Cannabis federally is currently a schedule 3 substance. It's in the same category with legal substances like ketamine or anabolic steroids. And federal law is also moving and has been moving in a direction for some time where at some point I think we are going to have to deal with this at least at a zoning issue. So and and and maybe it might not be tomorrow, maybe it might not be in 27, but it could be in 27, but it will be it will be eventually. And so I think on that basis it's I understand that it can be viewed as a as an undesirable use just as maybe bikini baristas are just are desire as are seen as a desirable or undesirable use in the community. But nonetheless it is a it is a it's these are businesses that are legal to operate. It is legal to produce And so we could kick the can down the road and wait to see how federal how federal law changes after whatever period in time, but I think that we're not going to be able to put it off any longer talking about it. And so I

think we did the right thing when we asked for uh some information to do our due diligence of understanding the revenue estimates coupled with understanding some uh I think some public health data some socio some socioeconomic data that we that we asked for to understand the impact to our schools and community. I haven't seen that in the information that's been sent to us yet. We have a map with the buffers but we don't have we have not seen any statistical data indicating any um connection or or harm or nonharm uh related to cannabis retail shops or or cannabis businesses. So, I think that I think that it's it's it's okay to re to visit this topic whether it's this year or in the future because I think at some point it's going to come our way regardless.

Okay. Any other conversation about this? Yes, Patty.

I don't remember. How many were allowed off of the map and how many would be allowed in Lakewood? Is it two or is it more? because I know it was two originally like back in the day when things were but I didn't know if there was more now initi initially the liquor and cannabis board was going to be allowed to issue three licenses in Lakewood and um it's going through uh since that time there has been some legislation in the state that has encouraged the liquor and cannibis board to issue more than that and they weren't specific as as to Lakewood. They were more actually more specific as to decreasing increasing the diversity of the demographics of people who owned the businesses. um to to to do that. So um I think that uh and and I don't know that there is something that that if we were to take an action to reverse our position about allowing that. I don't know that there is any number we could rely on. We would be um essentially that would be still determined by the the liquor and cannabis board uh in terms of the number of licenses that they would would issue should Lakewood open up as a geographical area where they could.

Any more discussion on this? Treston.

Uh thank you Mike. Uh and thank you Mike. I appreciate your your ethical challenges with this and the potential disconnect between state constitution and federal constitution. Uh I also appreciate uh Ellen's feedback on uh we haven't seen hard socioeconomic data from um from our city staff yet on what this could look like. Um, anecdotally and from things that I've been researching and told, uh, the potential crime associated with cannabis retail is isolated. Uh, we were told previously that because it's a cash business, it invites more issues. uh as I understand it, those issues are generally isolated to that business itself and not the surrounding community. And that that rate of crime has significantly gone down since we talked about this two years ago. Um from a regulating what people do in their own homes perspective, uh I don't want to go down that road. And as I understand it, alcohol is significantly more damaging to people than cannabis. Uh and we're allowing alcohol to be sold in the city in a lot of places. Um so that's where I and again it's happening right outside our borders. Our our residents are are going and picking it up, bringing it back to wherever and and using uh and uh for medical reasons, for mental health reasons, for whatever purpose they may have to do so. I don't feel like we need to restrict their ability to do that within our city. I think that should be a right on par with being able to to purchase alcohol.

Okay. Got it. Okay. I was just trying to figure out what it is. What is the directive possibly would be? And I know it only takes two council members to give a directive to the city manager to get an ordinance together. So, it sounds like that's what we have already. Is this correct? I was just trying to figure out what the next step would be with this because this topic keeps coming back again and again and again. So I'd like to figure out is it something that we are doing something with and moving forward with

and looking at like Mike said the budget dust and different ways we can and but you didn't think it was a fiscal issue but or are we doing something else with it? So I was just looking for clarification on that part. So like all all the topics we you discuss it if it starts to go towards a place where there's a council consensus and a to-do you know I think it starts to become clear to all of us we'll um so far I've heard two different perspectives on it but I haven't heard someone say and therefore I did hear that the staff is doing some analysis on this. Is that true?

Well so we asked for a couple things. um the uh one find the revenue generation and also the uh um maps and locations. There was some discussion about what the impacts were socially and we're at that time like that's kind of some ad hoc information. We can go back and try and dig out some some material, but I guess I'd ask the question, is that report going to change anyone's mind or is it just going to be used in an avenue? And and I say that with all sincerity. I mean, is that going to be is that the determining factor on whether or not we go forward? So, do we want to spend a lot of time on that? So, because a lot of it is becomes subjective in terms of the impact or where it's at, especially when we're in a municipality surrounded by other municipalities. Some have it, some there. So, I don't know. You may have some isolated areas. were talking about the the store specifically John, but I guess I'd just like to know for the full council is that type of time spent into finding that information out important to this decision-m process

and that's your question. What what's the is there a to-do and I the only reason I asked it this discussion sounded to me like you already had some analysis and progress and it was just waiting to get here. So that's why I ask and is that actually the case or no?

That's kind of do we need that information to go forward? Do we need us to say they've had this type of impact here, this type of impact there? And a lot of it becomes again when you're something as complex as a social issue again and I think I think I made this statement there really warrants a full multiple regression analysis in terms of what is controlling

the outcome and because because we're you know every community is unique in that factor and trying to apply those types of things. So happy to do whatever council wants in terms of background data. I just want some clarity in terms of what we're going to use that for, where that value is. Ryan and then Ellen.

Yeah, I I agree with with Mike's comments that this is this isn't really about the budget. It's not really about, you know, do we want this or that. It's it really is like a, you know, a fundamental issue of an ethic an ethical issue of your own ethic and your own beliefs I guess of what personally I I think that you know allowing more um places for kids to be exposed to different substances isn't promoting the youth right like that's my like fundamental kind of idea on that so I am not for legalizing marijuana or cannabis in uh retail shops in Lakewood and and I don't think that any data is going to support that. That's a feeling. That's a you know that's what that is, right? So I don't think that I need anything from the city manager to tell me that it's going to generate X dollars of revenue and you know it's not a crime issue and it's not this issue and it's not this issue. I don't think that changes that doesn't move the needle you know at all. It's like I I still one cannabis shop is more than zero which promotes you know cannabis for youth for me that that's that's where I draw the line at. So, um, that's where I'm at. Um, I don't Yeah, I'll defer to the rest of the folks with whatever they want. Ellen,

I I took it as when we when we had the discussion and the and the the the requests that came up initially was, hey, can we just we hear about it from the community, can we just do our due diligence to get some numbers together to show us what if any the impact is or the the the addition is of cannabis revenue. And because there was and in addition to that we asked for some sociodemographic analysis. Now we didn't say it had to go be a multi-regression analysis. We just said bring us some some some socioeconomic data that gives us some insight at least into what what we should know about about uh incur opening this as a permitted use. I don't I didn't feel like we got that in the information that came to us. I feel like we got a map and we got an email with a number in it that said here's here's the amount that you would get. So, so for the sake of simply closing the loop on the request that we asked for, I think that it would be wise to ask for to to just close the loop with some additional information on on that social on that on the impact of of what we know to be and it doesn't if if it's if it's other substances Um, I I'm not trying to create a report here, but I guess I'm just saying, can we just get closure on that loop of that information?

I I appreciate that, but it is a report and it's a report into the record followed by a recommendation based on that report that's going to be easily dividable based upon personal feelings and beliefs related to it because it's not going to be a cause and effect. It's all going to be correlational data one way or the other. So that's why I ask what is the value of that? Because depending on your backgrounds, beliefs, and perspectives, it's a subjective report that is going to be able to be used one way or the other from a correlational component standpoint. So it should be extensive if we're going to be using it to make policy decisions. So, I think going back to Patty's question and then kind of pulling this all together because we've kind of now we're starting to say the same thing twice making me crazy. Um, does the council want this to come back to it to it as a policy decision that you do an up and down vote on? I think that's probably really what you need to answer here today. And if the answer is no, then I think you have your answer. just if if you want it to come back to you as as something that you would actually consider voting on, my recommendation is you do whatever analysis would support this policy decision like anything else you do. So, but let's hear from you. Do you want to do you want this to come back to you in that way or do you want to table it for now?

I would prefer for it to come back for a vote. I I think that makes sense. I appreciate city manager's question about whether this would sway people's decisions or not and I understand some of the data is subjective and without the data uh my information is circumstantial and anecdotal but I think it should come back to right I'm yeah assuming we've heard from you but yeah I I I mean I wouldn't encourage it because I don't think that a anything that the staff's going to present and it, you know, feels like a waste of time in my opinion, but for other folks, they may get value out of it. So, so you're a no. Patty,

I would just prefer that it comes back to council for a vote. Okay, she's a yes. Well, he's a yes. Philip, you're a yes. Mike Ellen, I think we should vote on it for if nothing else giving some uh certification to the community. I think what we've decided is you'll do a whatever the process is that would bring it back an analytical process to support a vote somewhere in this year. I guess whatever, right? Doug.

Yeah. So, I just trying to get clarification. What information do you want with it? Do do you want to go back and look at and take the time to look at it or do you just want it brought back as a vote? Just

included in the packet should be the map because the public's going to want to know. People who are opposed to this are immediately going to go, it's going to be in my backyard. So, we need to understand what state law allows, what we're allowed to zone, because if we can zone on top of that, then folks who are who are in opposition may may come back and say, "Well, I want to send something to the planet before we license these." I think Mike would logically say or or or Ryan would logically say, "Hey, we need we want to understand where these can be cited and when under state law, how we want to do these and send that off to the planning commission." So, that would be the next step, I would I would assume, because there's going to be people in the public who

freak out about this. Okay. And I'm not and I'm I shouldn't put it in those. There'll there'll be people who will remain concerned. Sure. Right.

The the one piece of information that I think would be relevant to when we do vote, and it's not the only piece, but it's the one that's there is ask the Liquor and Cannabis Board how many licenses they would issue if we changed policy to allow retail establishments in Lakewood. Let's should we move to the next topic? Good discussion. Um Preston Department audits. We sort of talked about that. Yeah, we covered that one. So, we're good.

Okay. Grants. So, uh, this was just, and again, this may fall just under the city manager's purview, but I want to make sure as a city when we go to pursue grants for various projects that we have a a higher level strategic vision in mind and that we're not letting the availability of grants drive our design goals and how we build the city out, right? We should be saying what we want and letting people apply for grants to achieve that instead of letting the grants drive what we want.

Discussion Mike issue around that is that uh grants are good other people's money is is is always helpful. um that um as a city we have done well certainly better than average amongst other municipalities uh nearby to do that that so so the one thing around grants that I would ask the city manager to think about is to make sure that we are investing in training for our staff app who might be authoring applications for grants, some training so that they can do that. Well, when a grant is appropriate for something we want to do,

Paul and then Ryan, you can raise your hands. Um, yeah.

And I and I always hesitate to bring my day job into it. In my day job, we are a council executive form of government. So we the the county council now reviews and approves on its consent agenda every application for grants above a quarter million. The reason that was instituted was exactly what Treston talked about of the the concern that departments were creating avenues for um they were creating avenues for policy that were not actually the policy of the county council. Right? So, so we don't have an executive form of government. we don't have a a strong mayor form, but there is something to that, right, of understanding what what those are. And I and I now I'm going to embarrassingly show my ignorance. I I don't know what our policy is when it comes I mean, I know some city councils approve like all grant applications or something. At least that's what I've heard in the past. I don't even know what we do here. We we accept grants if we're required, right? By like some state agencies require you to for the legislative body to accept the grant, but in the application side, what what do we do?

Yeah. So, that's a good question. We haven't had that many since I've been here. I'm going to turn the if our deputy manager has any insight. Not to put you on the spot. Normally you'd have to authorize you know the award like the NCC grant for example um you know before we can authorize expenditure you have to accept that in a lot of cases sometimes it's underneath um but in terms of process I know but what are the

okay so in terms of processes a lot of it has to do with the grant requirements itself some grants require a resolution uh to be able to apply for the grant. In terms of bringing it back to the city council, some grants will require an authorization or an approval by the city council to accept the grant. There's also times where in order uh to receive the funding because it's a certain amount and the offsetting expenditures, we bring it back to the city council. Sometimes there are grant match requirements which if needed will come back to the city council. So, the city council, and I think you remember this from your agenda items, you see a lot of the grants come in, like the bulletproof vest, those are smaller grants, but you'll still see them. Um, a lot of the U police equipment grants will come through you to you, too. So,

does that help? No, I don't have any questions. I I I I think we need to decide is that sufficient or do we need to move in another direction? And I know I'm getting a little ways and I apologize to Tristan for getting a little ways away from that, but I I I needed to understand that process and thank you Tristan.

Thank you, Paul. Uh yeah, it's I always take things to an extreme to recognize inefficient or inconsistencies. Um, so in theory, if there were a grant available that allowed us to get $10 million to pave over all of Fort Silicon Park, I want to make sure that the city is not going to pursue that without fitting within council's vision for the city and what we have established. And I'm not sure that well, I just don't know if that level of review exists right now. Please absolutely understand what you're saying because historically I've you see oh this grant's available so I'm going to get it because it provides a we'll just say when they first came out oh we can get a a drone through this but have you looked at all what all that goes on and your what the commitments are so gotcha understand completely what you're saying because you don't want to be you don't even want to be in the point of turning it down when it does come before council in some of those cases. So yeah, they really should align with really our budget policy and what we're trying and the services that we're doing. That's where grants should come into play with. I'll probably talk to you afterwards about if there's specific components within there, but you're entirely right. You want to have that alignment really with that budget document of grants that are going to achieve that. Now sometimes some will come out of it but that may be a point of discussion you know in front of the council. Hey, this is a different service that we're not providing. How does that come into play?

Right. I got skipped last time. Um,

so this the original comment was from Treston was about making sure that the grants aren't driving our applications and stuff. And to some extent, I totally agree with with Mike that well, grants are good. You know, we get a lot of money from grants to do a lot of the good work in in the city and there are pur strings attached and certain requirements that you need to meet. So, I think as long as they're generally meeting our mission, vision, value, what what we do as a city, what we where we want to go, yeah, then then let's, you know, meet those requirements so we can get these grants to to accomplish our goals. Um, yeah, our goal isn't in here to pave Fort Silicon Park. And so I don't think, you know, if if Doug said, "Oh yeah, we got this grant." I'd be like, you know, "What are you doing?" Right? Like, so these you I also don't want to be looking at every single grant that we get that, you know, to do the day-to-day business that we need, you know, the city needs to do as a whole. So, um, if there's some high level, you know, I think that I haven't expressed or or found any issues with what what's going on currently. So, I don't have any concerns. Um, I think if, you know, Doug's not doing his job, then we'll have concerns, but right, you know, if he's getting if the city's getting grants and we're making progress, then I don't have any concerns with that. So,

okay, Mike. And then Alan. You know, I do think that I wouldn't want to create an overly cumbersome process to to be able to get grant applications moving forward. Um, there are a lot of grants that we just sort of get every year that that go forward. Um there are multiple transportation project grants that we submit knowing they all won't all get approved but that we we want they they all tend to be for things that are already uh in our tip. So you know technically we've approved applying for them because we've approved the concepts of the project. Just this last meeting, this last study session, we looked at or where a a grant that was applied for a long time ago regarding the U urban forestry program uh that we thought we didn't get u in a in in in a next round, we did. And so, so the the important thing though is is that all the grants that I see, whether they're for $10,000 or whether they're for $3 million, they show up in u they one of the budget documents is a carry forward a budget or a carry forward budget or a budget adjustment to do that so that before any grant money is expended uh and we have and we could be subject to having to replace it. it there's always an approval by the city council to to to to actually spend that money to go to go forward and and and and I'm and I'm comfortable with it being that way given that um you know we we have the tip we have the the parks legacy plan we

have uh you know you know ongoing public safety initiatives that are routinely funded at grants that we know about and that we don't need to really get in the way of that process by saying, "Well, it's got to come to one of our two meetings a month to to vote on to say, yes, go ahead and ask for that $10,000 again." Uh, Ellen,

yeah, I think what I'm I what I don't hear Trust saying is let's make this process more complicated. What I what I understand in your comment is can we get away from the practice and the process of let's just think of a project that fits this grant criteria because we have this grant criteria in front of us which I can speak from personal experience that I swim in every day is completely not uncommon and and the hardship of that is that you end up with projects and needs needs that can't be addressed because you haven't prioritized them. And so that is I think the key the key word here is how we prioritize our our our capital investments that then drive our grant pursuits. And what I would like to see and what I've spoke about it before is that we find is is that we start to move course to that direction and practice of prioritizing our our transportation improvements, our parks CIP, our understanding what our police what our PD capital needs are um and operational needs are that rely on grants and and hold that methodology. ology consistent as best as we can throughout prioritizing these spending these spend these needs for spending so that when we are pursuing grants it's always strategic and it's always filling a a a purpose and need that is uh that that underpines from our our greater vision.

Okay. and then I want to see where we are on time and our next topic.

Yeah, thank you for that. Uh and Ellen, you said it eloquently more so than me. That that is exactly my approach is is making sure that we're aligned and we've got and I don't want to add a more cumbersome task to what we're doing. I just want to make sure that we're being purposeful and making sure that what we are pursuing aligns with the goals and priorities that we have set out. Uh and it doesn't mean that council has to necessarily review it. It can be city staff making sure that it that it fits with the goals that we've put put in place. Uh beyond that, I want to make sure that we're not pursuing grants that will have future costs that we incur by going down that path that aren't covered by that grant. Uh because that can happen very easily.

Doug, I actually really appreciate this conversation because usually what I face is phone calls. Why aren't we applying for this grant? and I have to explain why. And it's like, well, we should be applying. It's free. It's free money. I really appreciate this conversation. Thank you.

I'd like to end end it by saying that that one of the reasons I really like to see councils have goals is that it it communicates outward to the rest of the world what your priorities are and it fits the criteria you're talking about. So, uh, when a funer when you apply for something and they see you're asking for money that's in your top five goals or whatever it is in whatever sector, you know, it you get higher points for something like that. Having run a big grant program, I can tell you for a fact that those programs are written, at least the ones we were writing, to cause an organization to have to do some things we wanted them to do. Okay? Now, that's not in the capital world, that's not really always the case, but in some of the other worlds, that was definitely the case. So, if you got the grant, we we purposely knew you would have to do these things to qualify. So, you know, you're not wrong in in terms of that kind of thing. Great discussion. I I think we're Can we move to the last one? Are we good? Okay. Um, is this creating shelter beds? Uh, I think is this sure? Save the best for last here. Right now, Lakewood does not have any emergency shelter beds, which means we're sending people who are in crisis in Lakewood somewhere else because we have nowhere for them to go. This is incredibly harmful. I held a an event in the community a few weeks ago on homelessness with representatives from law enforcement and prosecutor's office and shelter providers, elected officials, treatment providers, and one of the things they agreed on, there wasn't a lot, but one of the things they agreed on was that homelessness results from a loss of social capital. It's when you have no one to call and nowhere to go. So, I believe we have a responsibility to do what we can to take care of our own. And so does Tacoma, who provides a majority of homeless services in the region. This is one of the reasons why they're proposing unified regional approach. Um, they want us to contribute to this because they're handling 80% of the region's

homelessness. So, here's the thing. I don't assume that Lakewood wants to handle homelessness the way that Tacoma does. And I think we should do our best to take care of our own. So, I'd like to direct the city manager to explore a small pilot program that has Lakewood providing a small number of emergency crisis beds. I've had many conversations with community partners who' be eager to provide wraparound services and I can refer those to the city manager to help guide and support staff with this process. We could also establish a subcommittee for this effort as we did with the H barn. To be clear, I recognize there are problems here, not least how do we provide stable funding for such a site. And to be clear, I do not want a site that exacerbates the visible homelessness in the community. My vision is simple. Get Lakewood residents experiencing crisis off the street. Get them into a Lakewood facility and do homelessness the Lakewood way. It's time we start taking care of our own, especially before signing on to an ILA that commits us to sending our residents and our money somewhere else.

Discussion, please. Mike, I agree with that sentiment, although experience tells me that's rather utopian. When when we had ARPA dollars and we had a lot of ARPA, one of the very first things that the council did was say, "Let's spend a million dollars to get a shelter established in Lakewood. And we put out an RFP saying we have a million dollars and we put it out to the community that's is in the service to to the homeless residents. And in response to that RFP, we got zero applications. We got lots of comments of people that said, "We'd gladly take the million dollars, but we're going to use it to establish the facility somewhere else that you can send your Lakewood homeless to." Um, so we ended up doing we actually ended up dealing with $2 million. We sent uh initially a million dollars and it said that that that they were going to build a homeless shelter by reconverting a hotel on Hosmer to do that. And it was supposed to be a a shelter in the in the traditional meaning of a shelter where folks were going to do that. And after they got the money, the provider who got the money, and he got money from Tacoma and he got money from Pierce College to be able to do that decided that running

a shelter out of that hotel was too expensive. So he used the money to buy the hotel, but then he said, "We'd rather have instead of a shelter, we want permanent supportive housing." And that's what what has gone on. and we went through a renegotiation process and we got some of our million dollars back, okay? Because it wasn't what the agreement in the grant training was. And then the second the second million dollar that we put out and said we want something here in Lakewood, we focused through to do that and we got no one there and we ultimately ended up with an agreement with Pierce County that their village for chronic homelessness down in Spanway. We put we said we would put the million dollars to do that provided there was some guarantees that a certain fraction of of of those would be people whose last stable address was Lakewood and that a certain percentage would be homelessness and that there were some environmental parameters around the project that they would do down there. the the folks that are in the sheltering business and we've had some come and go here. Um, you know, we've had some faith-based shelters and they were that was there's one that was dealing with families and not chronic that was through the Catholic community services and it rotated through some of the churches here to be able to go and do that, but they didn't didn't persist to be able to go and do that. So I I I I I I I I I don't know that there's a city initiated path to getting shelters created here short of someone with an

idea. We have supported Lassa's efforts. But again, Lassa is been their services to the homeless have tended to be into a not so much a shelter but a hygiene center. uh and they have done some things about folks folks to to do that and and what what they're building is actually designed to be permanent supportive housing. So I I I don't your idea of telling the city manager to go out and try to find a way to make shelter beds happen without someone coming and saying I want to make shelter beds happen. uh is going to be uh an exercise in him spinning wheels as it has been for us for the past five years.

Okay, Ryan.

Yeah, I I I agree. I I appreciate the sentiments and I I also agree with with Mike. I think that this is one of the areas that really it's challenging to do at small scale and it's it it opens you you're it opens many doors at larger scale which I think is why so many jurisdictions you know get together to try to pull resources for this kind of work they can consolidate services they can you know it's not just the shelters it's the other services that are all needed as well and so I I think that, you know, continuing to help in the ways that we can and provide funding for things like this, um, is doing our part, but it's also, you know, kind of creating a bigger bang for your buck. You know, you're doing more collectively as a group than you are, you know, each individual working in a silo. So, um, thanks, Paul. So, um, thank you for bringing this up because I, so I would note a couple of things. I think Tacoma's fatigue at carrying the whole load is real. Um, and um, typically we have tried not to be a free rider. There's all sorts of cities in the in the county that will be absolute free riders on on on this. they're more than happy to to drop people off the Tacoma city limits, I think. So, their their concerns are very valid. Um, I also believe that under state law now, we have to provide a certain number. remember that thing that came out a couple of years ago about housing and and and there's emergency shelter beds

and there's transitional h you know they and they broke it up and then 60% 80%. We have to eventually show those that we've got those and so if we don't we need to be investigating it anyway just as part of compliance with the with the state law. So I think I think in res respect Tacoma I think it is something that we should look at investigating the time frame and whatnot. I don't know but we we need to find a provider and we need to you know liquid size it because I think something like the mission which is now going to like double in size um is has a impact on a large area. I mean, there's guys hanging out, men, mainly men hanging out all over the place. It's better than it was. But, um, I think for those reasons, good neighbor reasons, um, um, and and reasons that we're going to eventually have to show the state that we've made best efforts towards filling those buckets. Um, on the housing side, we're going to need to to look at something like this. So how this looks I know you've got a lot on your plate how how we begin to the discussion with providers I don't know but I it is a disc it's not going to go away I'll tell you that I don't I don't have a sense of urgency to it that that maybe Philip does but it it is something we can't ignore. I don't I don't believe we can ignore we do have to make best efforts. Okay, and then Philip,

uh, thank you for bringing this forward, Philip. I think it's really important to us as stewards of our community, as our brother's keeper. Uh, we have a homeless population in Lakewood that needs help and as part of our community, we need to rally around them and give them the support they need. And I think this is the route to get us going that direction and not just because the state says we have to, but because it's the right thing to do. So I totally support moving forward with this.

Philip, so we've heard a lot of really good thoughts here. I'll go through some of them. Um Mike, I think a lot of what you said makes sense. Uh what's gone before, you know, we've learned some lessons and some of those lessons are hard. You mentioned that people aren't asking for it. I I would counter that. People are. So after the event that I had a few weeks ago, I had probably two dozen emails of people in the community saying, "Why aren't we talking about this more? Why aren't we doing anything? There is need. There is concern." You mentioned the failed hotel conversion product project. I could have told you before you did that that it wasn't going to work. Um I think when I say do this the Lakewood way, one of the nice things is because Tacoma is carrying a certain burden for the region, we don't have to do what they're doing. We can do it a little bit different. One of the things that's happening in their jurisdictions is they're doing very very low barrier. One of the things we could do if we so chose is we could not have it be a low barrier site. We could have it be a site where people are getting treated where they are there are rules in the facility where you are not allowed to have substances of any kind. Like these are rules we can talk about and we have a certain amount of flexibility with that because we're we're not trying to create a 300 bed shelter. I'm not trying to create a 300 bed shelter. When I speak to Tacoma Rescue Mission, they say, you know, scale does matter. Like you mentioned, Ryan, they'll say really a minimum size for something like this is 25 beds. My first thought or concern is I don't know if Lakewood's ready for 25 beds. But that's why I wonder, can we do five? Can we do 10? I think that's a question worth asking, a question worth exploring a little bit. I'll do as much as I'm allowed to do to help that process. Doug I'm not sure what the outcome of this is. Is this a city-run shelter?

Well, that would be one of the questions. My expectation would be that we're not going to provide all the wraparound services. I think we need to talk to Lassa. I think we need to talk to Greater Lakes. I think we need to talk to the Cohen Center. We need to see what's available to us here in Lakewood and what we need to provide, where the gaps are, and then decide what what makes sense from there. So it could essentially be funding a provider. These would be the questions we want to ask. I may have a lot more questions later.

Well, okay. So is the is there agreement across the council that you want your city manager to start a process that would for sure identify the questions right that that we you'd have and then start looking at different ways to answer them and begin to approach it. Is that something the full council wants to have the manager do like Ellen? Hey, I'm not sure that start a process is what I want to ask the city manager to do. Uh, however, I want him to be responsive and helpful to potential providers that come and are seeking the potential to be able to provide services here in Lakewood in the same way that we are honestly supposed to be receptive to other people that come to us with economic development ideas to be able to go and do that. But I I you know, starting off on a process to go and find providers and sell them to come to Lakewood to do this, I I don't think is what I want to do right now. Anyway,

okay, Ellen, and then Philip,

I think I I think for practical and logistical reasons, I agree with that. Although I I I do agree with what's been discussed that I have also long time felt that that Tacoma carrying the load is starting to it's starting to become obvious that Lakewood is Pierce County's large second largest city. At some point, we need to be a little bit more self-reflective on how we are trying to contribute in good faith and be a partner. I think what I'm kind of um not conflicted but just questioning is that my sense is that the questions that that that Philip you're that Philip is asking about how we how we get all this information about partners and and and funders and number of beds and determining that. It was kind of my sense that um that the the URRA and being part of the URRA because by virtue of being in the URA then then there's the creation of this whole HMIS that that is the that has all that information. So, I guess I'm kind of looking at it from more of a timing point of view as if that's where we want to get to, which which sounds like in general there is foresight to do that, but I guess it kind of makes sense to to enter into the into the URA first and be and and have access to the network that answers all the questions that we're trying to put together. So I I'm sort of supportive but just in the timing under the track that we

and the other thing is I think we need to discuss the URRA too and our participation of it and decide as a council if we're going to enter into it as well. So Philip,

yeah I really appreciate the feedback. Um I strongly disagree with council member Bransteader when he says wait for providers to come. These providers are not going out in the community and saying we have so much extra bandwidth. Who can we help? And they're certainly not going to come in a comprehensive way that allows us to say oh we now have all the pieces. Everyone's come to us now. We can we can meet this need in our community. Frankly, I just don't think that's leadership. It's not even how we do economic development. We don't just wait for businesses to come. We we try to go get them because we have a need in our community. Um, as to the URA, I'm I'm cautious. We don't know what that looks like for one, and I'm cautious to sign on to policies we may not agree with, to a bureaucracy, we may not want to pay for. We don't know what we're looking at. So, I don't think we wait to figure out what we want. Um, I I think we start answering this question for Lakewood, and I think that's what people want us to do.

Okay. other folks weigh in before I'm going to say we've you're you're wanting I'm not sure you have direction yet. That's what I'm saying from I'm hearing yes maybe. Yes. I can give a list of questions we need to answer if it's helpful. I can connect with providers that are interested in working on this. I connect you with residents who can express their concerns. Whatever is needed. I I guess what I need to know is what resources do we want to apply to this issue. I think we have to know how we're going to answer the question first. The resource question will be driven by are we doing 25 beds or three?

Are we working with providers that we're paying or providers that are that are able to fund this in other ways?

Okay. Other folks point of view. Sounds like you you're wanting to develop sort of a scope and sort of talk to people and develop Yeah. what kind of what it would look like which would then answer the question how much money you're going to throw at it. So there's a preliminary process in my head that you're talking about uh Treston but I I still haven't seen four votes for this if you will my words. So I I remain in support of Philip's proposal as it's structured there. And I think once we have some framework around this, it's something that our community services advisory board could help with determining the funding. Okay. Right. Right.

Yeah. I think that the getting answers to the the preliminary questions is helpful in in taking that and saying, "Okay, you know, what is the scope of this? What is the scale of it? Are there other funding sources that can, you know, contribute to it? And then we can kind of be a little bit better informed of exactly what it may look like and say, "Okay, well, geez, you know, this is 100% on us to do this or that." And we're only going to get X with it versus if we do what we're, you know, doing this or or the the the URA, then, you know, we can get X amount of beds and things like that. So, I think it's a it's a good starting point to start asking some of these questions and and touching base with folks about what the the need is and what they could provide to help us, you know, and then we can kind of see where we're at.

Doug, yeah, going back to Council Member Tabo's comments related to the URRA, that may be a way not to replicate some of this activity. And so can we when they come and present kind of dig into because they're talking about you know a staffing model for example and participation give access to it now sometimes I get the feeling that the RA is about programs sometimes it's about information but I think that would maybe be a centralized component to lead into what would that look like and what would that question be

right Yeah, I think I think the mayor kind of hit on my point too that or I agree with him and that it's not at the I don't think it's heightened right now to like start doing work on it immediately. I think that we probably and to Council Member um Tabo's comments about the URRA and getting some more meetings about what's going on there like we'll probably understand more of that. I think they're going to come present later this summer or something. Yeah. So, I think that we're going to start to learn a lot more about that. Um, and and maybe at that time we can venture off and say, "Okay, this doesn't sound like something we were interested in or it does and and kind of go one way or the other at that time maybe."

Okay. Adding Paul, any other more input? No, no more input, but I'm agree with getting questions answered. Okay.

Okay. So what I'm hearing is agreement on a sort of a identification of some of the key questions that you would have and then maybe start a process to look at them in concert with some other activities that are getting ready to come to you that's related to this in the summer. Does that make sense? Yeah. And I think so let me ask this question. Can I relay this to the committee that's talking about the URRA is if we were looking at how to provide shelter beds, this is something that that body could work through and provide answers. Is that a safe avenue for me to take right now? I guess I would say that, you know, feedback can always be helpful, but again, I do not assume that the URRA, the folks that are involved in that are going to answer those questions in the same way that we would want them answered in Lakewood. They're dealing with different scales, different concerns, different budgetary pressures, different a different economic, they represent a different jurisdiction. So, I would be very interested to know what would it look like for Lakewood to come up with a Lakewood solution.

Can we can we get feedback? Absolutely. especially because a lot of this work is being done elsewhere. But my hunch is that the type of solution that Lakewood would want to see or or venture or pilot would be one that's not low barrier in the same way as some of these other jurisdictions. When I spoke to a provider last week, they said, "You know what you should do? You should do one of those uh pallet villages. You put them right on the side of the freeway, you can have 100 pallets. It's great." Lakewood doesn't want that. And that's not the kind of feedback I want for Lakewood. Okay. Why?

Yeah. Yeah, I I also think that uh going to the folks that are putting together the URRA right now is not a really good source for the answers. You need to go to some people perhaps in in in other in other cities who are have launched some things and sustain them successfully uh to get the answers to the questions about what would it take to on a scale appropriate to Lakewood do that. Okay. Sorry. We have resources in Lakewood we can talk to about this. We have Lassa. We have Greater Lakes. We have the Cohen Center. have local people here who see what the local problem is. Let's talk to them. Okay.

So, Elvin,

so I think so kind of what I'm also hearing then is is I think so the conversations and the questions that we can and should be having perhaps are at a even council conversational point. I mean certainly any of us could could and and can be having conversations to help to help this go forward. I think logistically and practically my sense is that what we have in the budget for what's been adopted in 2526 and then what we're going to be facing with 2728 I don't think we have I mean I think all of our resources are allocated for 2526. So to ask if we can dedicate resources after today um to answer these questions from the current budget, I don't think we I I think everything's been allocated. So if we're going to spend resources in the next budget, then that's part of a budget proposal.

Okay. Any other comments before I'm going to try and wrap this up? So what I'm hearing is that there's a general agreement that that understanding a Lakewood way to address the issue that we've been discussing has support. Um I think you're at a there's what that means to a city manager in terms of okay how do I implement that going forward I think is out of this discussion is a bit fuzzy from my perspective. I've I've heard Philip when you say I you know So my sense is you want to move forward on this. My sense is that you would probably want to identify some of the key questions and develop a methodology by which you'd begin to answer them in a preliminary way to be able to come back to you. This last comment was and it's and isn't you know trying to put the policy side together with the resource side rings true. Is that is that something that you have resource? That's why you see me constantly turn to your city manager not to prove whether or not he likes your idea. That's not the point at all. The real point is a is there good understanding and is there is there space to do it? You know that's the other thing. So it's kind of Philip.

Yeah. So I wonder nobody here wants to burden staff. Nobody here wants to allocate funds we don't have to allocate. One of the other things I mentioned was does it make sense to have a subcommittee go do some of this research? They can bring it back to the city city manager and that research would be very simple quite frankly. They'd be, "Hey, certain service provider, if you were going to do this in Lakewood with some of these understandings of what residents might want or need, how would you do it look like?"

Yeah. And and that report can be put together by a subcommittee. It could be a subcommittee of one. I don't mind doing this work. I just think it's really important and and I don't think it needs to cost a lot. It's certainly time and time is expensive. Any other comments? So my suggestion is that perhaps Philip, you and Doug sit down and figure out a way to go about that. You've just you just suggested a councilbased approach to it. I don't know, but maybe you two could sit down and and come up with a strategy that would perhaps marry resources from internally.

Yeah, I mean I think that's a good start. Um, I'm a city manager. I've never run a shelter. That's that's why I'm having this that's why I'm having this question. You know, I've been obviously, you know, I've had shelters in the communities I've been in. So that's why I'm like, okay, this is a whole new department after some of the discussion we've had is I'm I'm having trouble reconciling some of that because it's not a revenue generator, you know, in terms of this. There's no revenue source related to it. That's why, you know, first question asked, is this a city-run shelter? Um, usually you end up with these like a provider comes forward that wants to set up a a place and they operate independent. Well, if I may say, I mean, there are different ways to fund these types of things. I'm on the continuum of care, right? They're giving certain amount of federal dollars away. We have in our city budget right now that we're giving certain amount of money to loss of for emergency shelter beds, but that's not really what they're providing. Like, there's money out there that we can allocate and find. It's just a matter of what do we need? Then we go get it. Okay. So, let me offer perhaps you two could sit and and kind of and and come up with with an agreement on kind of a a preliminary strategy. I would urge you though to share that with the full council before you go forth and do that at commensurate with standard practice frankly and that would at least you've heard the discussion that would at least move the ball forward in a way that that would create communication and give you something a little more concrete to chew on you know because again retreat's a place to bring ideas forward you know I always want to be cautious I'll let you marry those with your existing resources so would that be a good solution that Yeah, I mean there's be nothing to stop any council member from bringing forth a request to the full council at any point

in time. You know that, hey, I think we should do this. Here's my proposal. That's essentially what we're doing it. But the council's understanding that that's a desire of a member of our council and really authorizing those discussions to take place and kind of brainstorm them, other things we've got going on. So, I think that's appropriate next step with this.

Okay, cool. So, boom. Um, four o'clock. Uh, first of all, I really want to thank you for going through in a very big agenda and working so well together. I I really appreciate that from you. And, uh, you know, I'm tired because we've all sit here and listen to pretty heavy conversations, but I I I think it's been really good. I appreciate this. I don't know if there's any other comments before we adjourn, but I think the mayor has to slam the gap. Tresen,

just a quick comment and first I want to thank you, Michael, for for hosting us for this and I know everyone's excited to to wrap things up, but I I really appreciate this forum to be able to have this collaborative conversation and I don't know that we get the same sort of interaction and depth in our study sessions. Uh I would be interested in having something similar to this even on a quarterly basis on like a fourth Monday where we have beyond just our normal study session type space but having a a collaborative deal with stuff like this type of environment. I don't know how the rest of you feel about that. Any other comments? Okay. Thank you so much and I guess Mr. Mayor, are we ajour? Okay. Thank you.