Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Pierce County Council. Today is June 30th, 2026. The time is 3.02 according to my clock. And I'd like to ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Council Member Morrell. Council Member Herrera.

Here.

Council Member Kruver. Councilmember Ayala? Here. Councilmember Yambe? Here. Councilmember Denson? Here. Councilmember Hitchen? Here. You have seven members present.

With seven members, we do have a quorum. Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. In a moment, Councilmember Denson will be leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance and then reading a land acknowledgement. Following the pledge, I'd ask that you remain standing for a moment of silence in recognition of those affected and impacted by the powerful earthquakes that struck Venezuela on June 24th, and to acknowledge the significant international relief and recovery efforts and ongoing support for the impacted communities. If you can stand, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. We acknowledge that we are on the traditional homelands of the Coast Salish tribes. Coast Salish people have lived on and stewarded these lands since time immemorial and continue to do so today. We recognize that this land acknowledgement is one small step towards true allyship, and we commit to uplifting the voices, experiences, and histories of the indigenous people of this land.

Thank you, Council Member Denton. We are now at the section four, which is approval of the agenda. Are there any objections to the agenda as presented? Not seeing any, so we will consider the agenda approved. On today's council agenda, there'll be multiple opportunities for public comment. On the consent agenda, you may provide comments on any final action item. This does not include items placed on the consent agenda for introduction and scheduling. Then during sections eight and nine of the agenda, we will take public comment on each ordinance and resolution individually. And finally, under community forum, there'll be an opportunity to address the council on any topic that was not up for final action in today's agenda. For more information, of course, there's fine print. It's at the bottom of the first page of your agenda. We're now at the consent agenda. Today on our consent agenda we have one set of minutes, three appointment resolutions, two final settlement agreements, and a motion to rescind and reset the final hearing date for proposal O2026-526S. Is there anyone who would like to move an item from the consent agenda? Not seeing anyone. Vice Chair to make a motion.

Chair move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve the consent agenda as presented. I'm going to go through the list of, I mentioned there were three appointment resolutions, and I just want to see if any of these individuals are here. Chris Carnes, who's being appointed to the Planning Commission, and if you're on Zoom, if you want to raise your hand, it helps our team flag you and get you moved. Okay, how about Kathleen Carson, Bonnie Char, or Gretchen Casarotti all joining us, joining the Pierce County Arts Commission? Any of those individuals in chambers or online? Not seeing anyone. How about Erin Heringshaw, Haley Saxton, Latoya Sarant, or Victoria Housworth? Okay, both of you, you're welcome to, if you want to come to the podium, if you'd like to introduce yourself and just say a little bit about why you want to serve and whoever gets there first, but don't fight. And it's not required. Do either of you want to come and introduce yourself to the council just so we know name and face? Again, not required, but...

Good afternoon. My name is Latoya Surratt, and I am interested in serving in the capacity on the advisory board because I believe in community, and I think that I have a point of view that could be effectual for the council's consideration.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm...

I'm Erin Heringshaw, and I live down the street and just looking for ways to become more involved in Pierce County now that I'm a resident here.

Thank you very much, Latoya and Erin. Was there anyone? I see Haley. Hello, Haley. If you'd like to unmute, we can see you and we think we can hear you.

Hello, Council. Thank you for inviting me today. My name is Haley Saxton. I am the finance specialist for New Horizon Communities, and I look forward to serving on the Citizens Advisory Board in that capacity to bring my experience and knowledge in that way to serving my local community. I'm very excited. Thank you so much.

Well, thank you. Thank you to all three for your willingness to serve. Always volunteering for boards and commissions. Absolutely necessary to the work we do, but you are adding one more thing to your plate. So any comments or questions from council members? Council Member Yambe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to thank, let's see, so Gretchen, of course, we all know. Bonnie Char was an Arts Commissioner in the City of Fife for several years and has really been impactful there and a great community-minded person. I did have the chance to talk to Haley and LaToya and can't say enough good things and I think that they both have much needed and helpful perspectives to add to our advisory board and absolutely highly support their additions to our commissions and boards and urge support.

Thank you. So because we are taking final action, we do need to open this up for public comment. Again, the only thing we're taking comments on are the set of minutes. So if you found a typo, let us know. We'd like to fix it. There usually are none. Thank you to our amazing clerks team. And then the three appointment resolutions, the motion to rescind and reset to the final hearing. And I think I get the list. So I'm going to open this up for public comment. You have up to three minutes. Is there anyone in chambers that would like to provide comment before? We go to the Zoom room. Not seeing anyone. Mr. Dominique.

We'll go to you. For any member of the public that would like to provide comment on today's consent agenda, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star 9 on your telephone keypad. There are no answers this time, Madam Chair.

With no hands raised, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back before the council. Before us, we have the motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Any further discussion? Okay, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on approving the consent agenda as presented.

Council Member Denson? Aye. Council Member Morrell?

Aye.

Council Member Herrera? Aye. Council Member Kruver?

Aye.

Council Member Ayala? Aye. Council Member Yambe? Aye.

Council Member Hitchen? Aye. You have seven ayes, zero nays. Seven ayes and zero nays. The motion is adopted. Thank you. Section six is messages from the executive or other elected officials, which there are none. We don't have any proclamations today. That doesn't happen very often. So we will move right to resolution section eight. So our first item is proposal number R2026-154. as vice chair Herrera for a motion.

Chair, move proposal number R2026-154S for approval.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Will the clerk please read it into the record?

Proposal number R2026-154S, a resolution of the Pierce County Council initiating an annexation process for certain unincorporated areas within potential annexation areas and directing the Planning and Public Works Department to commence negotiations of an interlocal agreement with the City of Sumner pursuant to revised Code of Washington 35.14.460.

Thank you. And this afternoon we have Principal Policy Analyst Mike Krueger to brief us on this item. Mr. Krueger.

Uh, thank you chair. Good afternoon council members. The Washington state growth management act encourages the annexation of unincorporated county territory into cities and towns when such areas are located within urban growth areas and have been further designated as potential annexation areas. This objective of the Growth Management Act is affirmed in Vision 2050, the Pierce County countywide planning policies, and the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. The planned annexation areas in Pierce County are targeted for future inclusion into adjacent municipalities to promote orderly growth and efficient provision of various urban services. The urban unincorporated plant annexation areas affiliated with the city of Sumner are shown in the Pierce County comprehensive plan. Map 2.2, and that was most recently updated in December 2024. There was also an exhibit a to this resolution that shows these areas in greater detail. Approximately 810 acres in three neighborhoods that are adjacent to the city of Sumner have been identified for annexation. Pierce County policy indicates support of annexation proposals that are wholly within a city's planned annexation area and suggest establishing planning agreements as a tool to facilitate those annexations. This resolution is a first step in a process that could eventually result in annexation of some or all of those annexation areas that are shown on exhibit A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.460, following Council adoption of this resolution, negotiations between the City of Sumner and Pierce County will commence. Interlocal agreements describing the boundaries of the territories to be annexed would need to be completed and adopted by the legislative bodies of both the County and the City of Sumner, and those agreements would include specific terms for annexation. Following adoption of the interlocal agreements, the Sumner City Council would need to adopt an ordinance. This ordinance would provide for the annexation of the territory described in the agreement, and it could be one or all three of the areas or portions thereof that are shown on the map. The territory to be annexed through the ordinance becomes fully annexed to the City no sooner than 45 days after the adoption of the City's ordinance, and that annexation ordinance is subject to referendum by the people if there were concerns. This proposal was considered by the Rules and Operations Committee on June 15th and passed out of the committee with a do pass as substituted recommendation. And I would be happy to take any questions, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions on this resolution? I'm not seeing any hands raised for my colleagues online or in the room, so I'm going to open this up for public comment. If anyone would like to write comment on Resolution 2026-154S, please come to the podium. We'll start in chambers. Not seeing anyone. Mr. Dominique, we will go online.

For any member of the public that would like to provide comment on proposal number R2026-154S, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star nine on your telephone keypad. No answer this time, Madam Chair.

With no hands raised, we'll close public comment, bring it back before the full council. Is there any further discussion on this item? Vice Chair Herrera.

Real quick, I just want to say thanks to staff and getting this together. I mean, one of the pillars of counties is to kind of lay down the groundwork for cities to annex some of the surrounding areas that they need. And this is helping one step closer to get that done. So I appreciate the staff and getting this and excited for the city center.

Thank you. Any other conversation or comments? Not seeing any, I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the roll on the approval of R2026-154S. Council Member Iombe. Aye.

Council Member Denson. Aye. Council Member Morrell. Aye. Council Member Herrera. Aye. Council Member Krueger. Aye. Council Member Ayala. Aye. Council Member Hitchen. Aye.

Aye.

You have seven ayes, zero nays.

With seven ayes and zero nays, the motion was adopted. Council Member Morrell, was your hand up and I just missed it, or you were using that to also signal that you were voting?

No, it was up. But now that the vote's over, it's fine. So I'm okay. Thank you.

Okay. I apologize.

I missed it.

Group effort, everybody. If I miss a hand, somebody chime in. There's a lot going on. Okay, so we are now at section nine, which is ordinances. We have proposal number O2026-522, Councilmember Krueger for a motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move for approval O2026-522.

It's been moved and seconded. Can the clerk please read it into the record?

Proposal number O2026-522, an ordinance of the Pierce County Council vacating a portion of Middle County Road East lying southerly of southerly margin of Campbell Lane East and southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 16 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, Pierce County, Washington.

Thank you. And today we have Tom Swanson, our policy analyst, to lead the conversation.

Thank you, Chair Hitchen. Yes, the proposal for the body is in response to a request from the Planning and Public Works Department to vacate an undeveloped portion of Middle County Road. This is in the Eatonville area. It is located in the county's Blau Gravel Pit property. A map and aerial view are provided within the staff report. The county engineer has reviewed this application and determined one, that the right of way segment in question is not needed as part of the county's road system. And two, it is in the best interest of the public to grant the proposed vacation. Planning and Public Works staff also reviewed this application to determine that the right-of-way is a Type E right-of-way, meaning that it is not tax-titled and that there is credible evidence that public monies have been expended in either the acquisition, maintenance of this right-of-way. Typically, that would require a payment of the appraised value. In this specific case, the property is under the control of Planning and Public Works Maintenance and Operation. For that payment to be made, it would be taking money from the county road fund and paying it to the county road fund. So because this vacation is staying within the confines of the county's road maintenance and operation unit, there is a waiver of that assessed value payment for this particular request. This request is being done as part of the proposed sheriff's new mountain detachment project. But again, unlike the parks project that the council saw a few weeks back, the sheriff's department is not involved in the proposal at this time. It's all contained within Planning and Public Works in the Maintenance and Operations Division. With that, we do have both department staff and we have council staff available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Council Member Krueger, just checking that you sponsored since I messed up the last one. Do you have any questions or comments before I open it up to everybody else? Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. No, it's just pretty basic.

Okay. Anyone else have comments or questions? Thank you, Mr. Swanson. I'm not seeing anyone raise their hand, so we'll go ahead and open this up for public comments at this time. So if you'd like to address the Council on Ordinance 2026-522, please come to the podium. Not seeing anyone, so we will go online, Mr. Dominique.

For any member of the public that would like to provide a comment on Proposal No. 02026-522, please press the raise hand icon and zoom or star 9 on your telephone keypad. There are no hands this time, I'm sure.

With no hands raised, I'm going to close the public comment on this ordinance.

Oh, no. Okay. I was just kind of reading it.

Yep, yep. I will make sure that you know when the time comes. So seeing no hands raised for public comment, we're going to close it on this particular ordinance and bring it back before the council to see if there's any further discussion. Seeing no hands raised, I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the roll on the approval of O2026-522.

Councilmember Ayala? Aye. Councilmember Yanbei?

Aye.

Councilmember Denson? Aye. Councilmember Morrell?

Aye.

Councilmember Herrera? Aye. Councilmember Pruver? Council Member Hitchen.

Aye. You have seven ayes and zero nays. With seven ayes and zero nays, the motion is adopted. Thank you, everybody. We're now at item number two, which is proposal O2026-524. Vice Chair, for a motion.

Chair, I move proposal number O2026-524 for approval. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Can the clerk please read it into the record?

Proposal number O2026-524, an ordinance of the Pierce County Council vacating a portion of 120th Street East lying in the Northeast Quarter, Northeast Quarter, Southwest Quarter, Section 9, Township 19 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, Pierce County, Washington.

Thank you. And Mr. Swanson, you're back to brief us on this item as well.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. Yes, this proposal is in response to a request from the Parks Department to vacate an undeveloped portion of 120th Street East in the South Hill area. Again, a map and an aerial view have been provided in the staff report. This property is part of the Half Dollar Park project. It is immediately north of the county stop facility on 94th. I know everybody here is familiar with that area. The county engineer has again reviewed this application to determine that the right-of-way segment is not needed as part of the county roadway system and that it is in the best interest of the public to grant a vacation. Planning and Public Works staff, again, did review this property and determined this time that it is type NE classification, meaning there is evidence that monies have been expenditure. Thus, their appraised value payment is not required with this proposal. With that, again, we have both council and Planning and Public Works staff are available to answer any members' questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions on this proposal from any of my colleagues or comments? Council Member Morrell, I saw your hand this time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. I guess the question goes to Mr. Swanson. Is this right-of-way going to move into private ownership?

Thank you, Council Member Morrell. I believe your question was, is the right-of-way going to move into private ownership? Did I hear that correctly? Okay, yeah, no, the Parks Department will be taking ownership of this right-of-way and it will remain, it will become part of the larger Half Dollar Park project. If you look at where the right-of-way is located, it'll essentially be vegetation buffer between the trail system that's to the north side of that Half Dollar property. It'll just add an additional, probably 30, 40 feet, you'll have a good 30, 40, 50 foot buffer between the back line of those housing properties there and where the trail system is within that the half dollar park plan.

Okay, then my follow up question goes, I think a week or two ago, we had a right away that went through the horse arena at the Pierce County Fairgrounds and it was a right-of-way that needed to be purchased by the Parks Department. What's the difference between this one and the past one that we had as far as why there's no financial transaction on this one? Yes.

The main difference being there's no evidence on this one that public monies have been expended in either in either obtaining or maintaining the right-of-way. This right-of-way was obtained by Pierce County by deed by dedication deed in 1911 and in the Planning Public Works staff review they did not find any county expenditures as part of that. The code regarding the Eustis Hunt one a few weeks ago, there was, we believe, maintenance money was spent over the years on that portion of Eustis Hunt Road going into Frontier Park. And under the code, when that's determined, then the assessed value payment is due. Thus, that came from parks impact fees paying back to the road fund that appraised value. And in this case, it's not required.

So it's not. Yeah, I'm still waiting my response from PBW on the previous one at Frontier Park, because obviously that was from the road fund. But, you know, the road fund wasn't even established when that right away was given. So anyway, I'll follow up with you later. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the question. Any additional questions from colleagues? Not seeing any. I'm going to open this up for public comment on Ordinance 2026-524. We, of course, will start in chambers. Is there anyone here to speak on this ordinance? Not seeing anyone. Mr. Dominique will go online.

For any member, excuse me. For any member of the public that would like to provide comment on Proposal No. 02026-524, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star 9 on your telephone keypad. No answer this time, I'm sure.

With no hands raised, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back before the council. Is there any further discussion on this item? Not seeing any, I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on the approval of O2026-524.

Councilmember Kruver?

Aye.

Councilmember Ayala? Aye. Councilmember Yanbei? Aye. Councilmember Denson? Aye. Councilmember Morrell? Council Member Herrera?

Aye.

Council Member Hitchen?

Aye. We have seven ayes, zero nays. With seven ayes, zero nays, the motion is adopted. Thank you. That brings us to item number three, which is Ordinance 2026-531, Council Member Denson for a motion.

Thank you, Chair. I move for approval of Ordinance 2026-531. It's been moved and seconded.

Can the Clerk please read it into the record?

Proposal number O2026-531, an ordinance of the Pierce County Council adjusting the calculation of school and park impact fees by amending Title IV-A of the Pierce County Code impact fees and adopting findings of fact.

Thank you. I would like to turn this over to, again, Mr. Swanson to brief us on this item.

Thank you again, Chair Hitchen. The proposal before you is the culmination of a long process by the county to implement the state requirements of Senate Bill 5258 regarding the methodology for calculating impact fees. By way of background, impact fees are tools authorized under the Growth Management Act that help offset the cost of new development paying for its proportional share of the capital costs associated with growth. They must be used for public facilities identified in a capital facilities plan. Impact fees are required to relate to the impact of the development, represent a proportionate share of the cost, and provide a reasonable benefit to the development. In 2023, Senate Bill 5258 was approved to address concerns that impact fee methodologies could disproportionately affect smaller and more affordable housing units. The bill required local governments to revise their impact fee schedules so that fees are proportional to the size of the housing unit using one of three measures. square footage, number of bedrooms, or trips generated. The intent is that smaller housing units pay proportionally lower impact fees. Assisting with these changes, the Council School Impact Fee Working Group spent many meetings reviewing the current program, discussing several alternatives to the program and methodologies, and then providing recommendations to the Council. The proposal replaces the existing single-family and multi-family residential categories with four bedroom based categories. Those are the zero to one bedroom category, the two bedroom category, the three bedroom category, and then the four and more bedroom category. These categories will be used across both park and school impact fees and this methodology would begin as part of the 2027 program cycle. The proposal before you includes several affordability provisions. For example, a three-bedroom unit that is less than 1,500 square feet would pay the two-bedroom fee, and that an accessory dwelling units pay 50% of the applicable bedroom-based fee for those. So those are designed to help promote affordable housing within the impact fee structure. For the parks impact fee, the proposal maintains the existing investment per capita methodology, but applies the methodology using the new four categories based on bedrooms. The proposal also updates the biennial adjustment methodology. It actually showed that it's for the Seattle area. The adjustment methodology uses an average of the building cost index and the construction cost index. Previous code, we've been using the Seattle area one, but previous code didn't specify that. So there were questions whether that was the 20 city average or the local Seattle area. So the code does make adjustments and amend that to specify that it is the Seattle area. For the school impact fee program, the proposal similarly adopts the four categories for bedroom-based fee calculation. School districts will continue to calculate the impacts of new developments within those four categories, and the maximum fee obligation, or MFO, will remain as a cap on the amount that is collected on any project within a district. The proposal phases in increases to the MFO beginning in 2017 and running through the 2030 program. This phase in is to better align the MFO costs with the school district's calculated impacts. The proposal also changes the annual adjustment index for the MFO from using that national 20 city construction cost index to be more regionally represented by using the Seattle building cost index. The proposal is listed as having a no or de minimis fiscal impact, as the parks impact fee revenue is expected to remain consistent with the current policy, and 100% of school impact fees that are collected are passed through to the appropriate district with which they're generated. The Community Development and Environment Committee held a public meeting on June 15th and forwarded the proposal with a do pass recommendation. And again, both Council and Planning Public Works staff are available in chambers to answer any questions. And we do have two amendments.

Thank you for the overview. I'm gonna pause and see if there are questions before we take up the two amendments. Council Member Krueger.

Madam Chair, I do have four questions, I hope they're quick. I was curious in the projected additional 13,000 students for the next 20 years, did that calculate how many are being planned to exit? because that comes out to like with the, because I was looking at the 2024 meeting summary and that's about 650 students a year entering. Did it calculate how many might be graduating and moving out?

I'm sorry, Council Member, I'm not familiar at all with the 13,000. Is that Pierce County wide? I'm not familiar with the data set you're referencing.

Yeah, well, it was in the meeting summary. that an expectation of 13,000 students in the next 20 years. But I don't, I'm thinking enrollment is down in many places. And so calculating a number on an assumption is what I'm trying to get at.

You happen to, Council Member Cooper, Mr. Sok, do you happen to have, nope, we're not ready for that one, okay.

What's it for the... Without having the specific data set in front of me, for the purposes of Pierce County's school impact fee program, each school district calculates their impact. Currently they do that for a single family residence and they do that for a multi-family residence within what that development would be in their district. The proposal changes that school district calculation to, again, using the four category methodologies. Pierce County then calculates the maximum fee obligation. What's charged in any given district is the lower of the school district calculation or the maximum fee obligation. The student enrollments or students leaving, that would all be part of the school district calculation. None of that has changed in the proposal we're seeing. Pierce County doesn't play any role in generating those numbers or factoring them into our maximum fee obligation calculation. It would be entirely up to the school districts where they are getting those student numbers and for them to then justify them in their calculations.

Okay, because it kind of pertains to my other question is if a district's enrollment is declining, then how is it demonstrated that new development is having an impact? Does the county confirm that?

Again, what the county does confirm is that the school district calculations add up using the variables they provide, and then we receive their capital facilities plans, and we verify on the back end that they have expended those funds on projects that are listed within their capital facilities plan. Their calculation methodologies are, again, entirely up to the districts, and those aren't anything that are done by the county or, I guess, verified by the county.

So there's not a double check to confirm that that which is submitted is, there's not another set of eyes to confirm that the calculations that we are putting tax on will impact fees. It's just an assumption that it's all correct then?

The approach at Pierce County has been that these are pass-through dollars. The school districts do their calculations. We do the MFO. We charge whichever is the lower. And that's why 100% of the fees have been passed along. In other counties, there is a higher level of involvement from the county. they do also charge an administrative fee from those funds that are collected. We have chosen to pass on 100% of those fees and not take on that administrative function. That was discussed on several occasions at the working group as far as the county taking a greater role in helping the school districts calculate oversight of the school districts The issue would then be what would be the appropriate amount of money that the county needed to hold back in order to do that. And there wasn't a recommendation that came out of the working group related to the county, related specifically to the county taking on a greater regulatory role over the school district calculations. And that is not included in this proposal.

Okay, I get my point, though, is just that, you know, the schools, not that they would with intent mess up the numbers, but there is no second check by an independent group that the figures being submitted by the school are accurate. the calculations are according to code and state law.

I would say the variables that the school is using in their calculation. We check to make sure their numbers add up correctly, but what goes into creating the variables they use to come up with those calculations, that is correct. That is not a role the county has taken on.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I was trying to keep track because you had said four questions, but I got a little muddled there. I did, but I moved it into three.

Well, thank you for consolidating.

I will just add that in unincorporated Pierce County, pulling up our comprehensive plan, we are projected by 2044 to have approximately 509,000 people, if I'm reading the report correctly. please fact check me um and with people come to children so there there will be children so there are kids that are continually growing up there's also kids that are born so um but we don't know what we don't know so we'll we'll see um any additional questions before we take up i can't see him because of okay council member

I just have, I guess, one question for Mr. Swanson. In the past, Mr. Swanson, the school impact fee working group has set the MFO or the maximum fee. Did they set the maximum fee this time?

To clarify, the working group never set the MFO. The MFO is set by council ordinance. It's calculated within the council office. The working group discussed it and had work on it. I believe your question is what's in the proposal was not a recommendation coming from the working group. The table, I should have the table number. Table 4A.30.030-2, I believe. I should have the number in front of me. That table that has the MFO coded out from 2027 to 2030, that was not a recommendation of the working group, I believe is your question.

Yeah, okay. But they did recommend the methodology.

The recommendations related to the coming out of the working group was to adjust the inflationary factor from the 20 city average construction cost index to the Seattle area building cost index. That was it. And then the there was a general recommendation to keep the. Those are the related recommendations that came out of the working group.

Okay, okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional questions. not seeing any um we have two amendments and councilman morrell i have a note that vice chair is going to be moving these but you are present do you want to do them i will move my amendment yes okay then i'm going to go to you for amendment number one thank you madam chair i move amendment number one to ordinance 2026-531 It's been moved and seconded. Will you let us know what this one does?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Amendment 1 is a technical amendment. You'll notice in your recitals there are two blank spaces for dates to memorialize the public hearings that have occurred related to this proposal, as it is an impact. the proposal. The first blank the amendment would fill in is for the community development and environment committee hearing that was held on June 15th. So that blank space would be filled in with June 15th. And then the next recital would document the public hearing being held on the proposal today at council. Today is in fact June 30th and that blank space would be filled with today's date. So that's the scope of amendment one, the technical amendment.

Thank you. Any discussion on council amendment number one? Not seeing any. All those in favor of approving council amendment number one to, I lost the number O, 2026-531, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Council member Morrell for the actual year amendment, if you would like to move it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will move amendment number two to ordinance 2026-531.

It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Swanson, can you tell us what this one does? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment number two would, again, amend that table that was discussed previously. That is table 4A.30.030-2, the maximum fee obligation table. It is located on page 17 of 21 of Exhibit A. Currently, the table, as was sent forth by the executive, has fees going out. You'll see a baseline set that would take effect on February 1st of 2027. And then you see annual increases for each of the four categories for the three years to follow that out through 2030. The exception being the zero to one would start at $5. And that table then adjusts based on that inflationary factor that we are changing. Um, but for those other 3 categories, um, amendment number 2 would change those to where it is a 10% annual increase to each of those versus what was proposed by the executive. Um, it also, it maintains the council's current policy on the of rounding up to the nearest 5 dollar increments. If you crunch it out, it's on exact 10% because of that rounding. But essentially it does 10% a year, continues to compound on that. So you have effectively over the three-year period, you'd have a 33% increase versus like you look at the four plus bedroom and you see it doubling during that same period. So it would make a more modest range of increases in each of those categories based on a 10% calculation.

Thank you. Council Member Morrell to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think they're again looking at the maximum fees that were set. They seem to really step up in the latter years and to the point where they're 45, 46% increases. So I think there again, as Mr. Swanson indicated, we have the responsibility to set the maximum fees. And we also have the responsibility to make housing affordable and attainable for both renters and homeowners. So I think this is a reasonable compromise, adding 10% each year compounded for three years So I think there again, this still gets us to where we need to maintain a semblance of affordability. And so that's why the amendment was put together. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional comments? We'll go to Councilmember Krueger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just curious. I have a question on these impact fees. Are they taxed with the sales tax? So if I were building a house and I went down to the county to pay the impact fee, would I be charged sales tax?

the thank you council member the the fee is paid as part of the permitting um cycle it's not attached to the sale of the house um obviously anything that adds to any anything the cost to build a house you could argue is passed on i just want to know if i'm the builder i'm myself and i go down to pay the the fees the impact fees is that the permits it's sales tax added on to that I'm getting the head nod from Alon Boussac that is, no, I don't believe sales tax applies to permit fees.

Okay, but if I am the contractor and I'm building a home for you and here's my package and it includes all of the permitting and at the end of the bid, you charge sales tax. So then those impact fees would include sales tax, correct?

Indirectly in that scenario.

Okay. So the lower price also helps with making the house a little bit more affordable. It's kind of my point. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Additional questions or comments, we'll go to the Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate Council Member Monroe bringing this amendment forward. This kind of slows it down a little bit. It brings it a little bit down to be more modest and less sticker shock for developers because developers can go develop somewhere else and we want to make it a attractive for builders to build here in Pierce County. And I think that this may help with encouraging more housing to be built here. You know, if it's way out of whack, I mean, zero development equals zero revenue. So it's a balancing act. I think this is a compromise, and I think it's right on target. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Council Member Cooper, did you have comments? Okay, sorry.

I do have one. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to comment that what I'm finding in the building industry right now, it seems to be slowing down. My boys are in the industry as well as my husband. And the affordability factor is making it more difficult out there and people are waiting or people are moving. And I'm finding in the roofing right now, there are folks from the company my son works with that are on hold. So they have to have customers to build to. So the issue isn't so much about the money with the builders, it's passed down to the constituent, to the customer who is looking to build a house. And this added cost to it just knocks that many more people out of the ability to get homes. And that's kind of what we're supposed to protect and make it easy. Easier, I want to say, for folks to get into homes. They've got skin in the game in their community when they can do that, and they contribute more in the long run. So I would encourage that this modest decrease be accepted to at least help a few more families. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments. Any further discussion or comments from Councilmembers? We're going to start with Councilmember Yambe.

I appreciate the comments that have been made. I did discuss impact fees with one of the superintendents who makes up a large part of my district and discussed, you know, the potential changes to impact fees and, you know, I got some good perspective from his point of view and Franklin Pierce. So I appreciate Dr. I mean, Lance Goodpaster for taking the time to help walk me through those details. I do wanted to raise a flag that Councilmember Kruver alluded to, permits for development slowing down In the industry, which I you know, I can't speak to but I do believe that in a staff report in the last meeting or so that they By planning public works said that while King County is the homage County Thurston County did see some Slowdowns and permit issues for development that that was not the case in Pierce County and so knock on wood but that that seems to be what I heard and it looks like the Director is nodding at me. So I think that I just wanted to flag that. So appreciate it.

Thank you. Council Member Denson.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the amendment, but I am going to be a no on this. I prefer the proposal that was put forth by the department, our planning experts, as well as was passed through our Community Development and Environment Committee. I've learned a lot from serving on the working group, and one of the things that I learned through that group and certainly in observing school impact fees for a number of years is that Overwhelmingly, the way we've been doing impact fees, the developers almost always pay the maximum fee obligation. That is almost always the lesser of the two numbers, which tells me that though the school districts are calculating the costs of the impact of this development based on their capital facilities plan, they're calculating those costs Almost always when the developer pays the maximum fee obligation, because it's lower, which we've set as a policy here in Pierce County, and that's unique to us, already the school districts are receiving less money than they are telling us they need to accommodate that growth. So there is already a discount being made that... That is going to hamper the school district's ability to fully prepare and fully provide educational services for our youth. And education is really the cornerstone of all of our communities. It not only helps our youth, but even if you don't have children, a good school helps your community. It helps your property values. It helps our workforce. We all know how important this is. So our effort through this working group, and I know the planning staff really tried to phase in the increases of the maximum fee obligation over time, reflecting that it is a hefty increase, but that's because we've had such a discount for years. Frankly, we were using the wrong index. Now we're correcting that. We are rightsizing the maximum fee obligation. So we probably still are not going to be charging what the school districts truly need per unit, but we're gonna be getting closer to that. And one thing that I heard overwhelmingly from the school districts that participated in this working group alongside our building community is that we just could not go backwards. They did not want to see a further discount between what they needed and what they would receive in these impact fees. So this amendment does further discount the the amount that a developer would pay which again takes more money away from what the schools would receive and what they're telling us that they need so that that's why i'm a no on this amendment um i know it's it's a challenge all of this is a challenge but we need to make sure we're doing right by our by our schools because ultimately that's going to benefit all of our communities thank you chair thank you for your comments any further comments before we

I will, too, echo the comments I served on the school impact, the working group, and we have for a very, very long time not charged enough. And so similar to some of the conversations we had with the adoption of the budget, we're ripping the bandaid off on some of these and trying to right size some of these. Not every county uses a maximum fee obligation. They actually let it ebb and flow to the value that is calculated by school districts. And just so people are aware of how various that can be, we have school impact fees as high as $18,000 and $19,000 in some school districts. And then we also have school districts that... When they calculate it, it's a zero because that's the calculation to the impact in their community. And so by setting a maximum fee obligation using the better, a more reasonable inflationary, like more relative to what the reality is to build in Pierce County. we are starting at a better place of the reality because they are building the schools in Pierce County. So we should be using the building costs associated with that. And so I understand that there's concerns around this package in total that I'll address when we get to the final passage, but would request a no vote. But we will see where my colleagues are. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

I will do a roll call on this, Madam Chair.

We can do that. I think someone else was going to ask that. Let me turn on microphones. Can the clerk please call the roll on the approval of Council Amendment Number 2?

Council Member Morrell?

Aye.

Council Member Herrera?

Aye.

Council Member Kruver? Council Member Ayala? Nay. Council Member Yambe?

Nay.

Council Member Denson? Nay. Council Member Hitchen? Nay.

You have three ayes, four nays. With three ayes and four nays, the motion is not adopted. That brings us back to the proposal as amended by amendment number one. I'm going to see if there's any further discussion before I open this up for public comment from my colleagues. Okay, I'm not seeing any. So I'm going to open this up for public comment. You can provide up to three minutes of comments on Ordinance 2026-531 as amended. Again, up to three minutes. We will start in chambers. Is there anyone here today? I know I see one familiar face.

Good afternoon, members of the council, chair and members of the council. For the record, Aaron Hollenberg, Government Affairs Director for the Master Builders Association of Pierce County. I'll do good news, bad news. I'll start with the good news. Support and welcome the change so that impact fee calculations are proportional to development. However, industry still has very serious concerns with inserting the new increased MFO table. And I'll start there. As we heard, this was an immense work of a school work group with developers, president, MBA members. However, this table was not considered, discussed, or voted on or even recommended by the school work group. So we'd ask that that be tabled and revisited when stakeholders can actually have a comprehensive conversation about what that table looks like instead of adding it in after the work group. We were all very surprised to see that table in the ordinance because it was not on the radar. of those on the development community involved in the work group. I just wanted to share a few things, and I know I've said it here before about impact fees. You heard that the county acts as a pass-through. Well, the builder acts as a pass-through, this fee that the county is charging. Ultimately, the taxing authority is the county, and the county is responsible to make sure that those funds are expended and collected appropriately. But anyway, like I said, those are a direct pass-through to the residents of Pierce County. You'll hear builders probably today say that impact fees don't impact them. It gets calculated into the risk when they're going in on a project, but it ultimately gets financed, and then actually consumers and residents in the county are paying 20% more on average than the builder had to pay out at time of permit. Quick stats here. So we hear a lot of growth pays for growth, but I think that doesn't exactly capture the issue, especially here in Washington. So regional data, Washington State and regional data, according to the Northwest MLS, new home construction sales make up 15 to 20% of all sales. So 15 to 20% of the residents in the county are paying for the other 80% that aren't paying an impact fee. And so a little scenario I wanted to bring up here while I've got time. If a couple moves into a four-bedroom house in 2030, no kids, no school-aged children, so they don't plan on, they're paying $15,000 on impact, actually more on that impact fee when it finally gets to the home sale price. But a couple that moves in next door, four school-aged children in a home that was built in 1970, no impact fee, but a considerable impact on school capacity. So... And really, my other point, sorry. One more data set I want to throw at you guys. Regulations, taxes, and fees imposed by all government levels. This is a national study and state study backed by NHB, Wells Fargo, and then our state association. For an average price home nationally of $500,000, 23.8% of that cost is government regulations, taxes, and fees. The bad news is that goes up in Washington. Of an average price home in Washington, $200,000 of that final sale price are made up of taxes, fees, and regulations imposed by government. So we're really just advocating. I mean, like I said, this doesn't affect the builder. We're just advocating to make housing more affordable in Pierce County. And we would welcome your advocacy joining us in Olympia to advocate to make sure that we are not right artificially. Just keep raising prices of housing in Pierce County as we combat this housing crisis. So, thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in chambers that wanted to address the council on this ordinance? Not seeing any, so we will go online.

Yes, it looks like we already have some hands, but I'll go ahead and state this just to make sure everyone has the information. If you wish to provide public comment on proposal number O2026-531, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star 9 on your telephone keypad. And we have five hands at this time. I'll call them off in the order they appear on my screen. First, we have Kurt Wilson. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Good afternoon, council members. My name is Kurt Wilson. I'm a builder in Pierce County who attempts to construct attainable housing. I respectfully ask you to vote no on this ordinance. I was on the working group and we never discussed such a high increase as illustrated in the table before you. As builders, we're the ones who write the checks for school impact fees. We pay them when permits are issued, but in reality is the builders do not absorb those costs. Every dollar paid in impact fees becomes part of the final purchase price of the home and ultimately paid by the family who buys it. This ordinance would increase the maximum fee obligation from the current cap of approximately 4,010 dollars to as much as 15,000 by 2030 for 4 bedroom homes. This is not a minor adjustment. It's an increase of 200%. On 1 category of impact these. And school impact fees are not the only piece of the puzzle. Home buyers are already paying permit fees, utility connection charges, traffic impact fees, park impact fees, stormwater requirements, rising land costs, financing costs, labor costs, material costs, every new fee on top of the last one. Families who pay these costs are not developers. They are teachers, nurses, first responders, young families trying to buy their first home, retirees trying to stay in this community where they raise their children. The families who pay these are, according to the 1990 US census that I referenced at the committee, Pierce County had 238,166 housing units with a population of 586,000. The 2025 census estimates that 157,000 housing units were added in the 35 year period for a total of 395,000. This means that at least 60% of the housing stock had a free ride and has never paid mitigation And for their impacts under this current logic, for this reason alone, you should not be. Supporting this ordinance and should ask the school district to seek broad based taxation with the will of the people determine if the district's capital needs are acceptable and necessary. This is not your role. Housing affordability remains 1 of the biggest challenges facing Pierce County residents. Every additional cost imposed on housing moves home ownership further out of reach for working families. If our goal is to make housing more affordable, we cannot continue to add thousands of dollars in additional costs to every new home and expect affordability to improve. It simply defies logic. If you vote, yes, and illustrate your lack of concern for attainable housing Pierce County today, I suggest an amendment to move the cap to 30,000 in 2030. so that we make housing even less affordable in Pierce County and follow along the leftist agenda with prior votes. On fees, which illustrate this focused on government subsidized housing, not free enterprise. Pierce County needs more homes, more housing choices and more attainable prices. No additional barriers that make home ownership harder for families we're desperately trying to seek or we are desperately trying to serve. Housing should not be a partisan issue, but I forecast the public will see it here tonight in Pierce County. Government has a spending problem. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Next, we have James Ward. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Hi, my name is James Ward and I think I talked about this before. I agree with the last speaker. The spending is completely out of hand. But before I touch on the spending, I want to talk about the Constitution. Section 12 talks about special privileges and immunities prohibited. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, corporation other than municipal privileges or immunities upon which the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations and right now this is going to make one class not pay as much and then another class pay a lot more which is fundamentally unconstitutional i also would like everybody to pay attention to Section 29, where it says the Constitution is mandatory. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. So this is simply unconstitutional. But when we're talking about the waste, I'm looking at preschool programs in Tacoma. at $1,450 per month. Five kids is $87,000. 20 kids is $348,000. So you have a program where you have 20 kids that are being watched by one teacher. I don't know, you guys might know better than I, more than one, but they get $348,000 and they're in a public building that's paid for. The teachers don't get that money. So where does the money go? It's fraud. It's stolen. The money is stolen. We're talking about like a $580 million budget, I think, for Tacoma Public Schools. And there's always a deficit. There's always a gap. We can never get enough money. And these are paid buildings. Like, you know, these buildings are paid for. We're not paying rent. We're not leasing them like you guys have had them forever. And the spending is completely out of control. And You guys might have analytics teams or something that go through it, but at the end of the day, it's still completely out of control. So with that being said, I'll yield my time, and I thank you guys for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next up, we have Terry Hurd. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Terry, we are not hearing you. You are unmuted. And just in case we're wrong, your name says HP, but you will usually call in and it's Terry. So if you're actually not Terry, and maybe that's why you're not speaking. I'm not being heard? Nope, we can hear you now.

Okay, I pushed the wrong button on these headphones. Part of the education of being a concerned citizen is attending some of the citizen seminars that are put on. Bethel School District did that as a citizen's advisory board, so I attended it for two different times, and the learning process was that When we're building a school, we're not building schools for the projected children that we know are moving into the area. The area is developing. Houses are being sold. Property is being divided. I won't get into that. But the issue is that the state only provides 25%, not matching funds like they like to use as their fund. Catchphrase matching funds don't exist. It's only 25% of the cost of the school and the schools by accepting that money only are allowed to build to the current populations that they have no plan for the future. The illusion here is that we're actually improving things, but we're not being prepared. I often use Parkland's grade school. as an example of a school that's existed for long before I was born and still exists. But most of the schools nowadays are built for, well, when they're done being paid for, they're tore down and a new one is built. So we're not building for the future. all the schools that are being built already have the pads in place for the projected increase in population that's coming along again it's very poor planning when you think of the amount of development going into a school and you already know it's overcrowded the day you open the door We've got to improve this. Now, I'm dealing with state money here that we all pay for in our property tax and other taxes that come along. The impact fees are important, but the impact fees on every organization that I've ever listened to always want more every year, an increasing percentage of that little piece of pie that's out there. My budget only has a pie of a certain size. It doesn't improve every year. So when you're looking at trying to fund the schools and the impact fees, you're not having a holistic view of what's required and where the money is coming from in coordination with the state and the other counties and cities. Please start getting a conversation going that involves all parties on building a schools for the future that doesn't charge you an increased rate every month. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next we have Jason Rasmus. Please state your name for the record and you have three minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jason Rasmus. I'm a resident of Edgewood. I'm also a first term city councilman here. I'm a remodeler and a builder who works primarily here in Pierce County out of the city of Edgewood. I sent an email to all of you earlier. I just want to reiterate 1 comment from that. It's my personal hope. Um, I would hope that you guys would listen to those of us who are on the front lines of housing in our community when we say that continued rising fees directly impact the people of your community. And their ability to build by and renovate their homes. In addition to raising rents astronomically, we can't continue to raise the cost of housing exponentially and expect to ever attain everyone's goals of housing affordability. Again, we are on the front lines. We see this every day when we go out to sales calls, when we talk to people who want projects completed. The cost of housing is a serious concern, and that's on the remodeling side as well. I understand that specific numbers on any increases may not be finalized or caps for those fees set, but I would ask that you consider very carefully any increases and include leadership in the building industry as part of the work needed to finalize these numbers. Again, we are on the front lines and see every day the crisis of affordability. This is a real issue that directly impacts real people and I see in our municipalities, including my own here in Edgewood, continually increasing costs and fees. It seems like the staff and leadership groups who are tasked to care for our communities just don't see it. The state has also taken notice in acting on it. We should be just as concerned about affordability here locally and in our county. We need to see fees stabilized and capped now to stem the rising costs. We need to check on the school district's data and calculations. Continual increases are antithetical to growth and will continue to increase the cost of housing, especially on the middle and lower class who are the most impacted. These fees are absolutely passed on 100% to the client and renter. Sales tax is applied, and it is not passive in any way. If you want to continue to price out the middle and lower class, by all means, continue to raise the cost of housing, robbing them of their ability to live the American dream of homeownership or even being able to afford an apartment to live in. Final comment and a question posed to you guys. We can increase fees for growth if you vote for it. Yes, we can do that. But should we do it at this time of crisis in our housing industry? Please ask yourself, which is more critical today in the here and now? Increasing these fees or making housing affordable? You can't have both. I respectfully ask that you vote no on this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next up, we have Cliff Fries. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Cliff Rees. I'm the Executive Director for Business and Operations at the Oregon School District. Yeah, I thought I was going to say something a lot different here, but I just want to address a few things. So we're probably going to be the largest school district with the most growth here over the next five to ten years. We have, with three developers alone, over 5,000 homes coming into our school district. Just this month alone, I got 64 impact fees for two developers. And that's not all the building going on. That's just the three major developers. So, 5,000 homes, if you charge about 5,000 dollars in impact fees, that would give you 21Million dollars. We are currently building an elementary for 600 students for 110Million dollars right now. The impact fees that we're getting do not come anywhere near even paying for a portable. I would have to have 100 homes built to pay for a portable for 30 children. So the idea that the impact fees are. Outlandish are getting too high. They are nowhere near. I just turned in a capital facilities plan last year to the county. The cost to our district to take care of this growth is 51,000 dollars per unit. Uh, the cap for the county at 50% is 25,000. The MFO is 4595. So, the idea that these are anywhere near taking the cost that it takes to build a school is. Uh, crazy in 2017, we ran the exact same school. It's 200% increase in costs in today's dollars for construction. Um. Let's see, we have in order to pay for the 110 million elementary at the current impact fee rate, we would need 24,000 homes to move in. Our calculation is 0.49 students per house council member crew. You're wondering about that. So we average about. half a student per house, Puyallup School District often breaks one or more. So he's a conservative figure. All the money we get goes into a specific fund. The only thing I can spend that fund on is land, building or portables. I cannot use it on anything else. If we don't use it in a certain time period, if we collected it and we didn't need it, we have to give it back. So obviously we have no problem using it. All of the impact fees will be used instantly. The tax alone on $110 million elementary is $11 million. So yes, we also pay taxes to schools when we build these things. So I was very excited that there was genuine conversation going on to try to help schools pay for this impact. The idea that 20% pays for the build, that's not true. Our community passed a $150 million bond. So they, for 30 years, will foot the bill. A small portion of it will be impact fees. But right now, impact fees do not even pay for the 22 portables that I put at the high school to deal with all the growth. When I 1st started here as an educator 25 years ago, we had 90 students with developments over time. We now just graduated 220 this year and we're set to over double our student population here in South sound. I think it's very affordable down here in the South sound based on the sales that I see all around us to Holly is in the top 25. top sales this last year in homes. I think they broke over 350 sales last year, and they said they're on target to beat it again this year. So there is no shortage of people. Thank you for your comments, sir. Thanks.

And that concludes all the hands I have, Madam Chair.

Seeing no other hands raised, I'm going to close public comment, bring it back before the council and see if there is further discussion before I call the roll on this one. We'll go to the vice chair.

Thank you, chair. It's good listening to all the testimony today. My opposition to this increased impact fees is grounded in the commitment of maintaining housing affordability. We keep talking about housing affordability here in Pierce County. It seems like the middle class hasn't been able to catch a break here. Everything's going up, the economy, everything is expensive. Tomorrow the gas tax goes up to 56.5 cents a gallon. I was in Denver a couple days ago, it was $3.47. This county has raised all their fees, this last budget, we raised all the fees here in the county, citing other counties. are charging those type of fees and we need to catch up to them. But a lot of people left King County because they can't afford a house over there. They came to Pierce County because it was more affordable. It seems like the carpet we're laying out is making it less affordable here with the fees and everything else is compounding that. I think one of the testimonies someone talked about About 70% of the existing housing stock here in Pierce County that I read somewhere predates the Growth Management Act, and they never paid any impact fee. So all the new home buyers are expected to bear that full burden to fund school growth, and I get that. But many families who are moving into the older houses who have children don't pay any impact fees. I don't know. It's just... Very interesting. You know, I did hear some people voice concern that if this kind of goes out to the public, that we're raising these impact fees this high, that voters might think to themselves, hmm, we don't need to vote for a school bond because the impact fees are going to cover it. Or it might give them a reason to vote no. There might be some concern of, how this would have unintended consequences with that. You know, the county has seen other crises around here. Just a few council meetings ago, we took on the childcare crisis. We took that on because we saw barriers to building new facilities for childcare, because we needed childcare, and we adjusted fire. We adjusted and removed barriers for childcare. But we talk about the housing crisis, but we continue to meet that housing crisis with additional regulations, fees, and regulations. For these reasons, I urge the council reconsider the increase in school and park impact fees. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments. We will go online to Council Member Morrell. You need to unmute yourself, though, Council Member.

I got to learn this. Okay. Thank you. Madam chair. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the comments of my colleagues on some of the amendments that were run, but my frustration does boil over. when I constantly, constantly from the majority of this council increases fees on everything and expects housing to become attainable and affordable to our middle class. I was just talking to a colleague of mine up in Snohomish County And 72% of their population cannot afford a new home in Snohomish County. And that's the same in King County at a higher rate. It's more like 80%. Pierce County has had affordable building. That's why we have a migration of people to Pierce County. We are one of the lowest average home costs And I'm talking used home if you use that terminology of the three counties. But yeah, we still. the majority on this council drives up the cost of housing every opportunity a group comes before us and says we need more fees we need more impacts because housing is doing x y and z to us but it's one of the things that we have to do because of the growth management act is within our urban boundaries We have to grow. It is mandated that we grow, but we can also grow affordability for people to actually buy a home in unincorporated Pierce County. It's been said again, this is just on new homes. And I would like to speak to the school district also. I have been on this council for eight years, and I am amazed at the fact that these school districts will not adjust their boundaries because they see the golden goose that lays the egg where it is almost driven by greed. And I'm speaking to one of my school districts. And I just do not understand that. Were you willing to bus kids 45 minutes to get them to a school because you refused to adjust your boundaries to a school district that has a school across the street? That is totally unreasonable to me, and it's been a frustration to me trying to get these school districts and school boards together to agree on a reasonable adjustment. I have had parents file complaints. I have had parents file to the Washington Education Association, and nothing has worked. They just seem to want to just grab and grab and grab. And they just do not understand that impact fees, according to growth management, were to be a proportional share of development in the community. It wasn't 100% responsible to cover development. and what we do is define that. And so I am just really. frustrated at the fact that a reasonable amendment is put forward and the majority on this council refused to adjust that and say yeah i think we can live with that and our people can live with that and they can buy a home they can afford a home they can afford all the other costs that it takes for home ownership. And as I said, rentals from units will be the same. So I just would implore that we vote no on this and go back to the drawing board and come back with a reasonable fee maximum on this instead of just trying to keep up with the other counties because that's the way they do business. In Pierce County, we're supposed to do things differently. So I would hope my colleagues, at least one of them from the majority, would say no on this. But the longer I am there, the more frustrated I get. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments. Council Member Krueger.

Thank you Madam Chair. I just have to agree with all of the comments that I've heard already. I've been here on this, what, six and a half years? And it's just been a consistent increase in costs to our constituents, our consumers. And the anxiety levels are getting higher all the time on this. We spend all of this time working on programs to help those who need assistance and finances and those things. Because it is said that when there's less things to worry about, they're healthier, less costs in medical. For those who are in the positions where their discretionary income is consistently being decreased, the anxiety levels for that are different. I'm waking up in the middle of the night going, how are people going to pay for these increases? I look at... the cumulative impacts of all that the council does and just more gets culminated in this ordinance. We're looking at a 40% increase in the last five years. The sales tax is now over 10%. We're looking at in the price of the housing, there's a 26 plus percentage in price for compliance. And so you're looking at about 36% of the cost of a home is just in the fees and the government costs. You're not getting anything in your house. And also the new homes, they're already paying for growth. Building that home provided jobs, it provided retail sales tax, it provided retail sales for the carpet, for all of the appliance, et cetera. There's consultants who get paid. There is the new property tax that is being collected on that home. Then on top of these impact fees, which I was glad the school commented on the price of building that building, how much of that is because of the new energy code? And it's just this expectation, well, we'll just have to pass a tax because the people will pay it. You know, on top of that, you know, you've got all of those other state impact fees, the stormwater codes that they tell counties that they have to do. You have L&I. So the state is adding enough things to what the folks here have to pay. The county has their own impacts on what it costs in building the homes. And they go above and beyond what the state requires on things. The utility costs, we're looking at most likely a 30% increase in our utility fees in the next few years. So how is that homeowner going to be able to cover all of these expenses in trying to get into the home, plus what it costs to keep that home? And the schools, their costs on top where they are feeding the kids, they are teaching the kids, they have to bus the kids and the portables, it's like unbelievable on what it costs to do a portable. And I don't understand why that is. Maybe there shouldn't be any impact fees on putting those kinds of sites, citing those portables. They're not that, I want to say they're sturdy, but they're not necessarily. So I would implore that the members take a holistic look on all of the taxes and costs and fees and impacts that are being piled on to our constituents. And I agree with Councilmember Morrell in, you know, putting a hold on this, take a step back and rethink through these things. They are not supposed to pay for all of the cost of building these things. And, you know, If it's that important, maybe there needs to be another bond in order to pay for the building on these. So thank you for your time. I would implore a no vote so that we can back up and regroup on this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Other comments from my colleagues? Council Member Denson.

Thank you, Chair. First, I want to thank the working group that spent many, many, many months, maybe over a year working to help the county incorporate the changes required by Senate Bill 5258 and help us get closer to our goal of development, paying for a fair share of the cost of that growth. Tonight, I really want to thank the representative from the Ordain School District who gave us a dose of reality and who echoed What I'm hearing from many, many other school districts, including my school district, in regards to the amount they actually receive in impact fees, given our maximum fee obligation, and the amount of money that they have to spend on the land, the building, portables, unfortunately, somehow, because they are obligated to serve the children in their communities. These impact fees they are getting now and that they will get in the future are still not covering that cost. and they've got to make it work and do the best job they can for our kids, for our families, which, as I mentioned before, has a huge impact on our communities. If development does not pay for the impacts it causes, frankly, the cost of those impacts is ultimately borne by the general community. That's all of the residents, whether you've been there three years or 20 years or 50 years. That's the existing residents paying for the cost of these impacts. And they do it either financially, because they've got to make up, ultimately, they've got to make it good somehow for the health of their community, or they pay by suffering the consequences. The consequences can be that our classrooms are overcrowded and the school districts are not able to keep up the level of service that these kids and families are expecting and deserve. But that's not the only impact fee we're talking about. It could be the consequence of more traffic on the roads, speaking generally about this piece of legislation. I hear from folks all the time that we are not keeping up with our infrastructure because the traffic is just clogging our road systems. It also means that sometimes we do not have enough services like our parks to create the healthy communities that we need and want here in Pierce County. And I will say, as part of the comprehensive plan that we passed a few years ago, we greatly increased the opportunities for building. We greatly increased our development capacity. greatly up zoned certain areas so we're having you know more units per acre these are housing units typically that are not going to have a yard and and there's a reason for that because supply and demand we wanted to make more housing so we could lower the cost of that housing but the fact that we are creating denser communities in certain areas that we're really really investing in means that we have to have investments like parks and recreation facilities because these buildings do not have yards. So we've got to take all of that into consideration to make sure we're balancing things for a healthy community. development should pay for itself that is part of the growth management act it's part of being fair to the community being fair to the residents who have lived there for a long time and being fair and and making sure that we're investing appropriately for our future this ordinance helps us get closer to right sizing our impact fees we're not even going to get all the way there but it's helping us right-size our impact fees so that we can make sure that we are planning for our future, building a strong foundation for our communities and for our children. And I'm voting yes on this ordinance because after all the work that's been done, this is the right thing to do for a sustainable and healthy future for Pierce County. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your comments and thank you for your work on the school impact fee working group that we did spend about a year on. It was a lot of meetings. I'm not seeing any other comments, so I will, as a member of that committee, just, and a former teacher, watching the impacts, the real impacts of students. The school that I was at was opened. It was Graham Poulsen High School. It was brand new. It opened full. It opened at capacity, but they didn't have the funding to open the next wing, nor were they allowed to build that wing, well up to the point that we heard from the representative, I think both from The community building side said they're not allowed to build for growth. So we end up having to do the much more expensive plan for it. Think about it. But someday we'll pay for it, which means we're going in and pulling permits. We're doing all that. So that is not something the county controls. That's the state. It's a good conversation to have. Today, what we're focusing on is what we do have control over, which is the impact fees that we charge and the prior majorities of the county council. So, before I was here. For a very long time allowed sustained. Lack of growth there was just not increases happening and they set up an, which capped the amount. And so when you go back and look. at the impact so starting the graph that i have in 2017 the impact to sumner bonnie lake for a single family home was twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars that's what they calculated but they got the mfo of thirty four hundred so we owe them ten thousand dollars like if you go back and actually do that math that is how that has worked so we are trying to Get something a little bit more reasonable, get to where. Closer to where we are actually paying for the growth in our schools, not all the growth, because that's not how this will work out, but to pay a portion of it. The other thing that we have discussed is that there is a desire to really think about what do we do with affordable housing? Because. we as a county are investing in affordable housing we need to have people willing to build affordable housing with this is going to be something that's going to go to affordable housing developers and people doing permanent supportive housing if they're building housing there will be an impact fee And so we are going to take a look at all the different types of impact fees that we do assess and see if there's ways to partner and figure out ways within the county resources that we do have the tools that we do control. Is there a way to support? So people will be willing to do that type of work. It's not a perfect situation. The way our state funds things is. Interesting. But these are the rules that we have to work with and so we'll urge a yes vote on this ordinance as amended. Not seeing any other hands raised, so I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the roll on the approval of O2026-531 as amended.

Councilmember Herrera?

No.

Councilmember Krueger?

nay council member aiella all right council member yambe aye council member denson aye council member morrell no council member hitchin aye you have four eyes three nays with four eyes and three nays the motion is adopted thank you all that brings us to item number four which is proposal o 2026-532 council member denson we're going to you for a motion

Thank you, Chair. I move for approval Proposal O-2026-532. Second. It's been moved and seconded.

Will the Clerk please read it into the record?

Proposal number O2026-532, an ordinance of the Pierce County Council authorizing wage adjustments for nonrepresented employees and amending the Pierce County salary classification plan.

Thank you. And this afternoon we have Mr. Boki to brief us on this item.

Thank you, Chair Hitchin, Paul Bocchi, Council staff. Nonrepresented County employees receive wage increases based upon Council approval through ordinances. Typically, the increases are passed in the fall along with the biennial budget or mid-biennial budget adjustment. The council approved a 2% wage increase for nonrepresented employees in ordinance number 2025, 1, 561 passed on November 18th, 2025. That increase went into effect on January 5th, 2026. This proposal increases the 2026 wage increase and proposes increases in 2027 and 2028. The proposal impacts 1,402.19 full-time equivalent employees in 2026 and 1,414 FTEs in 2027. The proposal states the general wage increase net is necessary to ensure compensation remains aligned with updated market data and supports the county's goal of maintaining competitive and equitable pay. this three-year adjustment would, there'd be an increase of 0.5%, no later than two pay cycles after the effective date of this proposal. So that means if you pass it today and then a signature by the executive because it's our ordinance, so within two pay cycles after the effective date of this proposal, 3% on January 4th, 2027, and 3% on January 3rd, 2028. The half percent increase in 2026 puts the total increase in 2026 at two and a half percent. Of course, that's not weighted for the mid-year adjustment. Nonrepresented employees work throughout the county government. Therefore, the fiscal impact of the wage increase is spread throughout the different funds. The proposed 2028 increases outside of the current biennium is subject to appropriation of sufficient funds in the county's 28-29 biennial budget, which you'll take up towards the end of 2027. The fiscal note on this in 2026 is $462,130. In 2027, $6,162,310. And this was given a due pass recommendation at the June 22nd, 2026 Rules and Operations Committee meeting. And Ms. Julie DeMuth from our Finance Department is here to answer any of your questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions on this item? I think Ms. DeMuth or Mr. Boeke, you both know the answer, I believe, but I'll see who wants to answer. During committee, we often see collective bargaining agreements that will be retroactive if we are deciding on them past the date of the beginning of that contract. This does not do that. Can we clarify why the difference, again, for the public's sake?

Ms. DeMuth will have to do that. It is not retroactive. That is correct.

Good afternoon. Julie Demuth with Finance and Enterprise Services. That is correct. This ordinance for nonrepresented employees will not be retroactive. It is considered a gift of public funds when there is not an active contract in place. And so for that reason, this will become effective once the ordinance is adopted. And then I believe, Mr. Boki, correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have three pay cycles to implement the change.

Okay.

two two pay cycles is what i saw was three okay okay is there an issue with it being two three we will get it done in two is there's a volume of work associated with all the collective bargaining agreements right okay it's no later than two pay cycles after the effective date of this proposal so if you pass it today so the exact signs then what there's 10 days so you're you're into august okay

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Council Member Iombe.

Hey, Julie. Director Muth. What's the difference in the pay and the benefits overall? Just an overall summary of representative versus unrepresentative. Is there added incentives just by the nature of our representation to join unions if possible because we are a county that values and and pushes for you know um labor unions we have history in pierce county of it and uh we pride ourselves on it so just asking curious

broadly compensation is very comparable the county does prioritize keeping non-represented employees aligned with changes made through bargaining agreements and so from a compensation standpoint there is typically parity between all employees on the benefits side both represented and non-represented employees have a full and generous benefits package. Most of our represented employees are covered under a Teamsters medical plan, whereas our nonrepresented and a small number of represented employees are covered by the state's PEP medical plans.

Public employee benefits? Okay. Yes. And do you know of other jurisdictions that there's a differentiation in compensation between represented and nonrepresented?

I don't know specifically other jurisdictions where there is a difference. It can certainly happen where a bargaining agreement has a different adjustment than is made for nonrepresented employees. But it is a common practice for nonrepresented employees to be kept in line with their represented peers.

Okay. And then I think like Tacoma, they keep theirs at fairly comparable levels.

Yes. The city of Tacoma has the comparable practice as the county.

And the risk sometimes is if you don't, then good public servants will go somewhere where it's a little bit more flexible if they need to. So it's competition, too, about keeping everyone in parity to make sure that we provide good benefits and on parity. Because I know that sometimes the representative side expresses some concerns about that. Okay.

Yes, and it's our priority to to make sure that our compensation ranges are within market comparable to other jurisdictions for those very reasons.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from colleagues. Not seeing any. Thank you, Director, to move. I'm going to open this up for public comment. Again, this is on Ordinance 2026-532. If you'd like to speak, you have up to three minutes. You can state your name for the record. We'll start in chambers. Anyone in here to speak on this ordinance? Not seeing anybody. We're going to go online.

For any member of the public that would like to provide comment on proposal number 02026-532, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star 9 on your telephone keypad. We have one hand at this time, Madam Chair. James Ward, please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Hi, my name is James Ward, and given what everybody...

Mr. Ward, we're not hearing you if you're speaking. Can you hear me now? Now we can. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. My name is James Ward, for the record, and I wanted to talk about maybe bargaining the wages down, you know, given what you guys just voted on and the $3.5 billion budget. We probably need to try to lower the wages instead of increase the wages. But every time somebody comes in front of you guys and they ask for more money, I think the guy with the bonanza behind him, he brought that up. You say yes. Well, why don't you say no? And if we're going to collectively bargain, why don't we find somebody to do it for cheaper, huh? Can we bring anybody else in to do it for cheaper? Maybe volunteers? But to keep on giving people raise after raise after raise after raise, that's what's causing the standard of living crisis and the affordability crisis in Parrish County. With that, I will yield my time. Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there no other hands at this time, Madam Chair?

No other hands raised. I'm going to close public comment, bring it back before the Council and see if there's any further discussion on this item. Not seeing any. I'm going to ask the Clerk to call the roll on the approval of O2026-532.

Councilmember Denson? Aye. Councilmember Morrell?

I believe he has left the building, so we will consider him excused. Council Member Herrera?

Abstained.

Council Member Krueger? Aye. Council Member Ayala? Aye. Council Member Yambe?

Aye.

Council Member Hitchen? Aye. You have five ayes, one abstention.

With five ayes and one abstention, the motion is passed. Thank you all. That is the end of our ordinances and resolutions, just basically the business. So we are now at community forum. Community forum is an opportunity for the public to address the council on any topic of significance to or affecting Pierce County government that did not appear on the agenda this afternoon for final action. There is a three-minute limit, and please remember that campaign-related items are not allowed within the chambers. And you state your name. Three minutes will start in chambers. I know I have two people here. We'll start with whoever's coming to the podium first.

Ken Paulson. So I attended a bunch of Pierce County Charter Review meetings. This is my third time. I was there in 2006, 2016, 2026. Somebody, not me, somebody else came up with the phrase, the dirty dozen. Well, there's 21 members, but 12 voted to put the sheriff on the ballot. So they called them the dirty dozen. I thought it was really funny. You're not laughing, but you'd been there for six months. Anyway, so this group of people, not all of them, of course, but, I said there that if I was a leftist, communist, socialist, Marxist, I'd be jumping up and down on what they passed and did. They want more power in less people's hands. That's what this has been. This has actually been the worst charter review in the three decades I've been there. An idea would be to have them be, what is it? You guys have to have 66% to put something on the ballot or three fourths, I'm not sure what, but it's a higher level than just, One more than 50% or two more than 50%, whatever they did. I'm sure there's going to be lawsuits that's going to take money out of Pierce County's pocket. At least one thing that they passed doesn't balance with the state constitution. They want to put it on the ballot. bunch of people sign up down here to vote that are from Seattle, who knows, it could pass. About 20 years ago, it was 2008, I was walking into a grocery store and there were people there with, signing up people to vote. And they came up to me and I said, they said to me, you wanna vote? I'm an illegal alien. Can I sign up? They just kept on coming to me and gave me the papers.

Thank you for your comments. Now is your time.

How y'all doing? I just, like, of course, I've been working in America for, like, since I was 18 and I'm 38. I just want to, I'm just wondering why nothing ever changed. I was like, Everybody continue to push voting. I don't stand by nothing. The government do at all because ever since I was young, I was a little bit of boy. I was just. I was just wondering, like, every time we vote. prices go up higher and higher. Gas used to be 98 cents. I remember when the houses was affordable and stuff like that. They even took the grocery stores out certain neighborhood and certain communities get discriminated upon. And I'm not saying nothing about no race car or nothing like that, but of course, my community always get discriminated upon. And we always just, pay taxes for the governors and the mayors just like the governor he never attend the meeting i called up there and they never never answer the phone these outreach programs like 211 united way they never answer the phone it's like they just divergence when we all know that shots is being called from The White House and like, the Pentagon and stuff like that. So it's like, we should, we, I sit in these, I've been to, like, probably 789 city council meetings and everybody talk about budgets about building building houses, building communities, helping the higher communities. You got this island, you got that island, but I yet to hear somebody talk about. helping the people. It's like I go down like Tacoma. I mean, I help people myself even though I need assistance myself, but we all got to look out for each other. It's like nobody here to To help help the American people, we all doing the same thing, getting up, working for these people, like, your van guard, your straight street to black rock with, um, laughing probably all of them. I don't know them personally. I just do my research and I feel like things should just. I feel like maybe y'all should do better, or I know it's above y'all hands, or at least get the governor out here so he can see what's really going on. Because he's standing in the house, he can have wraparound service at the snap of his finger. He got state troopers to patrol him when the police just out here to protect the assets of America, which is the corporation organized where we get stopped by the police for tickets. and everything else just to pay for people investing in prison. I just want y'all to do better for the American people. So hopefully y'all can sleep better at night. I do appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments. And there's no other members of the public in chamber, so we will go online, Mr. Dominique.

Excuse me. For any member of the public that would like to provide a comment during the community forum to the council, please press the raise hand icon in Zoom or star nine on your telephone keypad. And we have several hands. I'll call them as I see them on my screen. First, we have Angelyn. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

So good afternoon, council members. My name is Angelina Izquierdo and I'm from Pierce County District 2. Let's see her pronouns. For the past six months, I have been trying to find employment with our county as a priority and ease of access and have been unsuccessful with finding a job. While interviews have been landed, the journey to these routes swiftly ended to dead ends that went nowhere. During the job search process, liver traffickers have interfered with wherever they can fit their deception, whether it is during the search with stealing email and online job accounts of any company committing identity theft, removing resumes and applications from their manager's hands or desk after drop-off or submission, or during the interview process with spreading rumors and lies about me. The applicant to the interviewer's or other members of management along with threats if they do choose to move forward with the hiring process. Any of these methods have put this frustrating job search at a halt, but I have not given up. We need a way to hold labor traffickers accountable. Previously, I have tried the way of contacting the Federal Trade Commission and submitting Better Business Bureau aka the BBB, reports to where follow through fall off sometimes. I've tried this for eight years and I'm still exploring other paths of reporting these grievances aside from filing police reports and intelligence reports to encourage more bravery from employers to confronting these people head on and continue to other possibilities of filling their rosters rather than looking to an escape route that isn't theirs and creating false excuses out of fear. Council members, could you use your political and legal power and help me find a way to hold these very determined people of labor traffickers accountable who prefer to instill slavery rather than let a Puerto Rican woman thrive, even in the case of having all of them or not having all of the information, excuse me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next, we have Terry Hurd. Please state your name for the record, and you have three minutes.

Terry, we're not hearing you, so push the button on your headset. Terry, we're still not hearing you in chambers. Do you want to try again? Okay, let's go to Mr. Ward, and then we'll come back to Terry and try one more time, because he got it to work. So I know it does.

All right, next up is James Ward, police station name for the record, and you have three minutes. Oh.

Did he put his hand down?

Yeah, I think he left the meeting. Oh, there he is.

There we go. Mr. Ward, do you want to unmute? You have up to three minutes.

Yes, ma'am. Can I just verify that I can be heard?

You can be heard. Thank you for your patience.

Hey, not a problem. Thank you for listening to me. Let's solve some problems, huh? Right now, we're spending $2.5 billion per year on schools. The guy from the Bethel School District that was complaining about portables, and I believe that Amy Kruber, excuse me if I'm mispronouncing your name, you're talking about the price of portables. Bethel's spending a half a million dollars, $500,000 on a portable, with $300,000 of that being site preparation and permitting. It's being stolen. You know, like if we really wanna solve some problems and we keep on talking about affordability of housing, if you took half of the school budget and you bought single wide mobile homes with it, you've just bought 25,000 single wides, 25,000 that you could give away. You have land. You have 94 acres up in Elby. You got 25 acres that PLU wants to turn into some kind of a park. There's land everywhere for free that you can put mobile homes on. And if you wanted to, you can put in double wides or triple wides and make them nicer. Some of these things are beautiful. But to spend $200,000 on a double wide, a double wide portable for a school, and then we're going to charge the public $1,500 a month to go to these schools with the $500,000 portables is absolutely crazy. And we also have lots of timber resources. So if you wanted to, hey, kids, let's make a class. Let's make log cabins, huh? Instead of portables, we're talking about how not sturdy these portables are. Why can't they make log cabins? Why can't they mill the wood and build stick-built schools? Or even better, teach them how to make bricks. Teach them how to lay bricks. It could be a class project. But instead, you're getting charged a half a million dollars, and we're spending $2.5 billion a year, but it's not enough. because when these people in the Bethel School District are paying $500,000 for a portable, of course it's not enough. You give the kids some axes, you give them a chainsaw, and you tell them to go cut down that wood, and guess what, kids? We're going to make a building out of it. It's a school project. It doesn't cost nothing. But $110 million to build a building is just theft. It's theft. And guess what? The kids can do it. That's the reason why we're teaching these kids. This is why we have Job Corps, right? So we can teach people skills. Let's teach people how to build buildings with the resources we already have on county land. Rocks, bricks, you have to make bricks, maybe clay city. I don't know what's going on with that. But the way that we're doing things now isn't working. And the $500,000 portables isn't working. And the $2.5 billion a year, take half of that money from those schools that are wasting it. And if those people want to quit, bye-bye. Find volunteers and buy single whites with it. I yield my time.

Thank you for your comments. Mr. Hurd, we're going to go back to you. I hope it's working this time. It is. We can hear you. We'll start the timer. All right.

One of the things I've come across that's been annoying for many years is the gerrymandering that goes along with all the political parties making these weird, squiggly districts that wander throughout both incorporated and unincorporated areas. why aren't we putting down a geometric shape and divide the property up so the elected representatives of that district really represent those people rather than wandering it all over the country you know it it seems to be an anti oh anyway very disappointing the other thing i wanted to bring up and since we've talked about it i'm my apologies for bringing this up We voted on a lottery system that we were told was going to pay 100% of our schools. We wouldn't have the property tax anymore. You wouldn't have the issue of impact fees. We were lied to. It's very disappointing what I hear constantly, and I look at my yearly upgrade in taxes, is that these issues that were supposedly covered by this lottery that seems to be and i'll use the term directed elsewhere are not paying for the schools that we want to have built it's very uh it's very sad so why isn't the state being held accountable for their requirement to pay for this instead of being put on the county or county anyway that kind of covers what i wanted to say thank you very much for listening but really consider the fact that gerrymandering is an ugly term and process look at using geometric shapes that will cover all the county it's all based on population anyway so why are we always dividing these pieces of weird property up into it's this party it's that party this is how the people vote that's how other people vote is that really reflecting a good democracy thank you thank you for your comments

And that concludes all the hands I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'm going to end community forum, bring it back before the council and see if there's any other business or announcements. Vice Chair Herrera.

Thank you, Chair. We have a big weekend this weekend. So America's having a birthday, it's 250th birthday, and we're supposed to celebrate. I'm gonna tell you why here in a second, but of course we need to celebrate and be courteous as we celebrate and as we move forward. But as a veteran myself, I subscribe to the John Adams theory. John Adams, I'm sure everyone knows who he was. But in my hand right here is a letter that John Adams wrote to his wife in July 1776. It was a letter he wrote to his wife talking about that they're gonna pass the Declaration of Independence and how excited he was. But I'm just gonna read a little bit, one little small paragraph that he talked about why we're supposed to celebrate. And I quote, July 1776 will be the most memorable in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as a great anniversary festival. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of the continent to the other from this time forward forevermore. That is amazing foresight of A country that wasn't even started from one end to the other. We do the bonfires. We do the pomp. We do the parades. We do the illuminations and fireworks. So I subscribe to the John Adams theory who predicted that we should celebrate. But again, I'd like to remind you, let's do it courtesy. But happy birthday, America 250.

Thank you. I know many of our districts have events, uh, and I know. With technology, most people are able to find them on their own. I just want to highlight 2 things. 1. in most parts of our county fireworks are legal only on the 4th of july but if you are not sure please check and there's lots of resource you can just google pierce county fireworks and you'll find all the things including what's legal and what's not because not everything you buy might be legal in your jurisdiction if you're in a city or town so please be aware especially if you don't buy it in that jurisdiction the other one is and we had a really great public safety meeting where we heard from South Sound 911 and the Sheriff's Department and the fire marshal really about why nobody shows up if you call 911 and people are launching fireworks maybe on the 4th of July at 1130 at night why is that going on when it's not loud It's bothering your dog. You're just tired of it. It's been going all day, and it's supposed to turn off at 11 o'clock. Actually, unincorporated Pierce County, to correct myself, it's 1159. So if it was 1 a.m. on the 5th, then you could be frustrated because people are technically breaking the law. We do not have enough deputies to respond to public safety, violent crime, DUIs, domestic violence, full stop. And the number of calls that happen when people are gathering in groups, in large groups, often alcohol is involved, the calls go up exponentially. So fireworks calls come in, but they have to prioritize immediate danger and certain types of calls. So we have, through South Sound 911, a way for you to report cases of fireworks that are being launched outside of the allowed days and times for your jurisdiction, along with anything that's illegal. So if it's just going boom really loudly, that's not legal anywhere in the county. You can report it using this online portal. Doesn't mean necessarily that somebody is going to show up, but our fire marshal this year will be deploying fire marshals across the region to respond to some of those calls. They're going to try. It's the 1st time we've ever done it. We're actually pretty as the council pretty excited because we get a lot of concerned community members who are frustrated sometimes because people don't show up. To the vice chair's point, celebrate respectfully, which means follow the laws in your community. Be the respectful neighbor. If fireworks are allowed in your community, then do them safely. Don't burn someone's house down. There's simple things you can do. We have a lot of resources to help. I know that we've got two parades happening in my jurisdiction. I think there's parades in a cup. Gig Harbor has one. I mean, just there's things to do. It's a great time to celebrate the fact that we are still here, the oldest democracy, republic democracy in the world. That's us right now. We're at 250, and I am really hopeful that we will have another 250. So I won't be here by then, though. But wishing everybody a wonderful, safe 4th of July. Seeing no other business before us, we adjourn. Thank you, everybody.