City Council - workshop

I'd like to call to order the City Council study session of May 12, 2026. Clerk, please call the roll.

Deputy Mayor Bushnell.

Present.

Councilmember Diaz. Here. Councilmember Hines. Here. Councilmember Palmer. Here. Councilmember Rumba. Here. Councilmember Sadalge. Here. Councilmember Scott. Here. Councilmember Walker. Here. Mayor Ibsen.

Here, our first agenda item is the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Amendment Briefing. I'd like to call on Public Works Engineering Division Manager Jennifer Camerzel to begin the presentation. Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Besin, Deputy Mayor Bushnell, and members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Six-Year Comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program Annual Amendment Draft. As noted, my name is Jennifer Camerzel. I'm the Transportation Division Manager in Public Works. As many of you know, the revised Code of Washington requires the legislative body of each city and town to annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation program and for the adoption process to include at least one public hearing. At the May 19, 2026 City Council meeting, the consent agenda includes a request for the City Council to conduct a public hearing on June 2, 2026. for Tacoma's draft six-year transportation improvement program amended 2026 and 2027 to 2032. Today's presentation will include an overview of the program, information about this year's major updates and issues, the tie-in to the recently adopted transportation and mobility plan, and the proposed timeline for adoption. So as I noted, state law mandates that local jurisdictions annually adopt and submit to the state a six-year program of transportation improvements. The State Department of Transportation and the Puget Sound Regional Council use local six-year programs as tools for coordinating the transportation programs of local jurisdictions with those of regional agencies. PSRC monitors these local programs for projects of regional significance, which needs to be modeled for regional air quality conformity with federal standards, and then also to track projects supported by federal funding. The updated program must be adopted by July 1st of each year. Their program also serves as an inventory of projects and a rough work plan for the development of local transportation systems, and as such represents an important planning component under the state's Growth Management Act. The primary importance of the local program to Tacoma is that in most cases, projects must be included to be eligible or to obligate grant funds for state and federal grants. We have seen, though, that recent grants do allow for projects to be eligible as long as they're included in the Transportation Mobility Plan or their comprehensive plan. Typically, projects listed in the first two years of the document are shown as having secured funding, while projects in the last four years can partially or completely be unfunded. The draft program currently includes 144 projects. The program lists capital projects such as roadway, reconstruction, bridges, non-motorized facilities such as sidewalks and trails, and other capital-related transportation projects. It does not include maintenance projects such as chip seals and pothole repairs, though. On these next two slides, I'll review the major updates for this year. So this first one is proposed, there is one project proposed for removal. The Multilingual Honorary Street Names Sign Project was a partnership with the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Together, 176 honorary street signs featuring the Tulsuitse language on the Puyallup Reservation were installed in 2025. This next slide is a summary of the total projects proposed for addition, which amounts to approximately $38.8 million. This year, we are proposing to add seven projects. Two projects are specifically active transportation focused and have received or will be applying for grant funding. Match funding is provided by the Real Estate Excise Tax Safe Routes to School funds allocated in the 25-26 biennium, and then also from Sound Transit Access funds. The five other projects include a variety of improvements that meet Vision Zero, active transportation, ADA access, maintenance and operations. Five are grant, future grant, or partnership opportunities. The signal improvement at 38th and Alaska was funded by real estate excise tax, and we'll also look for other grant opportunities or partnerships to expand on potential improvements. The Sixth Avenue and Tacoma pavement preservation project utilizes street operations funding and also leverages a grant. This next slide shows the relationship between the proposed projects to be added with the recently adopted Transportation and Mobility Plan. This is a new slide for this year, so I'm excited to show that tie in to the plan that was recently adopted. This shows the eight goals of the Transportation and Mobility Plan. And each project is selected or checked if it meets the criteria that was outlined in the TMP. So for example, equity and livability includes projects that are located in very low or low areas of opportunity and reduce physical barriers for people with disabilities. Safe and comfortable experience includes projects on the high risk network for Vision Zero. Environmentally sustainable and healthy includes projects improved that improve air quality by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthens land use and transportation connections. Partnerships includes projects that support local partners, including Tacoma Public Schools, Pierce Transit, Port of Tacoma, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, and others. Transparent decision-making includes projects that are in a sub-area plan or a neighborhood plan. Connect the Tacoma community includes projects that improve the public realm or transform arterial streets from barriers to safe, accessible corridors. Maintain and upgrade includes projects that improve the condition of existing assets, and finally, thriving economy includes projects that improve transit speed and reliability and or improves access to employment-dense areas. As the Transportation Commission evaluates how projects are included in future six-year programs, the tie-in to the TMP will play an important role in completing our vision and network. This next slide depicts the relationship between long-range planning, state and regional improvement programs, funding and city projects. It really gets to the how do I have a project funded or included in the six-year program question. So the plans on the left depicts the stages of transportation project development, from policy development and planning to actual project prioritization. This is the primary process for inclusion in the six-year program, where the highest priority projects are those that are identified in the TMP. which informs and is informed by sub-year plans or other long-range plans. Projects can also be added or prioritized through other avenues. For example, during the biannual budget process, City Council may identify funding for a priority capital project that is not in the Transportation Mobility Plan or might be an emergent need in nature. Other programs, including local improvement districts or partnerships with local agencies, such as Parks Tacoma or the Puyallup Tribe, may also be included as well. if they're not an RTMP. Finally, I wanted to share the timeline towards adoption. City Council will be presented with a proposal at the May 19, 2026 meeting to set the public hearing date as June 2, 2026. Notification will be made to interested parties. The draft program is available online for review, and it's attached to this memo for the study session. The first reading is scheduled for June 9, with adoption planned for June 16, 2026. This concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Jennifer. Appreciate the presentation. Are there any questions from the council? We'll start with the Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for the presentation and update here. Could you remind me on the South Park Avenue Greenway, the cross streets in which that's going to encompass, is that going to go into the Fern Hill Elementary neighborhood and business district specifically is what I'm thinking about?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Wishnell. So the limits for that project include Park Avenue between South 76th and 86th Street, It does include improvements at Fernhill Elementary, which we started to engage with the school on what those ideas were and then also with encouragement.

Yeah. Great. Thank you. I've heard from a lot of neighbors about some issues out there, especially with a lot of kids going to and from school. And then we also have oftentimes siblings from Baker come up and pick up their siblings from Fernhill. So we have a lot of kids moving around that area. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Palmer.

Thank you, Mayor. Thanks for the presentation. Thank you for also offering to make more time for me to dig into this a little bit more. Could you just, over a high level, help me understand why these particular seven projects were proposed? I know you said that they were in other plans. And then I'm looking at the checks and it's like, do we not have projects that can check all of these boxes? I'm curious how these particular ones were picked.

Yeah, that's a great question. Thank you very much, Council Member Palmer. So initially what we start from is our transportation and mobility plan lists out over 400 different transportation projects. And the idea is to help build out that system for that 20-year vision. And so then what we try to do is as funding becomes available, we'll start moving projects from the TMP to the six-year program, which is that six-year. So it goes from kind of that 20-year to the six-year realization. And within the TMP, there is a scoring criteria that uses these eight goals as that criteria. And then there actually is a scoring of usually 012. And we rank each of those projects. And although it was recently adopted, our intent is to to have that be a better tie-in where we start pulling from those top projects because they've shown as they've met more of the criteria. There will likely be projects that don't check all of those. But as we go through the scoring, I'm happy to walk through with you on what is our top, what we'll say, top 10 years of projects that have met that criteria. But oftentimes, what we've done is we will add a project if there is an opportunity funding opportunity that works well. So whether it's a partnership with the tribe they came forward with to us, and so we want to be good partners and accepted that project. There are others where we know ahead of time what grant opportunities are available. And oftentimes, those grants are either focused on increasing our active transportation network. Some might be focused on Safe Routes to School as a grant opportunity that comes out every two years. And so we know in the back of our head that we want to have a Safe Routes to School project in our six-year program to prepare for that grant application. And so we use our Safe Routes to School Action Plan list to go through and pull those forward. So oftentimes, we try to either in advance think about the grant opportunity or partnership and then pull that forward into our six-year program. And then in some cases, it's enough that we can pull directly from the TMP. That's super helpful. Thank you. Yeah, of course.

Thank you. Council Member Hines. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hey, Jennifer, just a reminder. So we're adding seven new projects. We're removing one. How many total projects are on the six-year transportation master plan?

There are 144. 144.

And they're all, and so these 144, when we think about this, I think you said we have the 20-year plan, and this is the six-year plan. So this is the idea that these 144 items are things that could be funded in the next six years, correct?

Generally, yes.

I think that just when, for the listening public, the idea that there's not just seven projects, there's over 100, almost 150 of them, and that this is working in, so it's part of the consideration. And then when we look at the list, so the 144 items are on there, are those seen as a list of priorities, or are those just kind of any of those, we're looking for options for any of those at all times, just kind of everywhere, everything all at once?

Thank you. That's a great question. So within the six-year program, the projects aren't prioritized because it is that six-year look ahead. The projects that are identified in the first two years, though, typically have some funding, whether it's a grant match or a partnership or a grant, then that would essentially kind of serve as the priority. The ones that are more between four and six years might just show up as unfunded or unidentified. So by way of priority, that might be the case. But we have seen some grants more recently where there isn't a match requirement, far and few between. And we're not sure how long that lasts. But we may be able to pull from a project from the four to six year timeframe forward. And then just to add on, noting that we are only removing one project, it's not to say that we have, actually Public Works has completed quite a few projects that you've seen online and on our website. We won't take a project off the six year program if we're still closing it out. There might be some additional contractor payments or just some punch list items, but there are quite a few that I know we've done and we've got some ribbon cuttings coming up. But until we finish those administrative pieces, we won't take them off.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Sadalga. Thank you, Mayor. And actually, I'm glad I went after Council Member Hines because they were very similar questions. I just, you know, transportation and infrastructure is one of the few things that we actually do have a lot more, like, control over, and it's something that's really important to residents. So I just wanted to reiterate, right, For the listening public, why do we do this? And it's because this is a way for us to set up really funding opportunities, correct? This is a requirement?

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

Yeah, it's a requirement on the state level, but it allows us to apply for those state and federal grants that we've been successful at. In the previous streets initiative, we had a $2.27 match. I'm sure this is part of the reason why. You can confirm or deny if I'm making that up.

Nope, you're absolutely correct.

So then the only question I really have is if someone's watching here and they want to see that list of 144 on this list or the 400 odd on the 20-year plan to see what's on our long-term horizon and short-term horizon in terms of capital projects, how would they do that?

Yeah, that's a great question. Thanks for the opportunity to share that. Both documents, so the six-year transportation improvement program, our previous versions, and then the current draft that I'm presenting to you all today is online on our city's website, so Tacoma.gov. And it's under public works in our transportation planning section. And then in that same kind of family of web pages, our transportation mobility plan is also online as well. So Tacoma.gov under transportation and mobility plan.

Awesome. Thank you. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Thank you. Okay.

Moving on to our second item, we're going to hear from our Planning and Development Services Critical Areas Biologist, Lisa Spadoni, to begin our presentation on the update to our Critical Areas Ordinance. Lisa will also be joined by Robin Bolster-Grant and Carla Kluge.

ROBIN BOLSTER- Good afternoon, Mayor, Council Members. I am Robin Bolster-Grant, the Land Use Division Manager for Planning and Development Services. As you said, with me today is Lisa Spadoni, our Principal Critical Areas Biologist, who will be walking you through the bulk of the presentation this afternoon. I just want to start with a little bit of context before we get into the slides. Washington's Growth Management Act requires cities to designate and protect critical areas. So wetlands, streams, habitat corridors, geologically hazardous areas, flood zones, and critical aquifer recharge areas. That requirement is not discretionary. What is within our discretion is how we protect these resources. The GMA mandates that our regulations be based on what the law calls best available science. That phrase comes up a lot. Lisa will talk about it quite a bit. I want to be direct about what it means and what it does not mean. Best available science is not a state issued set of regulations. I should have brought my water. It's not a rule book that Tacoma has to copy. There is not a one size fits all answer to how we deal with critical areas. Tacoma is not Mount Vernon or Enumclaw. The ecological conditions here, our soils, our hydrology, our species, the extent of our aquifer are specific to this place. The science informs the standard. It does not dictate an identical outcome in every jurisdiction. What the science does tell us, and this I think is important, and what you'll hear today is that statewide reviews have found that the goal of no net loss of critical areas functionality has not been achieved under the current protective standards for the state. Thank you so much. I should have thought of this before I started. So the finding has led to state guidance that is more protective by definition. But we took very seriously in the update that our conditions are separate and that we are largely built out. And so increases in protection do have Repercussions. The update that you are looking at today reflects roughly a year of sustained and deliberate work. We didn't write the ordinance and bring it to you cold. We started by hiring Facet, our consultant who looked at the best available science and conducted an assessment of what the current scientific literature and guidance from ecology, from fish and wildlife, measured against our existing code. And that produced a gap analysis, a clear-eyed accounting of where Tacoma's regulations were a bit out of step with current science. And from there, we took the work to the Planning Commission eight meetings, including a full public hearing. We heard from property owners, from environmental advocates, from the development community, the port, the Puyallup tribe, neighborhood councils, and members of the public who simply wanted to understand what this might mean for their property. The recommendation that you will be deliberating on is the planning commission's, not staff's, but we work together very closely in answering questions and making sure that the commission understood what we were talking about and what their ultimate recommendation would mean. I want to say something about the work and the people who did this work. Earlier this year, we lost our senior critical areas biologist, Carla Kluge. Carla had been with the city for decades and brought a ton of expertise to critical areas issues here in Tacoma. She was a substantial part of the early foundation of this update. Her knowledge of this community, our ecosystems, and the code is irreplaceable. and her absence is felt in this room today. What I can tell you is that the work that you're looking at reflects the kind of care and rigor that Carla brought to everything she touched. Lisa Spadoni has carried this forward with the same commitment and I am so grateful for her every day. So just to briefly flag the two areas that generated the most discussion during the process, you will likely hear about them again, have likely heard about them already. First, the stream buffers, the updated code increases required buffers along many but not all streams. And this, again, reflects the best available science finding that the existing buffers have not been sufficient to maintain stream function over time. The second is the critical aquifer recharge area. Those provisions, specifically as they apply to the tide flats, there is a genuine question about how the high-impact use restrictions interact with the recently adopted tide flats sub-area plan, and the Port of Tacoma has raised that issue directly with as you probably know. The Commission analyzed this carefully and their finding was, so the best available science really gives us three levels of policy levels, if you will, of how to deal with critical aquifer areas. Most restrictive, least restrictive, and then somewhere in between. The Planning Commission took the most restrictive because at the end of the day we're talking about drinking water and that was of concern. But any of those policy choices do reflect what the best available science tells us. It really is just a matter of walking through the types of uses that we're talking about and the types of land that is impacted. It is a very narrow, confined portion of the groundwater zone, but it is important to talk about. You may also hear the criticism that guidelines are not code, and that is technically true. And it is precisely why we went through this process to take the guidelines and apply them in a way that made the most sense here in Tacoma. We heard from a number of folks. I will share that we heard from many environmental advocates who feel that the draft does not go far enough. That will not be surprising to most of us. And one of the genuine challenges, and we can talk about this again, is the ability to have maps that are explicit in showing what the impacts will be, where all of the critical areas are, and what it means moving forward. That is an ongoing process, and Lisa will talk about it a little bit more. The last thing I just want to say is that regulations of this kind are periodically reviewed. This is not in stone. We will see what works and what doesn't. And of course, if science changes, if implementation reveals problems, or if council directs amendments in the future, we have a process, of course, for that. But what we are presenting to you is well-grounded, community-specific. Starting point, it is not the final word. And with that, I will hand off to Lisa Spadoni.

Thank you, Robin. That was a great overview of what we're going to be seeing today in a little bit more detail in the presentation. Could you hand me the slide? Oh, gosh, I have your clicker. Thank you. There we go. Okay, so in the presentation, I'll be going over what is our critical areas protection ordinance and what are critical areas, why we protect them, what we have gone through with the critical areas code update to date, what our process has been, the public engagement and outreach that we have had, the planning commission recommendations, and what the next steps are. As Robin mentioned, we are regulating critical areas as defined under the Growth Management Act. And there are five categories of critical areas. Wetlands are areas that have to meet three scientific standards. So there's actually a definition and a delineation manual to determine what wetlands actually are. They're not everyone's wet backyard. There's criteria that have to be met. And they provide water quality, flood storage, and fish and wildlife habitat. There are the next category is fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. This is a broad category that actually includes quite a few types of habitat and environment. The most common that you see are streams or riparian areas. But it also includes things like biodiversity areas, which are also habitat corridors, and special protected species. So here in Tacoma, we see Oregon white oak. frequently throughout especially the southern areas of our jurisdiction and those are one of the protected species under the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas Third category the critical aquifer recharge areas These are very important because they provide a fair amount of the city's drinking water not just the city of Tacoma but the jurisdiction that Tacoma water provides for drinking water too. So critical aquifer recharge areas encompass any portion of a sole source aquifer that provides drinking water for a jurisdiction. Protected because we all want clean water. The other two categories are geologically hazardous areas. It includes lahar areas, steep slopes, places where landslides or earthquakes are prevalent, and flood hazard areas, frequently flooded areas, tidal areas where inundation might occur. And for those two categories, the regulations are protecting people and development from the hazards rather than protecting the environments from the impacts of development. As we've mentioned, these are environments that are required to be protected under the Growth Management Act. For the environmentally sensitive areas, there is a measurement of no net loss of ecological functions and values that the whole state is striving for. But that jurisdiction by jurisdiction, we have responsibility to ensure. And as Robin mentioned, the way we ensure that is by incorporating best available science in our regulations and policies. Best available science is generally provided, gathered together by state and federal agencies. So there's a list of agencies on the slide there. FEMA helps us with our floodplain regulations. Ecology provides guidance on wetlands and critical aquifer recharge areas. WDFW provides information on our fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. And DNR helps inform our geologically hazardous requirements and regulations. There are other sources of scientific literature, but these are the primary sources that most jurisdictions use. So a brief overview of some of the tools that we use in our codes for the protection of critical areas. One of the first things that we are required to do is to identify what are these areas, how are they defined, and how are they categorized. You can't clearly regulate something if you don't know what it is. And then one of the primary protective measures is to create protective buffers once the area has been identified. And the protective buffers would limit development in those areas and often provide vegetated areas around either the stream, the wetland, or other sensitive feature to help limit the impacts of development on those environments. We've had some questions about whether or not the critical areas regulations can prevent development, or if you have a critical area on your property, can you still develop? And the answer is yes. The regulations have relief mechanisms for site-by-site analysis so that if you have a site that's fully encumbered by a stream or stream buffer, for example, there's still relief in the code that allows development on those sites. There are limitations on what that development can do, how much area it can disturb. And there's requirements that any impacts on those environments be mitigated. Mitigation often includes removing invasive species or planting other native species in those areas to help offset the development impact. So you can develop, but there are permits that you go through and review that you go through in order to develop in those areas. So as we were going through the update process, one of the things that was produced by our consultants, and this was actually done through the comprehensive plan process since the critical areas code update and the comp plan are often reviewed at the same time, is that we had a best available science review put together by our consultants. And they also did a gap analysis to determine where our codes were out of alignment with the best available science. And based on that information from our consultants, we determined that there were updates needed to all of the categories of critical areas in our code. And this slide gives you a overview of what those changes are, and then we'll dive in a little bit deeper into some of those changes. So for both wetlands and streams, there were new buffer recommendations out of Ecology and WDFW. For the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, we heard both from the public and honestly from staff that we needed some clarification and updates to our biodiversity areas and corridors, and that we needed to codify our Oregon White Oak regulations In the past, we have referred to WDFW for their guidance and regulations regarding Oregon White Oak. We've protected them, but it has not been explicitly laid out in our code how we protect them. And so that we found was a gap that we needed to fix. For the critical aquifer recharge areas, it was identified that we needed to update some of our CARA maps, and we needed uses and standards added into the critical areas code. Geological and flood hazards needed updates to definitions and classifications. So not so much substantive changes as we just needed to update things to meet our updated guidance from FEMA and DNR. Again, we... enlisted a lot of feedback from stakeholder groups and the community. We've tried to get the word out on our social media posts, through websites, through emails and phone calls, through listservs that we have tried to gather interested parties' information from. We have met with tribal fishery staff and other interested tribal members, environmental organizations, the development community, and the state agencies that actually produce the guidance that we are trying to implement. We've met with TPAAG, Tacoma Permit Advisory Group, multiple times, the Climate and Sustainability Commission a few times, and we have had a number now of community events. With the planning commission process, we had community events out at Salishan, the nature center, and a virtual event. But since then, we have also been to the South Sound Sustainability Expo. That was just a couple weeks ago on May 2nd. And just this last Saturday, we had a code amendment open house at the Star Center that was very well attended. We had over 50 community members come through for that event and had very... pointed and intelligent questions and gained another list of folks who are interested in learning more about the code update that we will be sending our emails out to. So diving in a little bit deeper into what some of the recommendations are from the Planning Commission. For wetland buffers, the Department of Ecology issued a guidance that had three different options for determining wetland buffers. The guidance essentially said our wetland buffers across the state are not necessarily meeting the no net loss criteria that's required for wetlands. And so there's a recommendation across the board Modifications and a few increases. I will say, for the most part, with our wetland buffers, our smallest buffers, they're not necessarily getting bigger. The biggest buffers are not necessarily getting bigger. There's tweaks in between depending on wetland type or category that are shifting some of the buffers. There are some increases that are proposed. But the Department of Ecology, when they came out with their different options, The third option they came out with was very general and had very large buffers. And as staff and consultants, we did not even bring that forward to the Planning Commission as an option we thought was worth considering. Option one and option two were the more flexible options from the Department of Ecology. And through discussions and feedback, we recommended option one. because it is most tailored to a development community. It has the most flexibility in determining what the buffers are and allows for buffers to be reduced under certain circumstances. So given that we are an urban environment, the planning commission is recommending that we use option one for the buffers to allow the most flexibility for development in the city. One of the key changes is that buffers are now required to be vegetated, both for streams and wetlands. In the past, vegetation was required if you were having direct impacts on the critical area or the buffer. Now the requirement is that buffers be vegetated if you're doing development around them, even if you are not in them specifically. So that is one of the primary changes with buffers that we're seeing with this code. For stream buffers, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife came out with an entirely new recommended definition and scenario for streams to instead look at not just the stream as the water path, but look at the riparian area, which includes the path the water goes through, as well as vegetation and the environment all around the stream. And they had a buffer recommendation based on the forest type that might be occurring in a natural scenario for those streams. That is not a recommendation that is coming forward with this document. It would have required buffers of over 200 feet for all the streams within the city and bigger buffers for our bigger streams. When you look at a built out city like Tacoma, those larger buffers are generally just wrapping over additional development. And so except for our larger salmon-bearing streams and some of the other fish-bearing streams in the city, having buffers of that magnitude is not very conducive in an urban environment, nor does it actually wrap more protections in. So instead, what Planning Commission recommendation is is to bring forward the minimum buffer increase for streams of 100 feet for That would be a minimum for any stream within the city of Tacoma. And again, buffers would need to be vegetated. This is an example of what that would mean. So in the chart, that is actually pulled directly from the code. We are modifying our stream definitions slightly to better align with WDFW definitions and standards. And the two on the bottom are streams that don't have fish in them. That's what the N is for non-fish bearing. The S is for seasonal. So these are streams that can dry up in the summer. So they don't have fish. They can dry up. And then the number one or two talks about what other types of systems they're connected to. And you can see that both of those have the smaller buffers, a 25-foot buffer and a 75-foot buffer under current code. And the proposal right now would be to move those up to the minimum recommended by WDFW of 100 feet. And the other buffers aren't really shifting much. The type F2 non-salmon buffer, that's just a stream type that's going away and being consolidated into one of the other types. So I also wanted to point out that I pulled an example It's a little challenging to actually pull the whole city in as an example to show what buffers might look like around streams right now, and then what they might look like with a slight increase, because it's just too big to get any sort of good visual of what that means. So I pulled this little chunk, which is Crystal Stream, Crystal Creek by Titlow. And it is one of our areas where there's all kinds of little streamlets. that run down the hillside there. And the little blue streamlines that you can see on what would be the east of Sunset Drive, those are actually those type NS1 and NS2 streams right now. So those right now would have a 25-foot or a 75-foot buffer. Everything else on the western side going down the slope are perennial streams. They run year-round. They already have a 100-foot buffer on them. So if you're trying to get context for what is changing, it's some of the smaller streams in these systems are moving from the 25 to 75 up to the 100 foot buffer. And if you're curious citywide, the information that we could pull fairly quickly is that if we are putting the larger buffers on the stream systems, That would be our streams of local significance, which are salmon-bearing streams going up to 200 and the other streams going up to 100. We're going to affect about 1,200 parcels in the city out of the 75, 76-odd thousand parcels. So about 1.6% of the parcels in the city would have stream buffer on them, just for context of how much impact we're talking about here in the city. Okay, moving on to critical aquifer recharge areas. We've had a fair bit of conversation about this change. We started having conversations about it back when we were doing the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District update, and we were looking at the area in red on the map on the right here, and that's where we've already done an update to protect the most sensitive area of our groundwater. While we were working through that code update, it was noted that the aquifer actually extends significantly outside the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, and that regulations would need to be implemented that spoke to the rest of the aquifer, and that's what we're doing here. So what we are proposing, what the Planning Commission is recommending under the CARA is to expand the mapped CARA to include all of the central Pierce sole source aquifer. That is what the picture, the lower picture on the left is showing. That is the entire central Pierce sole source aquifer. It's a little hard to see in the slides, but maybe on your computers or printouts you can see that it goes significantly south of us in Pierce County and to the east and west. So the portion that is under Tacoma is actually only a very small portion of this aquifer system. Still very important to protect, but we just wanted to bring it to your attention that it's a much larger critical area than is just governed by City of Tacoma regulations. So what is proposed is a framework that is similar to what is approved in the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District, but with more flexibility because the aquifer outside the SDGPD doesn't have as many high impact uses located in it, and it doesn't have our groundwater wells. So there's only a couple of wells outside the STGPD. So the vulnerability of the aquifer and the intensity of development over the aquifer are considerably less outside the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. So the proposed CARA regulations, they don't include the impervious surface limitations that are in the STGPD, nor are they expanding the Tacoma Pierce County review and permitting requirements. They will allow some smaller scale high impact uses subject to development standards that are already in the STGPD. And development standards are things like that the design of your site, the construction methodologies, you have proper containment facilities, you're labeling your containers, you're disposing of them properly. Those are the types of development standards we're talking about. It does not prohibit TANKS OR DRY CLEANING FACILITIES. THOSE ARE PROHIBITED IN THE STGPD. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE SMALLER IMPACT USES THAT PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED WERE APPROPRIATE FOR OUTSIDE THE SOUTH SACOMA GROUNDWATER PROTECTION DISTRICT. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT USES THAT DO COME INTO QUESTION IN THE PORT. SO WE WANT TO FOCUS IN ON THOSE. This is a blown up example of the area of the South Tacoma sole source aquifer that overlays the port, the tide flats area. It is the area that is west of the Puyallup River, and that corresponds in the tide flats with areas that are just recently zoned SCMST and STT. So those are two transition areas. and then a primary industrial area of the port. And in those areas, there are three uses that are currently permitted under the Tide Flats subarea plan that would be prohibited under the draft CARA. So in that geographical area of the SCM, there would be a friction between uses that were permitted through the Tide Flats but would be prohibited through the critical areas protection ordinance for the CARA area. And those are the asphalt and cement batching, metal recycling, and chemical manufacturing, processing, and storage. The category of chemical manufacturing, processing, and storage can actually be subdivided into multiple categories. But essentially, the Tideflats subarea plan either permitted or conditionally permitted all of them. And the proposed CARA regulations in the draft CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE WOULD PROHIBIT THEM. AND THAT IS A POINT THAT WE COULD DISCUSS FURTHER, AND I KNOW THAT SOME MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THOSE CHANGES. AND THAT, YEAH, THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ROBIN.

I APPRECIATE IT. LISA, AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE. In talking about the staff work on this, I did not give Lisa her due. Lisa has been working with the city for 21 years and is by far and away the most knowledgeable person in this building about critical areas. And I lean on her for all of the work technical guidance and in terms of implementing our code. So I just want to make that clear. I kind of skipped over that part. I apologize. So the commissioners voted unanimously to recommend adoption of this draft. And then they flagged five priorities that they would like the council to consider and carry forward. One has to do with tribal consultation. They wanted that to be a bit elevated, the language that recognizes that they're more than just partners, that they really are stewards and obviously have their own treaty rights and government. So government to government consultation, not just checking the box. It's not what we did. We worked with them extensively, but they wanted that to be codified or recognized somehow. We talked a lot about staffing, and the commission was very direct that adoption and the resources are not separate conversations. This ordinance... needs people to implement it. And then we talked about mapping. And the commission wanted to make very clear that we could do more with our mapping to make sure that they are publicly not just available, which they are, but to make sure that they are a resource that folks can use to figure out where their properties are and what they might be impacted by, and maybe more public information, which goes into the next bullet point, public education, so that folks know, particularly before buying or wanting to develop a property, that we could do more in terms of getting the word out and letting folks know that the mapping exists and that they can use that as a tool and should use that as a tool. And then the last piece was about land acquisition, a longer time horizon than what we're looking at now. But the commission wants it on the table as a complement to regulation. So if we can be proactive in acquiring land through whatever mechanism available to set aside and use either for, some sort of mitigation strategy and or to protect resources that the Commission wanted the Council to be aware of those pieces. And I think last is just sort of next steps. So this evening at your meeting we will ask for for a resolution to be approved to set the public hearing date for this draft update for June 2nd, in which we hope we will be able to have the public hearing. And then we're hoping that public input and your deliberation will result in the adoption by the end of June, if possible. And that is all I have. Lisa and I are very happy to take your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa and Robin. Are there questions from the council? Council Member Sedalge, followed by Council Member Heise.

Hi. I actually want to go back. Maybe I misheard you on something on slide eight. Did you mention in, I think it was with buffers, The regulation is not just if you were building in a buffer zone, but around them? What does around them mean?

That's a great question, Commissioner Sedalge. Thank you. So it would mean if the parcel that you own has any portion of buffer on it. So the stream might be running across your property. You might have some buffer on your property. and then you are proposing to do construction outside that protective buffer area. If the buffer is not vegetated with native species, then the requirement would be you vegetate it with native species.

Got it. So your lot would have to have a buffer in it. You couldn't be, like, completely out of it.

Correct.

Got it. Okay. Because I was kind of confused by what that meant. And then you said there's something about new definition of streams that came in. Is that the chart that you've given is the new definition? That's correct. Does that, like? So the question I have is, does the definition, maybe what I really want is a map that just shows what the old ones were and what the new ones are overlaid. Because the question is, is it a double whammy? Is there like new streams that never existed before? Are they larger than they were? And then you got to go farther away from them. I'm trying to understand the practical kind of impact of that.

That's fair. For the most part, our definitions are just being tweaked verbally to match up with WDFW's definition. It's not really going to change. If you had a type NS2 stream now, and we permit you under the new code, that stream typing is still going to be the same.

Okay, and it's like the same size stream and just a larger buffer is what's being...

Correct, yes.

And so just to understand, what does a larger buffalo... At the end of the day, what I want to kind of understand are the practical impacts to just everyday people. You know, maybe I had a house that I was considering putting a DADU in the back. You know, now that I'm within 200 feet instead of whatever it was before, what does that mean to me?

If you are in an area where a buffer has increased, then it could mean you're going to be subject to additional regulations.

What does that actually mean?

So a specific example might be helpful. So if you are, for example, you own a residential property, and let's say that it is vacant, and you want to build a house on it. If there is a stream nearby that has a 25-foot buffer, that buffer might only encumber a quarter of your property. And so you would have the other 100 feet that you could develop. And right now, if you stayed out of that buffer, you wouldn't have to vegetate the buffer. Under the proposed regulations, that buffer would go from 25 feet to 100 feet. So now you might only be able to develop a quarter of your property instead of 75% of it. And you would have to vegetate the entire 75 feet of buffer if it was not already vegetated. So there are circumstances where it could be impactful for some of those roughly 1,200 properties that have streams or buffers on them. And that is a real concern for the people that would own property in those areas. that it could limit the amount of land that they could develop on.

And then you'd have to use a critical areas permit that you may or may not need to do. I guess you don't have to answer. You can answer later. Like, how much does that cost?

Depending on the type of permit, between $5,000 and $10,000, roughly.

Roughly, yeah. I'm not going to hold you to it. So then that takes me to the last set. I guess when I'm reviewing this code, when are we going to see the actual permit? red line code, or did you already send it? Okay, you already sent it, okay. So I will find that and look at it. I guess what I want to kind of understand are two things. The practical impact, especially of the critical area, sorry, the critical for recharge area increasing, since it's still just a minuscule part of our greater one. What is the practical impact to businesses and uses that already exist? You know, I mean, at least in the port area, you know, I think there are metal recyclers that are there when I go over 509. Sometimes I look over to the line left. I think they're in that SCM area. Like, what does it mean? Do we know if they already exist in those areas? And what does it mean if you're already there?

Another good question. Thank you. So for existing businesses in the SCM, they would be under the proposed code if they're one of those high-impact uses. They would be considered non-conforming to the current regulations. They would be allowed to continue their operations. Expansions may have some additional controls on them if they wanted to do an expansion. But existing uses generally just get to continue operating as they currently are.

I guess maybe this is just an open question. I'm trying to understand in the layers of protections, like what, you know, are there like federal levels and state levels and this is a new local level or an expanded local level? Is that how I should think about it or is that not really different because we take all that into account?

Another good question. There is a federal level of review for critical aquifer recharge areas that review only comes into play if it is a federally funded or partially federally funded project otherwise the protection is given to the local jurisdictions by the state so the state is telling Pierce County City Tacoma any local jurisdiction that has aquifers underneath them that are used for drinking water that it is the local jurisdictions responsibility to protect those areas.

And there's no like real state level stuff that kind of gives us some baseline? No?

They provide best available science. They came out with guidance in 2021, the Department of Ecology did, that guides the local jurisdictions as to how they should do protection of those areas.

And then my last set of questions, do we have information or is it a place we can understand, you know, If we pass it the way it goes, and we have the critical area, recharge area, this tiny little area on top, what does the county do in those same area? Because one of our options would be to also lobby our local municipalities and county if we're going to be ahead of them to maybe catch up to us. If it's less, my assumption is that we're going to be ahead of them in some ways. That may not be true.

Another excellent question, Councilmember. I actually have done the benchmarking for Pierce County, Lakewood, University Place and the City of Puyallup. Only the City of Puyallup is still in process with their critical areas code update. The other jurisdictions have all completed theirs in the last couple of years. All of the jurisdictions adopted the same map of the Central Pierce sole source aquifer because it is underneath all of those jurisdictions. And all of them have implemented regulations that limit, prohibit, or otherwise control certain high-impact uses within the aquifer. So all of the different jurisdictions are looking at the same guidance that was issued by the Department of Ecology and incorporating it into their own critical areas ordinances.

That's great. If you have that as a summary, I'd love to... review it just to see what the differences are, which is amazing because obviously my assumption was wrong here that they actually did it before us. Yeah, at the end of the day, I mean, this is obviously, this is something that I want to be make sure that we're leading on in protecting our environment. I just want to always make sure that when we do policy that we take into account the practical impact and not necessarily change the policy, but take that into account to make sure that we're still being responsible and not like inadvertently causing greater issues. Okay, thank you.

Appreciate the questions. Council Member Hines.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. I think I'll keep my questions relatively quickly. So when I look at the maps, thank you, you highlighted an area in District 1 I know pretty well. So these places where I see the streamlets, these little things there, so those are now 100-foot buffers in those little blue areas. So I guess when I look at that area like south of basically Tintlow in between Mountain View and I guess Walters Road, so basically all those areas are off limits to any development at this point in time because if you look at the webbing that's there.

Thank you for that question.

Sorry.

Council Member Hines. The streams that are on the east side of South Sunset are the ones that would be affected by the changes that we're looking at. Okay. those are the ones that would have buffers that would be increasing to 100 feet. And the ones on the west side of South Sunset Drive already have buffers of 100 feet. And yes, many of them do overlap with each other, and it does limit development in that area already.

Well, and if you walk through there, you see it's kind of a hodgepodge of housing back in there, right? So it's not like it's being developed overall. I just was curious to see how those all kind of fit together. So my question was related to, so I own a property that a buffer is 25%, and now it's gone to 75%. I imagine the state has litigated that that's not a takings of my property at some point in time, correct?

Correct.

OK. Yeah. We've had stream buffers in critical areas for an extended period of time. So I imagine somebody sued the state at some point in time saying that was a taking. And I'm sure there were some case laws that it's not a taking at this point.

You are allowed to, required, we are allowed to require that folks have the economic use of their property. So what that means and what that consists of is site specific. But yes, you are allowed to use your property regardless. The entire property could be covered by stream buffers and you would still retain that constitutional right.

OK. I think my last question would be, so if I have a, what triggers me needing to reforest or revegetate the buffer? So I think to that point, if I do a house remodel on my property where I pull a permit and I have a stream buffer, am I now required to reforest the stream buffer at that point? Any activity on my property?

Thank you for that question. The requirements actually have some triggers in the code. And internal remodel, external remodel, if it's not adding square footage or impervious surface, will not trigger it. It actually has an impervious surface trigger. If you are adding a certain amount of impervious surface, then you would need to revegetate the buffer.

Gotcha. Yeah, I think that's interesting, right? Because if we're thinking about if I have maybe a partial of a stream buffer on my property, and I want to put an ADU, or I want to put a patio, or put an extension on my house, then I'm in for revegetating the buffer that's just on my property. So I guess if my property intersects a stream buffer like this, I'm going to vegetate the little pie piece that I saw on my property, and it's going to be unvegetated on my neighbor's properties? Mm-hmm.

that could be the outcome because most of the time critical areas regulations are, they get improvements or changes depending on who is asking for development. So similar to, perhaps a sidewalk requirement.

I was just going to say, instead of sidewalks, we're going to have stream vegetative buffers to nowhere. No, they won't be to nowhere. I mean, they'll be attached to the street.

Yes, and they do provide function even if there is some interruption between them.

Yes, they would. No, I just think that was my, because I think there is a, and we already know a critical areas permit somewhere between $5,000 to $10,000. Correct. How much do we think it, What's a per square footage cost of revegetating a stream buffer? Because I'm just thinking, if I'm going to put a 200 square foot addition on my house, and I have a stream buffer, and now I'm not just getting that, I'm in for revegetating the entire stream buffer that crosses my property, not only do I need to pull a critical areas permit because it intersects my property, though I'm not even going to touch it, I'm also revegetating the whole thing. I mean, maybe it's a couple thousand dollars on top of what I'm already paying.

Assuming, sorry, assuming that there's no vegetation or that the vegetation that was there has failed, and the idea being that that buffer is protective if the vegetation is all died off and it no longer provides that protection. So, yeah, if it's... no longer functioning, then that could be a cost for sure.

Could be a sizable cost. And I guess somebody would go out, an inspector would say, if there's one little tree that this is not vegetated, it needs to be more than this. There's some kind of assessment that would come out of how much vegetation that we need to do in order to get that.

That's correct. And there are standards for what a vegetated buffer is in the draft code as well, for what would qualify as properly vegetated so that you don't need to do anything else. versus inadequately vegetated and some sort of enhancement was needed. So those are also spelled out in the code.

Perfect. I could see. I have a technical question about the permit timing. But one, because you're highlighting it right here, I have been on council long enough to remember the Battle of the One Tree across from Titlow, where the neighbor then identified and argued that there was an unrecognized stream on the property next to them. And... tried to stop the development project from happening. It wasn't unrecognized. It was a long, drawn-out process. So I guess, what if we discover streams later? Because there's always an argument. Because you've identified seasonal versus non-seasonal. But we have an area that's sloped in lots of places. Now all of a sudden, I'm like, hey, this neighbor has it. This is a stream that you all didn't find. Is there a process by which those could be added to the map?

The short answer is yes. Thank you for that question. It actually does get into mapping and the technical identification of critical areas. Because the city does not have access to all private property, there is no mechanism for us as a city to go out and map every critical area. There are predictive models you can use to try to identify likely locations. But otherwise, it is a site-by-site analysis to determine if there are critical areas there. That's wetlands and streams. So we do discover new streams and new wetlands when people come in to ask for development because that is when we say, hey, it looks like you have a lot of vegetation on your site. Have you ever been assessed for this? It's not on our maps. One of our biologists can go out and take a look at that for you. And sometimes we do find streams or wetlands that are not mapped.

Yeah. I mean, is there a way by which I can stop my neighbor from building something on his property by reporting that I think there's an unrecognized stream or body of water on there, and then it would slow the process down by which you would have to go investigate that?

Excellent question. I think that that strikes at the heart of enforcement of any regulation across the city, that a neighbor, if they feel like someone is doing something that is not in compliance with a code, can certainly report that to the city, and we would investigate it to determine if there has been something done that doesn't meet code.

Thank you for all the questions. Again, I would be very clear that I do believe we need to protect our critical areas and that this is a valuable work that we're doing. I just, some of the tensions that are created with a city that's largely built out with kind of applying a map backwards onto a piece of real estate and then changing that is something I'm just thinking through the logistics of how that shakes out. Thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Rumbaugh.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you so much for all the information. There was even more information in this conversation than the last one I had. So I just had a sort of following on what Councilmember Hines said. I really had a question about are we finding new wetlands or are we losing wetlands because of climate change? So this conversation where you're talking about, you know, trying to protect things. I'm wondering if some of it is from climate change that now suddenly we're going to save something, but it's actually disappearing. So do you know if that's happening?

Thank you for that question. I believe that that is a larger question for our entire region to really know for sure if climate change is currently resulting in the loss of wetlands and streams. On a very site-specific or local level, I think at this point it's difficult to know if it is actually having a substantial impact. Predictions are that it will and that regulations should be acknowledging that additional protections may be necessary to prevent that from happening. I think it's a little hard to know for sure. But whether or not we are finding wetlands and streams on properties that come in for development or not, I think is less linked to overall climate change than just the lack of ability to get out to every site.

Right, right. Basically, based on what Councilmember Sedalge asked and sort of getting onto what Councilmember Hines said, I guess I'm going to use this. Are there going to be unbuildable properties, unbuildable lots? I mean, we say that you can, like, you have property rights, but are there going to be unbuildable lots based on what we're passing?

Thank you for that question, Councilmember Rumbaut. The short answer, again, no. There will not be unbuildable lots because, as we've mentioned, Local government does not have the right to take away all development potential from a parcel. And the critical areas code, as currently in place and as recommended by Planning Commission, still has the relief mechanisms that allow someone to apply for a reasonable use of their property. And that reasonable use could result in an impact to a critical area They are supposed to be able to fully mitigate for those impacts, but we cannot take away all development rights through our regulations.

I guess they could build a floating house. I mean, I can see scenarios where you probably couldn't build on your property unless you're building in the buffer that we're setting aside.

That is true. There are situations where folks would have to ask to build in a buffer, yes. Okay.

The larger question I have is basically about the property that's in the Port of Tacoma. I know we have people from the Port of Tacoma here today. I just want to recognize that I appreciate that Pierce County has been better about removing high use that would impact the aquifer. And knowing that the aquifer extends as far as it does, I mean, I am concerned for our city and protecting our water. And I don't really understand, because I'm not a hydrologist. I think that's the right word. Sound right? Yeah. OK. How this would be polluted, except for to know that much of the port is already polluted, has Minka, you know, that have happened that the Department of Ecology is following for toxins. I am concerned for our aquifer. And I don't really understand how water moves and how chemicals move. But I am concerned. So I really do want to dive more into what heavy uses are in that area. I guess this sounds strange, but to understand what businesses are there already that would be nonconforming, understand what that looks like for our community. But I am more or less stronger on the environment and believe holistically that everything should be the same in the whole aquifer, the uses. So however that turns out. But I do want more information. So thank you so much.

Customer deals.

Thank you. I had two questions for you. One was about the stream buffers. I heard you say that it would look at applying to streams that are currently fish-bearing, if I'm not mistaken, as opposed to streams that are, but don't have fish in them.

Thank you for that clarifying question. Let me see if I can... answer it so we do currently have buffers for our streams of local significance those are the salmon bearing streams in the city and currently that buffer is a hundred and fifty feet so that is one of the buffers that is proposing to increase is in in light of the need for enhanced salmon protections is to increase that buffer from 150 to 200 feet for our streams of local significance. The fish-bearing streams are staying the same at 150.

Was that your question? That's correct. I'm using the wrong words. Thank you for using better words. My question is, I don't know the ins and outs of all the different salmon recovery efforts that are going on within city limits. So I guess my question is, would it end up being like when we discover a new wetland, if salmon somehow start returning to somewhere new, would that then be something that we just find out along the way? Like does this essentially, is this gonna cover where, I was thinking all fish, but specifically salmon, will they be, Sam's are salmoning somewhere new. Will we just find out in the process as people pull permits?

That's an excellent question. And the answer is yes and no. We might find out prior to people pulling permits because we would just be involved in understanding what the recovery efforts are and where are the fish going. that can change the stream typing.

Thank you, that was my question, is will it change the stream typing?

It can, yes. So if a stream that was non-fish-bearing or non-salmon-bearing becomes fish-bearing or salmon-bearing, that can change the stream typing, yes.

Perfect. Thank you for finding much better words. Are we protecting where future fish might go? And then my other question was around the... I guess now that Council Member Hayes has put that out there, the buffer's to nowhere. I guess I'm curious if there is, I'm thinking of our proactive residents, if there's going to be a point at which we should consider partnering with the conservation district or ecology or someone else. We have the Osarco funding, if there's an overlap with a stream in an Osarco-funded area. where folks could opt into adjusting their vegetation? Maybe they're not building a porch or an ADU, but they just found out that they're in a stream buffer zone and they want to adjust their vegetation. Is there going to be a program like that? Does that already exist?

Or is that something we should think about down the road? That is an excellent question. Thank you. At this point, we don't have a proactive program for that. We definitely have code provisions that assist people in doing that because we want to promote voluntary restoration. I think that is something we could look into for the future. Great. Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you. Council Member Scott.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for that update. I was just wondering if you could, I feel like I know what it means, but can you explain sole source aquifer? What do you mean by sole source aquifer?

Thank you, Council Member Scott, for that question. The sole source aquifers are aquifers that provide, they are a sole source of drinking water.

The short term. I think that's the, I don't need you to go. I just wanted to make sure I understood what the sole source was referring to. So thank you. Yes, that was the answer I was looking for.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate all the work you guys have put into this, staff, as well as the Planning Commission and all the different stakeholders and the public. One of the questions I had, and it kind of really spurred from some of the conversation we were talking about earlier. Sometimes, you know, when we're doing road projects, things of that nature, we have certain tree requirements, and there's like, okay, till establishment, you know, they continue to be maintained. Would that also be covered in something like this? So if a vegetation requirement was triggered, does that require additional monitoring over time to make sure things are state established?

Good question. Yeah, thank you for that question, Deputy Mayor. It would be triggered, yes. So if there was a requirement to revegetate, similar to mitigation, if you are having an impact, there would be maintenance and monitoring associated with the replanting.

And would that fall back onto the original permittee that obviously caused the vegetation or triggered it? So they might have to go back and pay for revegetation if a lot of it dies off or something like that?

That is correct. Often these permits run with the land so that if a developer, for example, were the one to purchase the property, develop it, do the initial revegetation, if they were to sell it, it generally becomes the subsequent owner's responsibility to maintain it. But yes, there is a requirement over time for them to be maintained.

Thank you. And then the other kind of question I had on this, and it's my understanding based on what you were saying, is even if the buffer zone were to encompass an entire property or more than a portion of the property that currently exists, by right, people still have the ability to build. They would just have to pull permit, critical areas permit. I guess what I'm thinking about, to Council Member Sinaloa's point, is kind of the practicality of that also. Are we potentially inadvertently, even though by right you can build it, but it's going to cost you, right? And so you might not actually have the funds or the capital available to do what you wanted to do, even if it's something like a single family home or an ADU or something like that. And so technically, yes, you can build, but you're never going to be able to afford to do it. Is that a possibility?

Thank you for that question. Cost is always a consideration. So it is possible that these regulations would add cost to a development proposal. And depending on someone's financial capabilities, yes, it could take something out of someone's reach.

Thank you. And then just kind of thinking about, like, the potential for added streams. Is there, like, especially unknowns? You know, geology, things change. You know, geography changes over time. Is there a mechanism in which oh this act the stream actually doesn't exist anymore Does it get removed from the map or is there like like this says there's a wetland here? But it's been dry for 30 years like there's literally nothing here So like it says it on the map, but it's not actually so is there a mechanism to like you know to kind of Look at that just make sure like oh, it's still the thing that it's supposed to be Thank you for that question deputy mayor, and yes, the answer is yes

There are mechanisms for removing areas that may have been mapped or determined critical area, but no longer are. As you mentioned, systems change. Hydrology patterns change. Where water flowed, it might not anymore. And so if something that was a historic stream has been determined to be entirely dry, then it can be removed from the map. The same thing for wetlands. We have had areas that, for one reason or another, had been mapped and then They may not completely be gone, but their boundaries might significantly change. And we do have mechanisms for determining that and either adding, removing, or modifying in our mapping.

Thank you. I lean towards trying to preserve and protect our environment where we are able and understanding that we are in a very built-out urban environment here as well. I would love to be able to own a home right next to a stream and see salmon going up it. That would be amazing. And so I think it's really important to make sure that we're trying to protect these critical areas as much as possible. But I'm thinking about also the practicality behind that as well to the point earlier. And so I had a point I was trying to get to, but I lost it. It happens sometimes. There's so much rattling in this small brain of mine. Anyways, maybe I'll be able to come back to it. Moving on to the care of the critical air recharge area, we've had extensive work done, especially in the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. And to the conversation we were having earlier, just outside city limits over in Lakewood, they're building a gas station right outside the South Tacoma Groundwater Protection District. So I thought it was a little ironic So it's right on the, yeah, it's like, it was just really interesting to see how we had passed that regulation and then just literally a few weeks later, they were already building a new gas station just right outside of it. So it's just very interesting to see that. One of the questions I had, do we know, one of the things that we're trying to do is protect the groundwater areas. aquifer, the water areas. Based on the hydrology, are we planning on putting any sort of wells in this SCM area where we might draw water? I know there's already a well somewhere in the port. Is that something that we pull for drinking water, or is that a well that's for other things? I don't know about that. Is it potable, non-potable, something like that?

Thank you for that question, Deputy Mayor. There is one well in the Tide Flats area that is a Tacoma water well. My understanding is that they are not using it right now at all. But it could be potentially used if we needed it for groundwater. I'm sorry, for drinking water.

For drinking water? Yes.

I am not aware of Tacoma Water having plans to create or drill any additional wells, but I also am not the expert in what their plans are.

Okay, yeah, thank you for that. Again, I don't know which way the water's flowing, and how deep you have to go, and how deep our, I know that some of our wells are pretty deep. Very deep. Very, very deep, and so there's multiple layers, so the risk of contamination is much lower. But I also recognize that there have been some wells that have capped due to surface contamination in some areas, so I wanna recognize that that is occurring. Part of the reason why we strengthen our South Tacoma groundwater protection district specifically. So as it's currently written with our Tideflats sub-area plan that we approved at the council in coordination with all our different partners, even though these high-impact uses are permitted, it's my understanding is there's still mitigation requirements and cleanliness, retention, regulatory compliance, things that they have to do, even if they were to stay permitted. Is that correct?

That is correct, yes. There were limitations and performance standards or development requirements that were put in place with the tide plot sub-area plan approval for most of those uses in those areas, yes.

Okay. I did get a chance to tour one of the metal recycling facilities. And it's my understanding that they actually have to capture all water that hits the site. And it goes through a very large on-site water treatment facility. So nothing that is leaving the site is untreated. And would something like that still be required in these other permitted uses? And so I guess I'm trying to figure out, if things like that are being done, how much of a risk is the groundwater? I'm trying to understand the risk to the groundwater. And obviously, containment could potentially fail or something like that. But how outsized is the risk and contamination to the groundwater aquifer? And we had talked about how deep some of these wells are, how far down. I'm just trying to understand the science behind that. Do we need to expand this to the entirety of the port because the risk is so great? Because the groundwater areas, the entirety of the port and the entire Kara area. So why this specific spot only?

So I can answer the mapping question first. The Central Pier sole source aquifer is mapped by the EPA. And we are proposing to adopt that map. And the map stops. at the Puyallup River. So as mapped, the Central Pierce Aquifer does not extend into the eastern portions of the port. It stops at the Puyallup River. So that is why we're only looking at that small geographic portion of the port for these regulations.

Got it. And so there's no risk of of the water moving in that direction based on our understanding of the hydrology out there?

Based on the mapping and understanding of the hydrology, yes.

That's correct. Great. Thank you. And then just the other part of the question I had was kind of those mitigation requirements that are already there, even if it is permitted. If the mitigation doesn't work, then why are we allowing it at all in any area?

I think that is the question, is that if the mitigation fails, is there a risk to the drinking water from these high-impact uses? And if so, do we want to mitigate that risk by prohibiting them? And that is what the Planning Commission recommended to be most protective, is to essentially say if even the performance and development standards for these uses, should they not be enough, we don't want to take the risk. that if they fail, there might be contamination. To your question about the science and how the water moves, I think one of the challenges all the jurisdictions are having right now is that there is not complete and comprehensive understanding of the aquifer at all depths and what may be between the surface and the aquifer as far as other layers or how the water is moving. And so what most of the jurisdictions are doing is putting in the protective standards because we don't have all of the information about how water is moving in these areas.

All right. Thank you. And then just one, sorry, I've gone on long enough. One final question. One of the things that we're trying to do is, you know, a green economy, green transition, green jobs. And on the chemical manufacturing and processing and storage, does hydrogen fall into that category?

I would have to bring that answer back to you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Those are great questions for a supposed small mind with things clattering. I think we've all been there. But truly, those are really interesting questions I share myself, too. Council Member Palmer?

Thank you. I guess two questions. The vegetation, you said there was a list of what would be required. Is it as simple as, like, grass, or is it more complicated than that?

Thank you for that question. It is more complicated than that. And the standards in the draft code do spell out more of what that means. But for vegetation, we would be looking at native, first of all, and then typically looking at three levels of vegetation. So you all are very familiar with tree regulations now. So there would be a level at the tree canopy. And then a shrub level, so your huckleberries and other types of shrubs. And then at what we call the herbaceous level, that's what your lawn is at that level, but we're not looking at lawn. We're looking at other native plants that grow along the ground. So to be fully vegetated, you would have some plants at each of those three levels.

OK, that's interesting. I was just wondering if we were making a bigger deal of it. It sounds like a big deal. My other question was about disclosure. Would this trigger any kind of disclosure requirement for folks that were looking to purchase a plot of land?

That's a good question, Council Member. I don't know the disclosure. laws in Washington state. I think that that went to the Planning Commission's concern about the lack of information awareness of the general public and wanting us to make sure that the mapping that does exist, which of course is not everything, it's only what we know, but that that is is available to folks. Of course, folks can come and ask us and say, I'm interested in purchasing or developing this property. Tell me everything. That's due diligence that everybody hopefully engages in. The only disclosure that I'm aware of would have to do with flooding, flood zones, and maybe seismic issues. But I'm not aware of anything that would require somebody to say, There's a wetland in the backyard.

Okay. Because I know this might create current property owners some headache, but I was hoping we could maybe prevent future property owners from having to deal with something similar.

One point that I can add to that is that if a property owner... goes through the process of obtaining a critical area permit of some type to develop on their property, one of those requirements is to actually put a notice on the title, to record a notice on the title of the property indicating that there's a critical area. So if they've been through a city process to have review, then that property would have a notice on it for future buyers. That's interesting. Thank you.

I, too, share that question. fortunately slash unfortunately, there actually is a direct critical areas question on the state seller disclosure form. Excellent. Well, it depends on your point of view, I guess. But that is certainly my question as well, is to what extent these things show up in the normal purchase process? Because the reality is that even if we are talking about a few thousand property owners, effectively now they have disclosure responsibilities under state law, which... Technically, misrepresenting, that's criminal fraud. So do your diligence on the selling as well as the buying side. The actual question, just in case you're curious, on what's called the Form 17, it's defined in state statute. It's what you have to disclose about your property if you're selling it. The literal question under the environmental section says, are there any shorelines, wetlands, floodplains, or critical areas on the property? Do we know if, for example, if there's a special assessment like a lid, for example, recorded on a property, that just shows up in the title documents when you buy a house, for example? Even if it's not passed by the city council but pending, that can show up and then you can, if you're a smart person reviewing your title documents before you buy a property, right? I mean, in theory, you should look at that. Do you know if these would show up in the title documents or if someone just really has to do the best they can to look at a GIS map or something?

Thank you, Mayor, for that question. I think the only thing that would show up in a title document is if a notice on title had been recorded. Otherwise, it is looking at the city mapping or contacting the city to make that determination.

So this would show up on the city's GIS mapping tools once something has been identified? Correct. Okay. What kind of notice are we going to do to current property owners when we do implement this in some form? Is it going to be like a direct mail piece like this? How will we alert the X thousands of property owners that, hey, you have this thing. And by the way, you have a lawful duty now to disclose it if you ever sell your property. What would the process for that look like?

That is an excellent question. And one that, to my knowledge, we have not done when we have updated critical areas codes in the past. So I think we would have to look into that and bring that answer back to you.

OK. And then my other question is switching gears to the SCM industrial buffer zone area. So understandably, the subarea planning process with the city and also the tribe, the county and all the other partners, they looked extensively and balanced all these different variables. I'm sure water did come up when they talked about the SCM buffer area. Did the actual aquifer recharge area, did that come up as part of their calculus for what to allow or not allow in that area?

Thank you for that question. We will also bring an answer back for that. Neither Robin nor I were involved in the tideplot subarea plan process, so we'll need to have a discussion with the staff that were.

Okay, I appreciate it. Any other questions? Okay, robust. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to our third and final briefing item. We're going to call on the city manager to talk about the road to recovery proposal.

Good afternoon, Mayor Ipsen, Deputy Mayor Bushnell, members of council. Thank you for this opportunity to address you.

Perfect. Thank you, Ashley.

So what you're getting right now is a summary, just an executive summary on the presentation today. We will, Mayor, if it's OK, we'll jump right into it.

Please.

OK. So today I'm here to talk to you about some preliminary steps upon which we are looking to address a problem that I want to define today, as well as the importance of why we should be driving towards looking at the potential options to solve for what we are trying to do here as a city. First and foremost, Roadmap to Recovery, this is a plan, a structured plan. It's a coordinated effort, a whole of government effort upon which we will be looking towards safeguarding our long-term sustainability while improving our ability to efficiently and responsibly serve our community, Tacomans. Simply put, we have declared a structural deficit within our general fund for the better half of six plus bienniums, that's 12 years. It's time that we have, throughout that period, had balanced budgets using one-time efforts, and that really precludes Other options later on, and what we see over the horizon is that we are leading into the potential options that are really more disparate. more impactful to the community that relies on what we need to do here. And let me state this, too. City of Tacoma, acutely, structural deficits within the general fund in municipalities across Western Washington, all of Washington, this is not unique to Tacoma. Up and down the Puget Sound, we have near piers that have structural gaps that are in the 5% to 10% range. We are in that as well. We have escalating costs. Since the pandemic, we have continued to see rising costs. And so my presentation today is to drive to why this is important to start tackling, what steps I'm taking as your city manager with the staff, and then just go over some other discussions upon some immediate measures that we have embarked on there. So we'll go to the next slide here as it's coming up. As that's coming up here. So we're just waiting for the slide. We'll advance to the next slide. In your packet, we have what is the roadmap to recovery, right? So to say this again, this is a multi-year effort. I don't presume to state that we have a structural gap that has been building over the last 12 years that will solve this here this year. Quite frankly, those options that we would take would be so impactful to the lines of business as well as the community that relies on our services. We are a service organization. We are funded with both dedicated taxes, charges for services, utility taxes, property taxes. We also have unfunded services that we provide. The directors and I have had a very poignant conversation over the last few months upon which we've discussed both core, non-core, I want to speak to values. I've been your city manager for, let me just state, for some weeks now. I was your interim city manager before that. I was the deputy city manager for internal services. When I look at the city of Tacoma, we do so much with so little. It is really difficult. Thank you very much. Looks like the slides are up. I'm going to try to not mess this up, and I'm going to try to advance. Thank you very much. You've got it. Thank you very much. So back to the presentation here. This is our multibiannual effort to structurally align our revenues and expenses. I'll be going over what the problem statement is a little bit more in detail in the coming slides. This requires, this roadmap to recovery, this playbook, it requires that we shift our short-term fixes, what we have been doing over the better half of this last decade, TO LONG-TERM FISCAL STEWARDSHIP OPTIONS, VERY DIFFICULT OPTIONS FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT. SO WE NEED ONGOING POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE WAY WE OPERATE AND PROVIDE SERVICES FOR TACOMANS. WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN SUSTAIN EXISTING BUSINESS LINES SERVICES THAT WE OFFER. WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND STATE, YOU KNOW, FIRST, ACUTELY LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT SERVICE REDUCTIONS AND, DARE I SAY, POTENTIALLY SOME SERVICE ELIMINATIONS Because when we're looking at sustainably running the city with the taxes, the charges that we have from the public, we have to take a look at what are we funded to support. And that is a difficult, very difficult conversation that's gonna take some years. It does require that we look at those now and tomorrow. We need to look at building our belief and trust with the community by possibly doing less but better. When I talk to your constituents, when I talk to our 4,000 plus amazing city employees here, the conversation that we talk about often is about it doesn't matter what you tell me, I expect government to work. That's both internally and externally. And I think you're hearing that as well. We need to take a look at bold strategic approaches, including the possible reorganizations, consolidations, and reimagine public service delivery, models upon which we need courage. We need not just courage, but leadership from this body to tell us this is what we want to take a look at. And I've heard over the last two years from this body, the last council that I served, take a look, city manager. interim city manager, where we can have the least amount of negative impacts to the folks that rely on our services, take a look there. So I have been looking internally. And I'm here to report that in this budget season, I'm going to have to talk about acutely other areas upon which there will be impacts to the public. So I just want to say that. Next slide, please. Why is this important? First and foremost, reliable services our residents can count on, sustainability, durability. When you declare a structural deficit year over year, it erodes trust more than builds anything. We've always been transparent. We've always had balanced budgets that have been predicated on using one-time maneuvers. Every lever we've pulled in years past is a lever that we can't pull now. What's an example of that, Mayor, Council? An example of that would be our Public Works Department. The way in which we have looked at asking our taxpayers to support efforts with additional tax dollars. It's because the general fund does not have the carrying capacity today, but it will tomorrow. We have to look at that acutely. Other areas where we do this too, I look around the city, the team that we have assembled here in this council chamber, as well as those that are at their desk watching this presentation. It's time to have those conversations, honestly and transparently. upon which how that's going to take a look. Why is that important? Well, we have to break this cycle of budget cuts. My position as your city manager, however long I'm fortunate to serve you and this amazing team here at the City of Tacoma, I have to talk about the fact that we can't cut our way out of of austerity. We also can't tax our way out of austerity. We also have to talk about the possibility of growing the pie of those individuals and businesses that would choose Tacoma to expand or to relocate here. We need those businesses to be here. So on the revenue side, we need help and support there too. It's a little bit of everything on that end. BUILDING TRUST THROUGH TRANSPARENT DATA-INFORMED DECISIONS. AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, WE ARE LOOKING TOWARDS LAUNCHING A WEB PAGE IN THE CITY MANAGER'S SITE WHERE WE'LL HAVE AN ACCOUNTABILITY TEST DISPLAY OF WHERE WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THE FIRST MANEUVERS RIGHT NOW TO ACTUALLY CONTAIN COSTS. I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO SAVE DOLLARS ON BEHALF OF TACOMANS RIGHT NOW WHILE WE'RE DOING a roadmap to recovery effort to reorganize our lines of business. Additionally, providing this council real options, real difficult options. The budget is the city council's. My job is to propose a balanced budget. At the end of the day, you must backstop and tell me, Hyun, in partnership, this is where we can go. This is where you need to come back. And so having those vigorous conversations whereupon we can be transparent in the open as well as for the constituents that you serve and our partners throughout both the nonprofit government as well as other agencies that rely on the city of Tacoma to be successful. And then adapting to a rapidly changing future. I would say in the course of the last five, six years, the city of Tacoma, like many other organizations, has been grappling with a lot of change. Acutely, this last year, we've had a lot of changes come from funding implications from the federal government, funding implications from the state. We have a need to continue to rapidly adapt and control what is in our control, rather than always chasing things that are out of our control. That's what I'd like to speak to. Next slide, please. So what is the problem? Mayor, council, Tacoma faces a structural budget gap driven simply by expenses growing roughly two over one, so twice the growth of our revenues. We are prudently constrained in the revenues that we do receive pursuant to RCW state law, as well as restricted covenants upon which we receive restricted revenues in the forms of regressive sales tax options that we do have levied here in the city of Tacoma. I put an asterisk here. In February, the city council received a projected preliminary forecast from our finance department, one in which it was pretty difficult. We have an enduring structural gap. At that time, the declared structural gap DEFICIT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE $27 MILLION FOR THE NEXT BIENNIUM. I'M HERE TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WITH THAT ASTERISK THAT PRELIMINARY FORECAST IS GOING TO GO UP. WE WILL BE BACK TO YOU IN JUNE TO DISCUSS WHY THOSE EXPENSES ARE GOING UP, MAINLY DRIVEN BY FACTORS THAT ARE LARGELY BOTH IN OUR CONTROL AND OUT OF OUR CONTROL WHEN IT COMES TO OUR FORECASTED BENEFITS, OUR HEALTHCARE COSTS. THAT'S A MATERIAL DRIVER TO OUR COST GROWTH. And so it continues. When you have a structural gap that's two over one, that is the problem statement. And the large driver of that is salary and benefits, as well as third-party liability, workman's comp. These are all factors upon which every municipality, every employer, is grappling with this as well. So I just wanted to share that. Our reliance on increased one-time funding and temporary measures, we have options. We have a balanced 26 budget that we are executing right now. I have asked the staff to freeze hiring wherever possible so that we can constrain some of the dollars that we can need to use potentially even for this next biennium. We are going to look at the possibility of continually, and this pains me to report to you, continue to defer maintenance of our facilities. Our structural gap as declared in that five to 10% range for the general fund is one we can accomplish, but that does not paint the full picture. We'll discuss this in the coming weeks and months ahead. If we were to actually absorb The deferred maintenance and replacement of our equipment, our facilities, that number would actually be much larger. That's not acute to Tacoma. That's what you do when you don't have the means to actually address the door jams, the windows, the issues upon which we need to also meaningfully drive. But for right now, this roadmap to recovery is to drive a way in which we bring options to you all through the budget, through righteous bargaining with our labor partners, discussions with our nonprofits and our community organizations that rely on us. This is what we're talking about. This is the problem. So we'll go to the next slide here. So a little bit more. I talked a little bit briefly about, from a values perspective, the city budget is made up of services, expenses. I spoke a little bit about labor benefits and just ongoing escalation when it just, the cost of doing business. This is not just for the city of Tacoma. Tacomans are facing this in their everyday lives. I can speak to you today candidly about the cost of replacing a transformer on a utility pole. 1,800% increase. I can talk to you about the cost of just contracting for normal services when it comes to our amazing partners at the Humane Society. Those costs are growing by more than 50% because they also have the same cost drivers on their side as well. I could speak to the costs of providing normal services when it comes to the way in which we enforce or take care of our services for our public that relies on us when it comes to, let's say, the last presentation, looking at the complexities of what we're doing in partnership with unfunded mandates, working with our state partners when they impose impositions, our utilities, our general business lines that are impugned by the possibility of rapidly escalating costs. It's the same picture here. We also have our flexibility is shrinking. So I talked about the levers. So when we take cash and use it to actually balance our budget for the next year or the next two years, that's an option that we don't have. And so the budget is tied to ongoing commitments. And I'll speak to that candidly to the councils, to my colleagues here at the city. We have 4,000 employees here at the city that are providing services to five counties outside the utilities. And then acutely here in Tacoma, we have offices and functions, lines of business, where we don't have enough employees. The roadmap to recovery is having a candid and honest conversation with our employees, our labor partners, where we're going to ask our employees to do more tomorrow with potentially less in the interim. And we could speak more to that in the coming slides here. Just to elaborate a little bit more, next slide, please. Why do our expenses grow as fast as they do? Talked a little bit about general inflation. Talked about our spending when it comes to or evolving community expectations. As the federal government seeds areas upon which they've funded one-time grants or ongoing grants, as the state of Washington looks to potentially pare down services, it's local government that fills that void. We've been doing that. I have every expectation that we will be continuing to do that. It's about priority setting. How do we actually address this need for our safety nets here in the city of Tacoma? Aging infrastructure, I talked about door jams, windows. We also have aging infrastructure when it comes to underground utilities, when it comes to those things that are just coming up. Nowhere is that more acute to our community, probably, than the Tacoma Dome. Our Tacoma Venues and Events team are working on a robust plan to come to this council to have a discussion on how we're going to replace that roof structure. That's a $200 to $300 million project problem. It's an opportunity to. We need to have a conversation about that. Aging infrastructure, healthcare costs. We have this on here because acutely, Mayor, Council, our finance team, I will be back to you here in the next 30 days to talk about healthcare costs. What we have seen over the course of the last year when it comes to federal policy, There are material implications to our healthcare trust here at the City of Tacoma, where we provide healthcare benefits to our employees. We saw a 15% increase just last year for healthcare premium costs. That is a material cost driver to our expense column. Contractual obligations, like I mentioned, most of our contractual obligations are growing, and they're growing materially faster than we can keep up. Again, constrained by the revenue sources. We'll go into that a little bit. We have a 1% limit on property tax growth. As your city manager, I can tell you that it is not staff's job to say whether or not this is a good policy of the state of Washington or not. Our community is hurting. It is very difficult to talk about potential implications. I just need to state the facts here. We have a constrained way in which we have revenue growth. Statutory or programmatic limits on revenues. Again, the policy options that are available or made available to this council by the legislature are, quite frankly, pretty restrictive. And that's something that I know that in the coming days, Mayor, Council, you are looking at possibly continuing to lobby and discuss legislative priorities for the Council as a body. That's one area of focus. We have large revenue sources that are, this is the understatement of this whole presentation, that are Subject to economic conditions, sales tax BNO. Quite frankly, when our community spends less, when our community feels the constraints that they are feeling right now, just like we are as an employer, there's less economic activity that happens. And for those reasons, we have seen a plateauing of our sales tax over the course of the last year. We've seen that, and it will continue for some time here. We will go to the next slide here and discuss how have we managed until now. So, I'm gonna list some specific things that we've done, but overall, We have taken the short-term solutions. The council has asked us to take a look in previous budget cycles of how we balance the use of one-time cash use with reductions. I've been with the city now close to three years now, next month, over the full development for the fiscal year 25-26 budget, as well as at mid-mod last year. We took reductions of over $16 million, paired that with use of one-time funds, fund balance to balance the budget. We have looked at revenue strategies. This council, the last council, the first act that this council did actually, a good example of that in January, was the imposition of a councilmatic sales tax for public safety. So the council has been doing their part on behalf of the community to bring revenues online, to keep our service levels where they're at. We've received... Also grants from our partners at the state to keep service levels mainly in sheltering Mainly in other areas where we have needed relief. Those are inherently not structural in the sense of those are one-time interventions or one-time fundings for programs We have changed our business model across existing reorganizations that were announced in the last couple years and We have continued to contract with partners. Nowhere was this more evident than in the leadership of the council with our staff when it came to the last budget development where we shifted our senior centers and our programming to Parks Tacoma. Council Member Sadaghi, you've led out on that with the council. We've also contracted with the state to move our human rights investigations work as we're looking at lines of business upon which we could not realistically keep those service levels up because of the fact that we needed more employees that we could not fund. We've made those changes. We've also made some efficiencies by scaling our enterprise solutions. In the midst of all of the potential austerity, not potential, they were austerity, maneuvers we've made to balance the 25-26 budget. We've also led for ways in which we've brought in new service lines. We implemented a new enterprise resource program planning program, SAP S4, you heard that. We've been able to do in-house training wherever possible. We have continued to take a look at ways in which we can solve for X in the immediacy. The roadmap to recovery is about not just this next biennium, it's a really comprehensive look at potentially other more enduring structural changes we can make over the next four years. Next slide please. So that leads to the question. I've heard this question, actually. What's going to be different? Earlier this year, I sent instructions through the budget office to each of our departments for reduction targets within internal service departments of 10% along with external departments. Public safety departments and police and fire and the courts, we've asked them to bring proposals in the 5%. What's different? Well, what's going to be different is that we may very well have to propose options that are just going to be more difficult when it comes to sustained ongoing savings. We led out with an effort to continue a permanent freeze for the remainder of this year with exceptions. The target of focus for the staff to bring to you all that we will be tracking and presenting to the public through that webpage Is a five month five million dollar savings across all our funds Immediately that does not solve our budget gap again. We presented in February 27 million dollar gap that is going to grow We have to do what we can on our end We need structured budget discipline. We'll go the next slide please and So through a structured budget discipline, the city is moving from incremental budgeting to more intentional approaches that our aim is to encourage oversubscription of credible proposals to the city council with real choice. What does that mean? It means that we're going to bring you proposals that are larger in scope than you will most likely accept, but we still have to present those options to you. We're going to establish clear expectations for what sustainable looks like when it comes to the service offering. or the potential reduction or elimination of programs. We're also going to rely on data-informed strategies. We're going to take a look at continuing to monitor our vacancy rates over time and discretionary spending across the board. We'll have dashboards up and running to show that. We made an employment promise to every city employee that we've hired over the last hundred plus years. We are going to continue to look at when a position is vacant due to attrition, retirement. We're going to look at those positions and take a look at, can we do that business in other ways with other staff? Or prospectively, if we must critically hire that position, what does that look like as we take a look at 28 and beyond? Our structural gap is growing larger than we can sustain when it comes to headcount. This message is for the staff that's listening to this. We are going to do everything we can to intervene and not run the same playbooks that we have played in the past. In 2015, 2016, the city of Tacoma did some material reduction in force. We need to have some real collaboration with our labor partners, our nonrepresented staff, our executives. And that's on my side of the ledger. I need to work with the team. I need to have those all-hand town halls upon which here's the plan as they see it. And I'll talk a little bit more on some of the other efforts that we're taking on immediately. We need to become more data driven. We need to employ the possibility of in austerity look at performance management across service lines, across business units, and take a look at can we be more effective with potentially the staffing levels we have now. Operational efficiencies, service improvements, can we also at the same time reimagine the way we're providing services? Can we also reimagine the potential in potential reductions that we can also provide services. I'm gonna talk a little bit about that here in the coming slides here. And then I wanna just address this bottom right tile here. Long-term workforce strategy, candid discussions with our partners, our labor partners, our staff and our teams. where we can take a look at, I will not bring a presentation to council or a proposal to council where I'm looking to go backwards in time. We made promises and contractual obligations. We will fulfill those contractual obligations. What I do need to have a candid conversation in the coming weeks, coming days ahead, is conversations with our labor partners and our nonrepresented staff, our department directors, Where we can actually propose in the next coming biennium as well as out Here's the reality of what we have in terms of our revenues. What can we do to keep our service levels? That are tied and tethered to our amazing staff our number one asset here at the city of Tacoma It's our employees you said that to me over and over and I look to through my actions to reflect that in those discussions that are coming up and So those options will be coming to you as well. We are going to be focusing when it comes to workforce strategy on optimizing total compensation structures. It's time to discuss those things that we need to discuss about what does work look like. So I spoke about this some weeks ago when I interviewed with you all. It's time for us to be outside the box. It's time for us to say, what does work look like, and have those discussions with our labor partners. We also need to, at the same time, potentially manage our retirement and health care cost growth specifically. That's probably more acute than what four years provides. We need to start addressing this in the coming years. We also need to ensure that our compensation remains competitive. Our compensation to our employees must be competitive, but it must be sustainable. Because a compensation structure upon which we are competing well with the market, but at the same time reducing headcount, that's not something I'm interested in doing here. So that's more details to come on that end. We also need to invest in our workforce development and retention. So when I'm saying to our employees, We need you potentially tomorrow to do more with less. We need to invest in our employees. So we are looking forward to the possibility of immediately opening up ways in which we can actually send our staff to training, to conferences, to have those educational opportunities. At the same time, we have a hiring freeze. We're going to be doing that as well. So I'll be discussing that with our labor partners in the coming days so that they know what that looks like, and then working with our staff to develop that option as well. So we will go to the next slide here. So the work has already begun. So on the left here, or maybe on your right, depending on how you're looking at this, The city's roadmap to recovery position savings chart, this will be a dynamic chart that will be on the webpage. Again, my goal is to save the taxpayers as well as the organization some $5 million from here to the end of this calendar year. We'd like to use those dollars to balance our next budget. We have also looked at reduction targets, like I mentioned before. All departments other than police, fire, and courts, I requested a reduction target of 10%. Police, fire, and our courts, 5%. BEING REALISTIC HERE, THAT'S A REDUCTION TARGET THAT IS NOT JUST MATERIAL, BUT VERY DIFFICULT FOR EVERY DEPARTMENT. I HAVE TO LEAVE FROM THE TOP. THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HAS BEEN HANDED A REDUCTION TARGET THAT IS AKIN TO THE TACOMA PUBLIC LIBRARIES BUDGET REDUCTION, AND WE'RE GOING TO MEET THAT TARGET FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. MY TEAM IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, WE ARE PAIRING BACK VACANCIES. WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT, AND THIS IS THE TOP LINE, WE HAVE HAD Two positions funded in the executive city manager's office city manager and two deputy city managers I will not be filling that second deputy city manager position I will look to delimit that position for this next biennium to save dollars deputy city manager Alison Griffith and myself will be working with our department directors. I'm going to ask our department directors to lean in and help support this effort in which we will not be able to provide the level of support that we've been able to. But can we do it different? Can we sustain this and take a look at flattening our leadership organization? We're also going to take a look at continuing revenue options for you all. Again, I want to preface this for the public now. I mentioned that we can't cut our way out of this. We can't tax our way out of this. It's got to be a blend and balanced approach upon which it's sustainable. So those revenue options would be one in which we would bring to you in the coming months through GPFC and other committees, through EDC, options that you will have the next three, four months to take a look from a policy standpoint so we don't surprise you. Again, I want to reinforce this. Data-driven performance and transparency. We'll have a hiring freeze dashboard. The web page will have details and more dashboards. It will be dynamic. We'll be building that out in the coming days. And I do plan for that to go live today or tomorrow. We also have operational efficiencies and service improvements, concurrent permitting across PDS. As we're looking at a roadmap to recovery, I mentioned briefly the notion of how we have to grow the pie. That's to say we need businesses to choose Tacoma. You will see a roadmap to recovery that shows us have proposed more investments within our PDS team. Take a look at potentially speeding up the way in which we permit, speed up the way in which we support. That team may very well grow, and we will be speaking to that IN THE COMING DAYS. THE BEST TEAM AND HOW WE'RE SUPPORTING OUR BUSINESSES TODAY, OUR FOCUS FOR EMPHASIS ON WHEN IT COMES TO NEIGHBORHOODS, WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND THEN WE WANT TO DRIVE TOWARDS CONTINUAL ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENTS UPON OUR STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND I'LL TALK TO THIS MORE ACUTELY HERE IN THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN LONG TERM, AGAIN, FOR CHIEF STALLINGS AND CHIEF JACKSON, OUR PUBLIC SAFETY OVERTIME and staffing strategies are predicated on full staffing. So we are driving towards full staffing. We need to see in the coming years that we're making meaningful gains when it comes to unplanned overtime. We will always have overtime for police and fire. That is just the way we operate. It's the unplanned overtime quotient that we need to drive that cost down. Just in that bucket alone, it's millions of dollars on a biennial basis, so we can look at that as well. We also, the council invested Through a police lateral incentive program, Chief Jackson is reporting. And our plan was to have full staffing for police and fire by 2027, 2029. You saw two figures in two different presentations to you all. I do not want to jump ahead of our chiefs, but they will be reporting to you the inroads that they're making. We need to continue to invest where we need to invest when it comes to public safety. So next slide, please. So other immediate steps. I have announced to our departments as well as the city overall, so we are going to meaningfully start from here to the rest of this calendar year on the merger of our public works and environmental services departments. This, and I want to be very, very clear on this one, so we're going to put these two departments together. Why are we doing this? Mayor, Council, I don't expect immediate positive savings to the organization from an enterprise or general fund standpoint. This will lead to one position elimination. It will be the one department director position that will be eliminated in this. In this merger, Director Romero Chavez will be our department director who will oversee the operations of both Public Works and Environmental Services. This is The roadmap to recovery on the abundance side. What we're looking at doing is the consolidation of service levels. Here's a good example for you, and this is something that our department directors have discussed with the teams, and I briefly mentioned to both Public Works and Environmental Services. When it comes to work that's happening in the right of way, So when there's a project that's being designed or constructed on a city street, whether it's a sewer line or stormwater basin, a catch basin or a line, or if it's a streets project for sidewalks, curb and gutter, We have a lot of amazing civil engineers. We have a lot of program managers that are seeking out the funding. We're going to put them together. And under the auspices of Director Chavez and his team and our city engineer, Corey Newton, we're going to look towards the cultural changes upon which we can bring these groups together. And where there is natural attrition when it comes to taking a look at the positions there, can we do more with less? That's really where we're looking there. On an operational standpoint, when we talk about street operations or operations within our sewer utility, our sanitary sewer, or our solid waste operations, we're going to have one deputy director who will be overseeing that for Director Chavez. This is a consolidation. This is thinking abundantly. So this will be effective January 1, 2027. It's going to take us a biennium to get the culture right in terms of helping support the teams to develop the culture upon which this new department will be announced. We're still some probably four weeks, if not less, where Director Chavez will be announcing the name of that new department. That's what we're looking at doing. And as I mentioned earlier, restructuring for efficiency. We are also eliminating the deputy city manager position at this time as we drive through this. We will be flattening out this organization over the next coming years when it comes to our executives. So when I mentioned that city employees will be asked to do more or less, their initial take, and I'm speaking directly to our employees right now, is I already do so much, and that is a true statement. It's true yesterday, it'll be true tomorrow. When we're constrained with a two-over-one cost growth over our revenues, we have to look at doing more, and that's where we get the creative freedom to say, let's take a look and reimagine how that looks like. We will look at other spans of control here in the coming days. I will report back to you in June on potential other changes that are coming, and then I'll report regularly to you. For our employees, we'll go to the next slide here. So as the budget is being developed, as I mentioned, what does a 10% reduction look like for internal services as well as some external departments? It means potentially proposals upon which we cost contain and reduce ongoing. as well as one-time service lines in the tens of millions. That's for us to adapt and oversubscribe, so I mean, I'm gonna bring you proposals as a team, with our team, and the council will let us know what are those things that we need to do. I believe it in my heart, in my head, that over the course of the next four years, this team will be able to actually solve this structural gap. What does success look like other than not having an enduring structural deficit? What this means is that we'll probably be a different, more capable, and a different service offering organization. And that may take longer than four years depending on external factors such as the economy. That's an understatement probably this year when I say there's external factors that are at play here. We need to take a look at that. So operational efficiencies, again, my keen focus is not to do a reduction in force. I want to take a look at natural attrition. There may be layoffs here, and we'll be working with our labor partners as well as our teams to take a look at those positions as well when we're looking at this. When we're talking about the design and structure of the city of Tacoma, when I say the whole of city effort with our partners at TPU. We need to have a conversation about duplications wherever and whenever possible. More of those discussions to come. And then the strategies for the structural cost drivers when it comes to salary and benefits, that's more for the bargaining that needs to come over the coming years. And we'll be doing that here in earnest. That's a lot of talking on my side. I'm going to go to the next slide here. Wrap this up here. This is the web page that will be launching its Tacoma gov forward slash roadmap to recovery This will be dynamic MCO and our departments will be putting up content there. I'll be accountable to this We'll try to put as much information as early as an often as possible so that people can see what what inroads were making So here back to you all stand ready to answer any questions

Thank you, Mr. City Manager. This is absolutely a challenge, but leadership means that you don't shrink from the difficulty. You face it with both courage and creativity. And what this means to me is not simply making across-the-board cuts in a thoughtless manner, but really looking at scope, looking at intention, and trying to actually improve the organization, not simply diminish it. So for that, I definitely am... I'm shying away from saying looking forward to, but I definitely see that there can be constructive conversations here with yourself, with the council, and with our labor partners and community members. So thank you for the first of many steps in bringing this forward. And with that, I'm sure that we have an ample amount of questions and comments from the city council. Who would like to start? Council Member Sedalge.

I don't know why I started. I have a lot of questions, and I know they aren't fully formed. So first, thank you for being here, because it's really important that we have very honest conversations with our community. The first question I have for you, and if it's not readily available, it's something I'd love to kind of get in the future, you know, For the regular person out there, if they hear our expenses are twice as fast as our revenues, first thing they're going to think is, what have you wasted your money on? I know and I believe that a large portion of that is when you actually look at the numbers, our revenues actually increased higher than I thought we were going to. at 2.6% versus 4.9%, a large portion of that is just due to regular inflation, right? We've had two large inflationary forces over the last six years. You said in the last six years we've had structural deficits, you had a pandemic, and let's face it, this federal administration, because our inflation rate is through the roof. I'd love to be able to size what portion of our deficit right now is coming from just inflation. And that's really important. And I'll explain to you why. Inflation is the cost of doing exactly what we're doing right now. So if the inflation rate is going up higher than our revenues can go up, by definition, we are faced with having to reduce service levels for existing things or to reduce those services. This is before you get into this world of what's new stuff that we're doing, because a lot of people do want us to do new things, and sometimes we just have to be like, I'm trying to do the same thing as well as I possibly can. Is there an opportunity in the next few months to kind of get at least some estimate of the impact of just structural inflation?

Yes. If I can get a qualifier in there, I'd like to ask you a question. As I state, we will have a revised projection for our forecasted gap in June. That's a great opportunity to have that dialogue. Can I ask you a question, though? When it comes to ongoing escalation, the contracts that we execute here at the City of Tacoma That is in our purview. That is a main driver as well when it comes to...

So there's inflation and then there's the contracted increases that we already have. Yes, yes. And contracted increases that might be higher than what we are structurally able to collect. Got it. The following is actually just going to be a random tidbit, but an important one, health care costs. I can totally see health care costs being... increasing. From my personal experience, I was an actuary once way back when And in the early 2000s, when health care costs were going through the roof year over year. And quite frankly, it was that experience that led a lot of conservative-leaning federal lawmakers to agree to pass the ACA law in 2010. I was just in that industry and knew about it. And I do think it is, you know, and I do want to point out, in a world in which we have this federal administration that are doing things that in many ways are going against what was put into place 16 years ago, I can totally see health care costs being a large driver. I mean, we've already seen it with ACA plans going up. Private plans are not immune to that. That is an exacerbating factor that I hadn't considered until you made this presentation. So there's a couple of things I also want to point out to those that might be listening. We're required to pass a balanced budget no matter what, correct?

No matter what.

Yeah. We don't have the ability to freely just randomly borrow money like the federal government. A lot of people think we do. We don't. Correct. And if we do get a bond, it has to be tied to some revenue source, i.e., some sort of tax or fee, correct? So we're not the federal government. We don't have the ability to just go out there and borrow money and increase the deficit out there, right? This structural deficit, it really is what... what regular people feel, you know, my job hasn't given me a raise and my rent has gone up, right? That's what our structural deficit is. It isn't the federal 30 trillion, whatever it is. That's correct. And we cannot use dollars from existing dedicated sources for other uses. So long as those are restricted, correct. And the reason I say this is often I've had constituents say, you know, well, you can pay for this. Why can't you pay for that? And the answer is, well, you know, I can't. We're precluded, and we should be precluded from, say, using Tacoma Creates money to fund, I don't know, TPD, TFD or something. I don't know. I'm making it up, right? And we should be precluded from using, you know, affordable housing trust fund dollars for operational uses, right? So there are those other limitations, so what we're forced to do is do exactly, I think, what you're going to force us to do, which is to look at what our exact programs are out there and have real discussions on what can we still afford.

Yes, yes. And I really thank you for this, because I did not speak to this in my presentation. The takeaway for the public that's listening, anyone that's listening to this, is that I am foreseeing that there is still time, that we have time to take courageous actions that maybe buys us even more time when we're talking about the folks that rely on us to provide funding or services, that we may be able to pare that down with a way in which we can graduate that as well, right? That this is not that we're going to do this. So I really appreciate that. And I also want to mention this to you. We've had conversations, Council Member Sadaghi, upon which your finance team, the city council, the city, so we're talking about this from an acute projected gap. We've projected a gap every year. We've been able to, absolutely. My responsibility core, outside of the day-to-day operations, is to bring you a proposed balanced budget.

It's state law that requires that the city the mayor you pass a budget ordinance at the end of this year that is balanced 100% on that end too as well, so I want to stress that yeah And there's healthy ways of balancing a budget, and there's unhealthy ways of balancing the budget They're popular ways, and there's unpopular ways of balancing the budget there are choices in between for example we could find one-time fees and fill this gap, and then we'd have twice as large a gap two years from now, correct? Correct. I'm not going to belabor that point. I know you're going to give us a lot of choices. What I would like is just to understand the impacts of those choices because that's ultimately what we're going to have to review. I also want to point out on a state level, I'm, you know, I've I'm following the footsteps of Councilmember Hines being on the AWC state legislative priorities. This is something that every single municipality that was in that room has as a top priority. Every single municipality. We're not alone in feeling the impacts on a local level of a structural deficit. Every single one brought this up. And we brought up a larger point, which is as the state of Washington is going or attempting to go less regressive in their taxing, the only tools that localities are left with are regressive tools. So as the state goes less regressive, we are forced to be more regressive because our tools available are things like sales tax increases. or fee increase for some sort of uses. And that is a large legislative priority as the state goes into its long session next year, is to talk about what kind of support can we get on a local level. Also, almost every single local jurisdiction felt like the state has given less direct funding to local municipalities that they had in the past. And it's just becoming one where they have to fill holes. I just wanted to add that. And lastly, we need to keep advocating on our federal level, because there are federal policies that are affecting us. Ultimately, that's where it's coming from, right? I mean, we have a war in Iran, and gas prices the last time I was driving over here was like $6 a gallon in some of these gas stations. I mean, this is affecting us too, right? I do actually support the idea of continuing to support conferences and training and some travel associated with that for employees. In my career and even here, I've seen that be a good use. What is the most beneficial use of resources? It is a way to increase skills across the board when it is used properly. And we won't have a lot of it, so I'm sure these are going to be really good I would love to see more of those types of opportunities as they pop up in the budget. Like how can we still, are there policy changes we need to write to be able to be more flexible in enhancing skills and capabilities across our organization? These are never fun conversations. I don't think I've had one fun budget conversation the entire time I've been here. We've had some tough ones. So I appreciate you taking a very intentional, open, and honest dialogue, at least starting that right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Rumbaugh.

Thank you. And thank you, Han, for taking on a difficult conversation and wanting to have it sooner rather than later. I really appreciate that. My question is, basically, after the legislature got out, they did some things to change how sales tax will be gathered or not gathered. And I'm curious if we have any data on how that's going to impact our city.

Yeah. Director Chorlo and his team can give you the projections of the impacts. And I say this... I think I speak for you all as a council. The changes that were made when it comes to over-the-counter pharmacy and charging sales tax on those portions or products upon which our people need to not be taxed for, back to the regressive taxes that are imposed, the council of the city of Tacoma celebrates that. But there is an impact to the city of Tacoma. And Director Trillo can answer that question here in the coming weeks at the forecast as well. We could talk about that with our quarterly update. Council Member Scott.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, City Manager. Just a couple of questions for now. I guess I'll say I'll have more as we continue. When we look at bringing down unplanned overtime, how is that done? Is that just through getting to those fully staffed numbers, or is there another way?

Yeah, it's... You know, actually, Chief Jackson probably would not want me to speak of this right now, but our chiefs, They are moving right now with their command staffs to address this. Where is this acute? So we have a special event that's coming up that there will be a lot of overtime. Chief Jackson is working with her union partners, command staff members, and her officers to state, I need you to be at work for this day and all unplanned vacations. We're going to try to do this without overtime. That's one maneuver. addressing minimum staffing for safety, for officer safety, as well as firefighter safety. Getting that addressed with full staffing should lead to meaningful reductions in unplanned overtime, where we're just holding back firefighters after their shift has ended, and we're asking them to do another shift. That will save the general fund dollars while also that means more folks. Now, structurally, that grows the caring needs for paying for those firefighters and police officers, but that's something that we're going to drive towards. It's the chiefs that will be developing those operational plans, and then we'll be monitoring that.

Yeah, there will be things that drive the cost, but I think we all appreciate knowing what that cost is rather than it coming up and having to... adjust in real time. When you say as far as the elimination of the deputy city manager position, is that the position that was previously filled by Sonia Hallam, or is that in general? It is.

So it's the internal services deputy city manager. That's my former position.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding that. Not my fault.

It's the city's former position.

And then this is more of just kind of as you guys are putting together our budget binders and things like that. Council Member Sedalge mentioned some of those costs and some of it's due to inflation. You mentioned contracts. I think I'd also be interested in understanding what services are currently being subsidized by one-time solutions and what programs kind of appear sustainable because of one-time solutions as well.

Council Member Scott, can I reverse that? Because one of the things I've been thinking about how we can present this to you is of our existing services, lines of business, it'd probably be easier for us to, easier. The team, it's going to be still difficult. What lines of service are supported with dedicated revenues? That probably is the better way to look at it and then look at how are we doing this? Are we doing this with one-time revenues, those kinds of things? Yeah. Yep, absolutely.

Yeah, that works. However, it is best to frame it, but essentially that's kind of what I was getting at. And then as we're kind of looking at the options for cost savings, for revenue, obviously getting something that's giving us a penny in a day is not going to get us there as something that's giving us $500 a day, but we're saving us on the other side of that. But as we're looking at options, potential options and opportunities. Are we looking for opportunities that only have a certain threshold of like, if it's not going to save us $500,000, we don't even want to consider it? Or are we like, if it saves us $5 here, then maybe we'll do it?

A hundred percent. If it saves us a dollar, we're going to be looking at those ways. Because those have a way of an aggregate to increase. A good example of that, Council Member Scott, is the merging of public works and environmental services. That's a big change. Potentially over 1,100 employees now coming together once again. We used to have one department that oversees. We had some conversations with other departments when it comes to other consolidations, including PDS maybe potentially. That's premature. How we're doing that, because it takes investment to make those changes. Director Chavez and his team, his deputy directors, are looking towards using vacancies. So instead of eliminating those vacancies outright and saving the enterprise or saving public works dollars, they're going to use those vacancies to work towards making this change in the next biennium. So that's an investment.

Yes. Okay. I'll stop there for now. Thank you, City Manager. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Hunt. Nope. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. You know, I think you did a very good job kind of explaining how we got here, right? And I think just to reiterate something Councilor Stege said, serving on the board of the Association of Washington Cities and having just returned from a trip with an elected official across the country, right? This is not just a problem Tacoma's facing. This is a kind of a national issue made more acute here in the state of Tacoma in many ways just because of the nature of how we pay for things, just our economic base and how it looks different than maybe some of the other cities in our region, how much we're dependent upon government and nonprofit sector funding for almost a lot of our jobs, businesses. It becomes even more acute during this time. I just thought I would make a comment here, and then I have a question for you. So I promise there will be a question mark at the end of this statement. But I do think it's worth reiterating, since Councilor Walker and I have been here since 2020, We struggled a lot with our budget, say 2020 with the pandemic, and made some pretty tough choices about reductions of cutting back expenses during that period of time. And then during the period of 2021, 2022, we were very lucky, along with many other cities in the state, to have money come from the federal government in the form of ARPA dollars, the American Rescue Plan Act dollars. And I think we did a good job in my time on the council of thinking about how do we put those dollars into places that are of high need and also thinking strategically about not supporting ongoing services with one-time money. But as you know, and my colleagues know, and anybody who's been following knows, that the demands that we had in 2021 and 2022 were not just for one-time things, but for ongoing services like homelessness, like public safety, like investments in our environment, all the things that we came through, support for nonprofits, support for small businesses. And I think one of the further challenges I'm seeing is we set a level of expectation for service delivery that the city has that exceeded what our ongoing revenue funds were. And while we were really clear, I think, with telling the public, like, hey, we are flushing dollars into these needs because they are emergent right now, a lot of what we're looking at is decisions about, now those dollars are gone. How do we unwind back to the service delivery model that we can have here? And I know that doesn't feel good to the public, especially when they're feeling burdened all the time. But I just think I want to make sure I reiterate at that point. So my question, though, for this whole thing, to get to that before I make a comment, was just thinking about the Have you already identified, at least through that process, what were the things? I think that's where Scott got to this. One-time fundings versus ongoing fundings. And are you prepared to talk us through, for this level of service that we used to have or we currently have, this is what it would take in revenue offsets to get us back to those levels? Absolutely.

We have to have a comprehensive look at baseline levels of service 2019 and take a look at... There are some rightful decisions upon which we've expanded in areas. We have to just have the council aware of where those expansions happen, especially when it comes to CARES ARPA funding and how we've expanded those programs and take a look at what is sustainable to Council Member Scott's question of where there's existing dedicated revenues. Yes. Yes, sir.

No, I mean, this is a pure example when it comes to homelessness. But before I got on the council, I think the city maybe funded the stability site as a direct allocation, fully funded by us, 100 beds. And over the period of time, 21, 22, 23, the council went to 500, 600 shelter beds that were funded. And now as we're coming back down off of that number, a part of that is directly related to the amount of money we had come in and back out. OK. I have many more comments or questions, but recognizing the time and the seriousness of this, I just would say that I think I agree with your assessment. In my mind, I would start with the resident and how do we make sure that the service and what the resident is getting is as little diminished as possible through this process. Because our community is hurting. We hear from folks who are struggling. And so how do we think about that while balancing we have a wonderful staff. that is in many cases being asked to do more and more every day. And how do we kind of balance that tension a lot? But thinking clearly about that, as someone who works for the school district, one of the things that has been present in my mind is really the commitment around the teachers in the classroom are going to be protected at all costs, but those are the people that are serving your young students. And that we focus with that principle in mind and work backwards to how do we make this work. And I think that's a good way to think about how we approach this. And I'm hearing that in your presentation, and that's what I'd really like us to talk more and more about as we move through the budget process. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman Behinds. Any other comments? Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for... for really the candid conversation here. I think it's really important for us to have and for the public and everybody else. And I really appreciate the transparency and really being open to creativity and opportunity. With every challenge, there's also opportunity. But those opportunities don't come along unless we partner with everybody. That includes members of our public, members of the council, members of labor, members of nonprofits. We touch so many things, as you had mentioned before. Is, through this budget exercise and the roadmap to recovery, are we, you were looking at the city manager's office and the elimination of the deputy city manager position. Does that include the council as well? Are we going to be looking at our own budget? Does that fall within the city manager office's budget? Is that going to be a part of the 10% reduction? Is that a conversation that we're going to have here on the council?

It does and it does not. So in a lot of ways, your council staff, your policy analysts are helping to support you on meaningful reductions. And I've been very encouraged by some of the discussions. That being said, the council budget as an office of the city, not a department of the city, is acutely the best example of the plight of the general fund. It's the council members and your corresponding staff. And so in a lot of ways, when I ask for a reduction exercise across our departments, there are departments and offices where I am level setting that this is not a reduction strategy across the board. I am not asking the council to reduce your budget by 10% because the only way to get there would be to reduce your policy staff that, quite frankly, you are having some robust conversations upon how you address. It's my job to make sure, working with our team, to give you the support so you can be responsive to the community. And having those conversations with me and level setting how we support the community, that's the council's office. So that's where we're at.

No, thank you. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate, I really think there's a lot of foresight. It's not just a 10% slash and burn situation. And I think that's really important for everybody here is we're trying to be as nimble as we can. We're trying to give everybody the options to really dig deep and look at everything that they're doing. And it's not just a, cut off the top.

It is not. We need that creativity. And I would say the roadmap to recovery as we actually start walking or running or perhaps maybe biking on that roadmap here in the coming years, it's predicated on even in this next biennium, I'm going to have proposals upon which we grow the footprint of our departments, potentially. PDS is an example of that. I'm going to speak to the city attorney's office. Meaningfully, we're probably going to have to grow some resources there And I'm going to be really tepid and walk about this. So I'm being cute here. Unfunded mandates, Public Records Act, third party liability. We're paying for it already without budgeting for it. The city attorney needs the support and staff. Modest staff increases potentially. So I'm telegraphing that now ahead of the budget proposal. So that is coming up, Deputy Mayor.

I'd be really curious as to if we have some numbers behind those unfunded mandates. I know some of it's beyond our control, but maybe there are some things that are within our control. And I'd be really curious as to how much of those unfunded mandates and ongoing costs are really impacting our budget.

We have some brilliant, amazing teammates on our side. So let me first talk to them about how we bring that to you all and probably offline conversations so that we come back to you at the next opportunity with Roadmap to display what that looks like.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Any other comments? I'll just conclude by saying thank you so much, Mr. City Attorney. I'm very appreciative of the long-term structural focus on this. It's going to take looking much farther down the road, both within our organization as well as out into the community, growing a robust tax base in terms of partnering with our businesses. And to Councilmember Sedalga's and Heinz's point, working with our state and federal partners. So much of this comes down to the choices of federal policy, the choices of our state tax code, and whether or not local communities like ours are set up to win or to fail. And so it's going to take a team, and I'm definitely, again, not looking forward to the challenge, but I know together we can do great things. So thank you.

All right.

Moving on. Thank you for everyone's patience. Those are all very robust topics. Are there any other items of interest? Seeing none, do any council members have any committee reports?

Seeing none, I do have any reports from the city manager. Thank you very much. Just for the agenda review, Mayor Ibsen, under proclamations, recognitions, presentations, and announcements, we have two ceremonials tonight proclaiming May 2026 as Historic Preservation Month as well as Hunger Awareness Month. And then no changes for tonight's agenda for the public, two opportunities for public comment under both public comment as well as committee forum tonight. That is my report. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. All right, so with that, seeing no other further comments or questions from the City Council, we stand adjourned.