Government Performance and Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

We ready? Go. I'd to call the order of

the government performance finance committee meeting of 08/05/2025. Clerk, please read the call of votes.

Vice chair Bushnell? Present. Deputy mayor Daniels? Here. Council member Rumbaugh? Here. And chair Heinz?

Here. Alright. Moving on to public comments.

To request to speak during public comment for items on the agenda, please sign up in front of the room if you have done so already. If you are speaking virtually, please press the raise hand button near the bottom of your Zoom window or star nine on your phone. Your name or the last four digits of your phone number will be called out when it is your turn to speak.

Sir, has anyone set up to speak virtually? Neither. Alright. That will then close public comment. And then for briefing, just want to on to the multifamily tax exemption program.

Okay. It's okay.

Alright. Yeah. Uh-oh. We have copies for everyone. Alright. Perfect. Alright. I'm excited to be back here again on August 5, talk about the MFTE review, for one more discussion. We got this back and forth on June 17, which had very similar CCR here. And so I wanna just pass it back out, talk through a little bit about what we did, some of the conversations.

Down.

What the heck? The chair, it has to. Oh, here. There you go. I got it. I got copies for everybody here. So, basically, what you're gonna see is a relatively similar presentation or sorry, CCR that we had on June 17. So there's a couple things I wanna call your attention to. So, again, we first, I question on on MFT back in 2021. We made some changes at that point in time.

We made your tax exemption from breast and capstone areas, expanding the 12 gram FTE to the areas of the future to meet density mid scale, and the input nodes. I think and then we also lowered the AMI part for 80% of the AMI to 70%. So we'll change your proposal in 2021. And at that time, we can come back and do another two, three years later. So this is that three year review, and this is some of the proposals I've kind of I would like to bring forward to

the committee for consideration and discussion.

So since our we've had to present a TPC twice now. In between, I had a conversation with so in 2021, we had a discussion with stakeholders and developers who were building MFT projects, who tried to build MFT projects, kinda understand what the limitations are, what the issues were, and that helped inform our decision to make changes in 2021. So in between one not the before June 17, we had a meeting with some states and developers, talk through some potential changes to MFG. They were very adamant about not making any changes whatsoever as you probably can imagine why they did set that. Number one, interest rates are lot higher than they were in 2021, so construction and cost construction is lot higher than it was last time we made a change.

Number two, a lot of uncertainty at the national level around funding and where money could come from really kind of potentially kind of cipher a lot about what they were concerned about. One thing they didn't recognize, and somebody just told me back in 2021, was that why we use the three year look back is a lot of these larger projects are financed multiple years in the future. And so making changes now, if somebody's been working on a project for a certain period of time, they finance it based on certain incentives, we change them, and potentially jeopardize the project. So these are the kind of reasons why they brought back, hey. Here's why we we wanna see a lot of changes.

Right. That being said, there were a couple changes that I am proposing to make that I think makes sense to kind of fit in what we're seeing on the ground with kind of MST. The first one is let's go through the list here. They're just both at the list on the top. It's increased minimum number of units required for an eight year MFT from four to 20 units per project with greater house density and use of twelve year MFT.

So currently, we have a midscale. When we did midscale through Hohmann's coma, we allowed the 1,200 FTE in all tiers. And those projects are mostly limited 20 units or less. About 20 units or less. So the idea is kinda kinda putting the midscale areas in the place kind of keep the footing. Right? So if you're gonna build something less than 20 units, then the twelve year MMT seems to be more appropriate tool for that. We see that it's they're being utilized in mixed use centers for the smaller projects, and, hopefully, we'll see them being used out in the midscale areas. And the idea is kinda I'm making kind of similar across. Right?

So that I'm gonna build a 10 unit project, get a mid midscale area. You can say those aren't different than if

I do a 10 unit project in a in a

mixed use. It also kinda hopefully gets us to if you wanna use a year MFT, it would encourage or incentivize larger projects, which tend to line up. Right? Most of the smaller projects are same, are twelve year projects. In your projects, there's a couple that you see around some often.

The idea is that some of these bigger projects tend to use an eight year. And so it would be bigger stuff, go up to eight year, smaller stuff, mid scale, stay at twelve year. So we're gonna move the number from four to 20. The second one is kind of expanding community economic development department's efforts to share and centralize outreach resources with property owners and community members to help get renters in units quickly. So one of the challenges with the affordable units is you have to find kind of a perfect renter, someone who makes enough to pay the rent, but not so much about the area of income that they don't qualify for the project.

So it's there's lot of effort and recruitment required to find people to fill those spots, which is something we were told by one of the property developers and managers that we had that came in around here. It just takes time to fill people into those spots to find this kind of unicorn renter to fit there. So this is helping encouraging CEE's efforts to continue to put out there. One way we're also trying to address that is allowing households to continue to qualify as low or moderate income for the purpose of MFT unless the household income exceeds 90% of the established income limit. Currently, you get the unit if you make 70% of the area of the income. But if you what what point do

we have to pay, I believe? Are we gonna make any

more than 7%? Or is what?

Well, because they don't have

to leave, but that that has to

be the unit has to become an affordable.

Yeah. So we get this weird incentive where if I'm making 30% of my income, rent subsidized unit or rent restricted unit, and then spending more than that, then I'm on the market, and that unit has someplace else. So what this does is allows some flexibility in there. So as you make more money, you wouldn't you can continue to stay in that rent restricted unit up until the 90% number. State law lies up to a 150.

Hundred and fifty?

Hundred and fifty. I knew I was right. A 150. Hopefully hopefully, Linda Foster's listening to this question. Anyways, up to a 150% of AMI, which we thought seemed a bit excessive. Right? I mean, that's a lot, but and that's actually probably someone filling a unit that's better served for somebody else. So we, as a landing point, thought we'd start with 90%. So you could start at seventy fifth unit, and you could increase your earning power up until 90%, and then the idea would be, because if you exceeded that, you could move into market rate. That number is if that that's a fully effort discussion today with you folks, and, like, if we think 90 is the right number, it should be a 100, it should be 80.

I I don't wanna remember that, you know, relationship before we start. And then the next one is, additional requirement to because extensions are new. So we're getting extensions for MFT. Okay. And in some areas, we're seeing I can just point to Rocker Station as an example. When they came in with their extension, the rent restricted units were significantly lower than the market. It's, a thousand dollars less unit for the large units. So significant discount. So, I mean, that's a real value that's being provided. You know? We're extending NFT,

and the rents are cheaper.

But then we've had other ones come through that because the markets are at a certain level, their market rent, and therefore, we're not really. So what this would do is this change would say that if you're gonna come in and ask for an extension, your affordable rents need to be at least 10% lower than market rate. Right? So there has to be a there has to be a a discount on the restriction for rent extenders.

Let me

finish the last one on one the questions. And then the last item on this was to launch additional GPSC review of the MFT program in 2028. Just kinda read this because we're seeing the market shifting and changing, and I think it's good for us to reevaluate. To Kesar Rambaugh's credit, or I don't wanna say to her, we added this part here that the 2020 interview should efforts to evaluate pathways for expanding unit size to better accommodate families. So I chatted had done a lot. She had probably found this more herself. But about her, I worked training for family size units, and we kinda worked to discuss kind of how state they already began this culture to that and maybe part of this. So those are the

kind of what I

put together so far. The proposal, very similar to what we had on seventeenth. And can somebody just make any questions? Go for it.

Thank you so much, Cher, for all of these. I think these are I'm I'm pretty happy with most of these. I just as we're reading them

through, know, the one that

I really appreciate is the one where people can stay in the unit because I think we were talking about how people get a raise, and then suddenly they lose their reduced childcare. And so then they don't end up there's no there's no benefit to them. So they you know, we've got a little bit more pay, but then suddenly they're losing these other benefits. And so I just I really appreciate that we're kinda looking at trying to keep people somewhere because it's not like that you ideally, your life changes when you get a raise. So we all know that that's the case because there's always something that comes up that you have to take suddenly.

The one that I'm curious about, how are we gonna make sure that the rents that the the AMI, the 70% rent continues to be 10%? Like, how do how do we, like and I'm not even sure that 10% is gonna be. Like, I kinda feel like maybe 15%. But I'm just like, how do we do that? Like, how do we make sure of that? Because they're also getting, like aren't they getting the the reduction? Does that include the utilities as well? I can't remember. Yeah. A $150. I can't remember exactly. But how do we make sure that that yeah, call a friend?

Or Yeah. So,

council member, that's a good question. One of the reasons we thought we could do this is because when they're getting extension, we have actual data. Right? They have to send us their actual rent roll, where when we're applying them the first time they're going through council, it's all theoretical. I think I'll charge this in three years when the project's done. Right? So we have the actual data. And every year when we do the monitoring, they have to give us that data too. So we can tell them, you know, you need to set those rents out at least 10% or whatever it is lower than your market rate. And then every year, we'll check it and make sure.

So because I did wanna ask the question, that you're now sitting here, and we come up with these great slideshows for, you know, for your PowerPoints, and we get the one that's the four units. And they're supposed to be doing one unit, and it's the same price as the other. Like, basically, the same price. How do we, on that end, do something, like, maybe after the first year reevaluate and make sure the rent is I mean, it seems to me that's and I could be reading it correctly on the slide, but that there's not much difference sometimes. Right.

Because remember, so it is difficult. We do when we put up on the slide, which is obviously, like, a super small snapshot of the whole, we put up that's just the rent amount. Right? Doesn't include the utility allowance. Right? There's always that kind of bar that says must include. So even if if you're charging $1,100 for both units, but the one that is the MFT unit is getting a $175, basically less rent than that because their utilities are you know what I mean? So there is usually some discrepancy, but you're right. I mean, it

it depends on the area. Right? Sometimes it's Yeah.

And I think the two things just to reference is because what I wanna make sure is clear is that the the rents for the MMP units still always have to stay at the 7% AMI level. Right. So even as the market rate goes higher, higher speed that that next rent chases it at 10% lower. So it has to stay that or at least 10% below whatever the market rate is in the market state.

Does the rent include all of these fees they add? Like, the pet peevee and the garbage peevee and all those things? So two things. One, I'll say, and I and we could be on not but I assumed when we're talking about 10 the rent has to be 10% less. That's the base rent. So then on top of that, they would also get their utility allowance. You know what I mean? So so it would be larger than 10% either way. We don't include so any optional fees aren't included in the rent because pet fees are optional. Right? And the same, like garbage is optional fee. But that's utility. That's utility. Yeah. Okay.

But, like, parking, if and we're very clear. If you if, you know, the council member can't get free parking because he's in the market rate unit, and I have to pay because I'm an MFT unit that can't you know? So anybody if some if you charge a fee to everybody, that's fine, but you can't charge extra fees because I just, never really ask these questions.

Yeah. Yeah. Asking those questions. Thank you. Yeah.

And I think the other point just with the where extensions are different, I think just I'm just, like, thinking this one right. But extensions the argument I've always heard about the MFT and its value is that without this incentive, the project wouldn't come out of

the ground. Like, it just wouldn't get built.

The extension is already built. It's there. Right? So the argument that, like, it won't come out of the ground is not a real argument. The question might be, like, you should charge the rents, you know, to sustain your project. But at the same moment, we have people in these units. We don't want to just, you know, push right out of the market right away. So this allows us kind of a space to allow those units to continue subsidized for people who are already in them. But then when they go out, and but those subsidized units should be lower than the market. That should be so there should be some difference. There should be some kind of nexus where we're seeing it. The benefit, and the benefit is kind of more affordability, which is one of our priorities.

And did you want me to

just talk about the last

Yeah. So you can Yeah. Well, I'm not sharing.

Okay. So the last the launch, the the 2028 review, you know, I wanted to have larger units for families. And one of the things that's changed is the parking requirements on the state level, and we just haven't updated our code yet. And I think that that change may do something to change what people decide to bill. And so they may decide to bill they might be incentivized because they don't have to do parking the parking that they're required to right now. They may decide to do large units. So I thought we should just wait and see kind of what happens with

the market, especially I don't know.

And we are tracking the unit size for each unit and the number of parking stalls for every you know? So we will

have more data by then as well.

Yeah. That's great. I just yeah. That would be super, you know. Thank you.

K. Thanks, chair. This is this is great. I don't I think most of my questions got answered the last time we did this in kind of in our conversation. So the only question that council member Rambaugh just kind of brought up that explained a little bit, but I wanna make sure I really understand is on the 70% side. So they are obligated to keep their rent at a certain rate for the twelve years or just I just wanna make sure I understand how that part works. Yes. Make some exceptions?

Yes. Only the extension. Right. So they have to keep so the extensions we've had so far have all been eight years going to twelve years because we just haven't had it twelve years in the system long enough. Mhmm. But so in that case, they had to add 20% of units had to become 70% AMI had to become affordable, you know, rent controlled. Right? Yeah. And then, but then the the I think the point of this is that we, we need to make sure that those rents, even though they're all they're 70%, but they're also 10% lower than

the market rate units, and that would

be for all twelve years. You know? So that would change over time, but it would have

to be less than that. Is

that your is your question?

No. No. I'm sorry. Okay. So I guess, first of all, if they're going from eight to twelve, is it a four year extension, or is it a does it start at zero for twelve? Sorry. No. No. That wasn't the question, but you just Yeah. Said that and that made me think

of it. Right. So no. So the eight years get at the end of their eight years, they get to apply for another twelve years. Okay.

Okay. So that makes sense. And then when they so say they have a renter that is already in at 70% and that already qualifies, are they obligated then to keep their rent at that number for the next twelve years for that printer, or how does that work?

So they have to keep it at 70% of the AMI, which will change over time. Right? But, yes, over the twelve years. Doesn't it means they have to keep that number of units 20% at 70% no matter who's in them. Right? Even if a,

you know, renter leaves or a

new renter comes in, it has to be a 70% AMI renter.

So, basically, they're they have to they have to do everything that a normal twelve year does the first time they apply Mhmm. Except for it's just, you know, they've already done something. They're they're having to do it. So in the eight year, we came up with the whole system because to convert 20% to affordable takes a little bit of time. Right? Because you can't just kick out 20% of your units and then but, for example, the first one not the first one. The first few were in South Tacoma, which is where we had this issue. But the first large one, Procter Station, got the twelve year extension, and they within the first this is the first year they get the the reduction in 2025, and they have all 20 units. All 20% have been converted and are now full and at 70% AMI. Okay.

And so nobody had to move. You said that they would just take one. They need to make another unit 70% if the renter is at over 90% AMI. So it doesn't follow the unit. It follows it doesn't follow the pricing unit. Follows the person in.

For that. For if there is

a unit. Yeah. If you if the The extension follows the person, not the price.

The extension follows 20% of the units, but what we all we don't want people to be displaced. Right? So that's why it couldn't happen overnight. It takes a little bit of time. So but anytime they have an empty unit, they have to make that one an affordable unit. So Maybe I'm I think I'm confused about is if the price Mhmm. Or when we say 70%, is

that the person that is a 70% or under AMI,

or is the unit affordable to a person at 70% or under a AMI? Right? So the unit has to be rented to a household that makes 70% or less of the AMI, and it needs

to be affordable also at that price. Right.

And that we we it's prescriptive what they're allowed to charge for rent based on the number of bedrooms.

Got it. So if that person is there and they go up to 90%, that price still stays that price still so you're obligated at both? Yes. That price still has to stay at affordable under 70% of whatever. And then when that person gets to 90, then they need to now provide another unit. Okay. Yep. Got it. I yeah. I like the idea of people being able stay and being incentivized to be able to earn more.

I think I don't know

if 10% is the right number for

10% is okay when you get into the higher numbers, but at the lower numbers, I think it's difficult to tell the difference. So, like, at $2,000 $200 is is easier to see, but when it gets down to, like, 1,500, 1,600, I think it gets a little bit murky when we're just sitting on, like, a $100 difference of is this worth it enough for our tax exemption? And so I think investigating at least 15% will probably be a good idea. And I don't know if we I don't know what tool she used to navigate that. If if 10% just came from, like, this is the starting point.

I think that the counselor, the data, it's hard because we have the two the two projects that reach four unit projects. The first ones that came through that were in South Cobre by the Cobre Mall somewhere, that brought up this issue. Right? Because they were the exact same rents. All of the other extensions, we've only had three, are all big apartment. You know, we had Proctor Station. We had the Grand on Broadway and the State Apartments. Right? So those, when we did the analysis, they were all way more than 10% difference Yeah. Because those are big, kind of expensive, you know, apartment units.

Right? So we don't have data to see what other places are doing or what. If we if we use that data and say, well, they're all 25% less in market rate, but then we overlay that onto eight plex in it's called the wall. Is that gonna make the you know, basically, that's gonna make it so unattainable for the owner of the apartment, you know, if they're really gonna lose you know what I mean? So we're trying to find that balance, but we don't have that data yet to say what that would be, which is I think kind of why how we got to the at least, also when you add on the utility, it's a lot.

I mean, the smallest didn't bring my debt, but I think the smallest utility allowance for a studio even is, like, a $155 a month. Mhmm. So if you're paying 1,100, you're already minus a 155 out, plus you're minusing, you know, 10% again. It is a pretty big delta in the end. But, yeah, I don't know, honestly, what that number should be, and I haven't seen other cities do this. I haven't heard of other cities doing this with extensions. And so, again, it's like, where do we find the data? Well, I guess the the one thing I wonder is the only thing I can think about

is when we communicate to the community why we are taking the why we are giving the tax break. The rationale we use is here's the tax dollars that are being spent on a project. We no longer have those to, like, create this we're getting equal on this side and this side. Right? So now it's just it's only about the affordability.

And I guess the question to ourselves is what affordability is worth the it's the money that we're not getting in, and I know that there's an actual number. So if we're saying it's a over the next twelve years, it's a $120,000 that we are foregoing in taxes, the affordability should probably equal whatever we say is acceptable, and whatever that number is could probably equal out a percentage. So in order to reach that number, we need to get to 10% or 15, whatever. And it might only be 5%. I don't know.

But that's the way that maybe I would consider figuring out. I feel like we should just have some rationale on that number that is that equals out our tax dollars if we're just thinking about it like that.

Well, I do think it's part right? The reason we started down this path was because we said, what's the public benefit? If we're giving you twelve more years of tax exemption, and you're not you're not giving us anything. You're already you know, the the owner of that, you know, development isn't isn't giving the city anything about the benefit besides, you know, what so that's right. So we have to figure out what that

Right. Which

I mean, I think that's the the question of, you know, we laid the 10 with a three year review and said, well, let's see if it's actually what happens. Right? Because if if we crank the 20 or 25 or

something and then no one takes it three years, then

what if we lost? What's the opportunity cost? So what this does, it does create some affordable units. And what you're doing is you're and it's gonna be often in areas where the the market rates are lower. Right? Because the market rate has to be only when it's actually it makes sense, the market is at 7% AMI or lower than that. Right? It's already the market has said it's it's actually affordable. So we're trying to drop it even more, so I guess 10%. I don't know what that would be, but we're getting even lower. And the question would be that if we if they said, well, I didn't so much. I don't want this. Okay. Great. But then as the market goes, those rents will still keep going. We'll have any kind of restricted units there at all.

And we did discuss that no matter where you are in the city, really, once you get below 60% AMI, they're gonna be different. You right? They're really gonna be subsidized. Right? Developers are building things at that. You know?

And the only other thing that I heard and so and I so I was I was kinda like, gosh. We figured. Let's do it. I want to get the question. At least, it makes sense to me. What you wind up having, if you crank it too low, you'll see property investors invest less in keeping the property up. Right? Because they're just gonna say, like, okay. The rents are not enough to sustain maintenance of unit, and you may see less investment in property. So, I mean, that seem I don't know if that's with that, I mean, that seems like that would make sense because your profit is your I mean, I would say, like, if I make if I make less money, like, I don't fix the roof, do I try to, like, run things out further without doing repairs?

So that's the only concern that was the only concern I had. So we landed at ten. It's just like, this is a clear there'll be a visible difference with utilities. Mhmm. And let's start there. And if it seems like it's if people are not taking us up on the program or it's, you know, it's we're not seeing let's see. We have a three year period and come back. No one's done this yet so far.

I wish I had a better suggestion. Yeah. Wish I had a better suggestion, and that would just be to just think about what just make sure that we're balanced, but that we know the numbers so that this is presented to counsel because you

guys are gonna have to

vote for these that, you know, that we're not, again, embarrassed. Oh god. These are so close. Like, why are we even doing this? And we're gonna have to communicate what how many times are better be off

or gone at that moment.

So that's the kind of tension I'm Yeah.

And I think we can probably do better, miss Debbie, always puts the utility allowance in the rent conversation. We should be adding that just like the rent is here.

Show on there. I think it should show on there. The amount of utility allowance. Like, what you think it is. It should show on a, like, a line or something. Yeah. Only because I think what we're getting into here is what councilman's data and deputy mayor is talking about. Is it, like, what it what like I said, like, I only see this, and then you're like, oh, yeah. But there's

the utility dogs. Yeah. I was like, oh, wow. No.

I think that's a good point, and we can definitely add that. I also think to Debbie Meyer's point, we can look at the we can look at the the two that have done extensions that were the same, and see you know, I can do the research. What was the property taxes? How much are they getting exempt? You know what mean? And see what value are we getting, and what would you have to get, to make that, you know, seem substantial. Because I think I don't think we need to analyze the other three big ones because we know Yep. That's I mean, it may not be exactly what we're giving up in property taxes, but it's definitely creating affordable units where there weren't any. You know? But as we get more and more of these in areas of the city where especially, I don't know that I mean, yeah, I think there could be some research.

Right? Also, whether those are becoming naturally affordable just because they're 12 years old and they're in parts of the city where, they weren't that expensive just to build to start with.

You know

what I mean? Versus, I don't think anyone would say Procter Station seems naturally affordable yet. Right. Just because it's kind of a fundamental difference. Yeah. So I can certainly look at those, and I can even look at some that are will be coming up in the next couple years and just do, like, if, you know, if this happened,

this is what would be.

Combined with this going forward. I as with that part going forward, as is I just think it's something that we should know. Is it we're giving up a 150,000, and then the the affordability or the rent that mark is being per gone is 23,000. Mhmm. We should know that before we just, you know, just so we know the math of, like, where is that percentage wise. Mhmm. In case, you know, Sandesh might do something back in the napkin math, and we won't be able to answer that.

Be like, wait. We need we need to use your math. We need third grade math.

Yeah. And calculus. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. So outside of that, I don't think I have any questions. I think this is good. I I had similar questions to council member Rambaugh on the unit size and parking, but I don't again, I don't have a suggestion for that. This tool is not for everything. So I think I have my own proposal. So whenever you want me to put that forward, I will. But for now, I don't

have any questions with what you've got. Wait for it. Okay.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate councilor Danny's comments on there. I think we do need a and I also appreciate that we just don't know. So we have to kinda find a number that makes sense and then adjust as we look forward to see if the uptake is good or not. Because we could this could be too much.

Right? Then uptake's not there, so we have to start somewhere. But I think putting in there for market conditions are changing constantly. So, I mean, if we even wanted to. One of the questions I had, I appreciate the thinking about the benefits cliff that that a lot of things things especially when they try to better themselves there opportunities.

And and so that makes a lot of sense to to get that buffer up to up to 90%. I'm just wanted to see if you wanted to talk a little bit more. Is 90 cent 90% the right number, or it should be up to a 100% because that simplifies people, you know, to to be at

a market rate level. Right?

And then they're up and down as you speak. And did you have a chance to, like, talk about the other benefits folks might be using along the way? Because, like, we have folks that might be medical plans or, you know, depending on family, you know, based on the income that you make. So they might use the rental as well as, like, medical. So it's, like,

kind of, like, getting double.

You know, I mean, we started at 90 because the what we were trying to avoid was okay. So state loss up to a 150. Well, when it's if you go that far, what you're ended up having is someone who could go out in a market unit is sitting inside of a membership unit and holding someone out who could who needs it. And so there's like a balance we have to strike of, we don't wanna push people out. But as you earn more, those units should probably go to people who actually earn less.

I mean, if you look, the stories are pretty. I always feel like the New York story of rent controlled units where someone's, like, making a $100,000, and they're paying, you know, $500 worth of rent because they got a rent controlled unit. They just never leave, and it's ready. And so we started at 90 where it's 90 is a little less than a it just it's we're just throwing it was like, you know, it seems like once you get to a 100, you're like, maybe that person just go buy a market rate unit. Like, should that person then get out of this one or not?

But, I mean, I could go up to I mean, a 100 sounds fine to me if that's what we wanna land on. But I just think when we start looking, like, a 150, a 115, a 110, you start looking people who, more likely than not because what I think should be looking for a more market rate unit or look at the example we give to a proctor station. If you see that route, they're not moving you out of your unit. They're saying, now you have to pay the market rate, and now the next thing you come online, they're gonna go find somebody who does make 3% fill it with them. So there'll be, like, a churn that happens.

Well, it's even technically because of the renter's rights movements that have passed, they can't even switch you right to market rate. Right? So you're at 90% AMI now, and what they all they can do still is raise your rent by I'm not super familiar with the laws of 10%.

You know what point 99%.

Okay. So they can only increase it by 5%. They can't go straight to market rate. You know what I mean? So I think that if you're making 90 percent AMI, and then they're like, okay. Now you have to now we're gonna raise your rent. They still can only raise it 5% a year. You know what I mean? But also, that triggers now they have to make another unit affordable, which is 70%, which is really good Yeah. Right, for.

Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm thinking about, like, Alice families, for example, and I'm not saying we don't. I think it's good to start. I think having conversations with that population.

The other thing sorry. So, like, you're say something real quick is that since we keep that data every year when we do our reporting, we'll know, like, oh, this family made too much, so they moved out of you know what I mean? So now they have to add another rent restricted unit. So we'll have a little bit more data on that. Like, how many people are hanging in there till 90% and then either leave or stay and it reverts to market rate over time, you know, or whatever percent we pick.

It's about stability of parents too. I mean, you already know that they're a unicorn family, so they're they're still making less than a 150% or whatever that number is. I think having them back with me would be also traumatic just because they made more money. I mean, this is what happens when I was running for office against Kelly Boister. She talked about this exact name, and they lost her childcare because she ended up getting a raise.

And it wasn't that much, but that put them out of their childcare, which then made them everything cost more for them. So if something had happened with their rent at the same time, that would have been detrimental. And so I think, like, I don't wanna keep people in poverty. I wanna help them. And that makeup this unicorn person isn't in poverty, but they're close. And I appreciate that we have this program, and I want to support keeping people where they are. So if it's a 100%, I think we should experiment and see what a 100% looks like. And if that's not good enough Okay. Then we would change it after a year.

Yeah. That then that's kinda

I don't know if that's possible, Cher. But, I mean, I I think that, like, getting the right number, I don't know what that number is. But later I know you're, like, laughing

at me. No. No. No. No. I that's there was a quote from Philadelphia that pops in my mind, and I'm not gonna say it right now, but, yes, it is possible.

Everything's possible. Yeah.

I mean, this is again, we are like, in my mind, we're doing our three year look back, and so some of this we've never done. So, in my mind, I'd rather just try something. So a 100% is what we think seems like a good number, and we rationalize it. I'm fine with a 100%.

And then

three years from now, we'll

kind of

come back to that. But the absence of that means that anybody who makes more than 70 is gonna push out of the year or is being said you you can't be able to subsidize you. So at least landing with something is helpful. Yeah. So I'm if we wanna move to a 100%, that's fine. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm open to a 100. I think even 90

is good.

I think even having this in the first place is a good thing. Right? And and I just don't know where that number is. Where that folks, like, with food stamps or with childcare or with medical. Because all of a sudden, you could be at these different income points losing certain benefits, but then.

I do think in three year it'll be good because in three years, we'll have that data. We can say, okay. Now what? Hold on. 50% of the NFT units are now filled with people at a 100% AMI. I mean, you know, we'll have that data to look at that and see what's happening. Yeah.

Because I think that is one of the, other issues that we have have to navigate, which are trying to find something housing focuses that there's, like, both benefit click cliff, but there's also the people occupying subsidized units that could otherwise be actually serving someone who really needs it. Right? That's that's the other sub side of the coin. Yeah. Problem. So we're like, okay. Maybe 90% is what Well, so I think my suggestion would be that we can move forward with a 100%. And then if the when we go to the council, everything you're asking that's what I gonna say. Like, everything's gonna have to go to the full body to before we make it changes that we can talk through the conversation too. You and customer, we will talk about that.

Like, hey. My initial goals are 90%. You know, discussion committee minimum is a You can talk and decide that's

the right number or not. But,

I'm

happy with

it. K? Well and then because Deborah said she wanted to she had a pulse. She wanna make some, I think, cool. I switched spots. Yeah.

Okay. You got masks. I have masks.

Okay. I wanted to, again, thank you, chair and I, for being so thoughtful on the way that you put this together and then also for giving us a little bit of extra time for us to think about what a holistic plan looks like and what as we think about each neighborhood and each kind of development, it feels like it has its own needs. And so I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I wasn't sure what it could look like. But I'm gonna put it forth. So I'm gonna pass these out.

And then I'm gonna also pass out these maps. And these maps are of a couple of tracks on that I have been pretty concerned about over the years.

And one of the things I've

been thinking about is how do we balance economic development and and development in general in our city with our similar goals of anti displacement, and how do we make sure that our economic development tools are not creating a a a situation in which we are pushing displacement. So one of the things I would like to do is propose that in our list of recommendations, we remove the two census tracts that are laid out before from the downtown regional growth center solely from the NFTE due to a high risk of displacement in these areas. On the paper on the anti displacement strategy you have, these two tracks are highlighted as being the highest risk in our city of displacement. This is based on data from the Washington State Department of Commerce risk map, the PSRC displacement risk tool, and the urban displacement project at UC Berkeley and the fiction study map, as well as our own equity index. The team does not offer affordability, and we've seen getting results of the creation of market rate units in Hilltop that too many of those residents cannot afford.

And I'll call it

a specific project that I

do love. And one of the the project that I love on Hilltop is Aspire 11. That is 289 units. It happens to be on MLK. And I think what's great about it is that it offers options for people to move to.

So if I wanna be on Hilltop, I can because has graciously bought up almost the entire block. We have affordable options, and then we also have market rate options. And in the future, we'll have home ownership options. And I think they have all put in different market space at the bottom, so we'll have different options for market commercial market rate things as well. And with the with light rail coming through and all of the other investment, I think that that area is where it needs to be in terms of economic development that it doesn't require city intervention just for people to invest there.

And one of the things that I would have trouble with is if we so the Aspire 11, which is the one that I do appreciate, is 289 minutes, and it is using our eight year MFT. We need us paying us giving a property tax exemption for eight years for 289 units that have no affordability in our community. I don't know if the cost to us outweighs what it's it's worth. And if THA had not had so many units on that block and we had four other units of similar size asking for the same eight year NFT, I feel like it would be really trouble. And I feel like we kind of got lucky that we missed the we missed the Dodge.

Dodged a bullet. That's whoo. We dodged a bullet on that. And so I'm just trying to prevent that in the future in this area that's already vibrant. So let me get back to my notes. Seen more great ones.

I believe strongly that we should

not continue to support the eight year tax exemption in these locations, and we need to be careful that our economic development tools are not unintentionally aggravating displacement. The displacement strategy also identifies nine additional tracks in East Tacoma, Cosmere, McKinley Hill, and South Tacoma that are high risk of displacement. My proposal is that we start by removing the eight year NFTE in the two hilltop tracks and evaluate the impacts in the next proposed three year view. This will allow future council to decide whether to remove the eight year NFTE from the additional tracks with a high displacement. I think that the other nine additional tracks, while we can see kind of what's happening, they also still do need that economic development injection, and I think it's still worth it there.

But on Hilltop, I think that we've kind of fully matured to where folks that are doing development aren't going to get the money. They're gonna the projects are gonna cancel without our support. So that is my proposal, and I look forward to any questions that you have or about any of the streets or any just my thoughts.

Alright. Let's go to councilor. You, councilor Daniels, for bringing this forward. I I do agree with you. I I feel like, you know, even the data aside, sometimes you have this gut feeling as you're going through. I really have been impressed by the level of community involvement, development, partnerships that have happened along the Hilltop Corridor. The bringing of the light rail through the area has really changed the streetscape significantly. I feel like the Hilltop is is doing well. It's it's I feel you know, it feels like our next proctor, to

be quite honest with you, when I when I'm going down there. And

and I know we had a proctor from from the. From my perspective, it does feel like we wanna make sure that everybody that currently lives there can still continue to live there. And, you know, we wanna make sure that the new product we report does continue to have affordability. And so I think it does make sense to remove it at this point from the ERFTE program. You know?

And I but, you know, I'm not feeling that safe gut feeling in other parts of the city that I think as as you mentioned, this is primarily an economic development, especially affordable housing. I know sometimes it can be it just hasn't an affordability of care is what I'm saying. And there are certainly other spots and other places in the city that could utilize the for the economic development and opportunity that could provide. And then I know at some point, we'll also have that. We've made it. And then we can continue,

you

know, based on, you know, our anti displacement strategy as well as, you know, bailing. So that's kind of that's kind of how I'm feeling about this, and I appreciate you bringing this forward. I think it makes a lot of sense. And yeah. So that's that's what

I got. Thank you. I just wanna be really clear because I feel like I didn't say it before that really I I believe that our neighborhood should be mixed. I believe they should have both market rate and affordable. And this is not to say that you shouldn't do market rate and you shouldn't build these amazing things. My question to us is which part of that should the city be responsible for and which part how far are we what are what are we okay with giving up our property tax dollars for for these projects? And so, yeah, this is just my checking balance there.

Okay.

Say something and then have them, like, later be like, what'd you say that for? So I wanna make sure I didn't think about it.

Okay. Thank you so much for giving me some time to look at this. Okay.

I think my question would be so eventually, like, we're coming back and looking at here. So what would be what what what are the metrics really looking like? What in your mind? What do you

think that three

Three years. Years? What would what would be if you just have this successful, what would we see?

I think if we are successful,

we will continue to see if you

if we are successful, we will continue to see development, period. I think that this is a harder one because you don't get to see what you've prevented. Like, it's not there's no it like, it's similar to CSA. Right? You don't really know what you what you're investing.

So so get the results.

It's just a lot. Right? That's that's the thing. And so with this, if you're asking what I think you should measure in three years, in three years, I think if there's no development, that is something that we should measure. If there's no more

apartments that probably to bring the ACR back because people no longer can

the projects are not canceled. I think that's a clear indication. I think in terms of measuring other parts of the city, I think we can use the same tools that we use. There's, like, a a displacement tracker, right, that says how many years you have in each, like, census tract that watches how they change over time and how how much they cost. So then it's just the tracking.

So you can see, like, as you get closer and closer to Sixth Avenue, those census tracts have already, like, fully changed over. And then there's, like, places in the rest of the no talk where you kind of have a little bit of time before they completely change over. It'll be, like, 75%. Those are things that you can watch for to see how displacement is working. And, again, you don't really get to control what people do. I just wanna make sure that we are not paying for people to be displaced. Right? That's the that's really the prevention that that we're looking for. So

that's the last thing I I have have to to say. Say.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. No. It's just it's just, like, it's hard to think about doing this right now, what the interest rate is, like, the highest it's been since, you know, I can remember. I was live during those seventies, so don't kill me. But that's the hard part for me because, like, I won't know why we don't.

Is that why people decide not to, or is it because we didn't we got rid of the eight year? You won't really know in three years if the interest rate stays high. Right? Like, I won't know why. But the I mean, that would be that's the that's what I'm, like, kind of thinking about right now is, like, if the interest rate was low, that's I'd be really comfortable thinking about this because I feel like to see, you know, has to take place, but I feel like that is, like we're starting to talk about all this development stuff right now. People come and they want this and that. They're like, I can't build my project. Now the interest rate is hard and high. You're having a hard time borrowing money because it's costing you a lot more to build something. Right? So I'm just that's sort of playing into my mind when we think about changes. That's another just something that's on my mind. So

Yeah. I guess I would just say that specifically in Botox, it just seems it's been

high for, like, 2020. Right? Right about 2021. We had

over, let's see, 300 more. We had almost 800 units built.

2021 was really low still. They just went up in 2024 is when they started to, like, do the site. Like, I really think that they were low for a long time that we're now or just they were adjusting to now truck that Yeah. Figure out when they're gonna get back in.

So we, I mean, we continue to have development in the area and have several projects that continue to come up just on the on the corridor, and then really off the corridor is where they apply to. They also apply to one two or they don't apply to 1234 units now, but any large unit, we are gonna be foregoing property taxes or rents up to whatever they feel like they can charge. Right? And I am not sure that that is the right path we should be taking as we are in a deficit, specifically as we're in a deficit. We just had unlimited tax dollars.

I think this wouldn't even really be conversation about, like, how we have to value those. But I think, again, you don't wanna aggravate the market more than it's necessary. Number two, we don't really have money coming in as. So those are the,

I guess, two things I'm thinking about.

I had a quick question about the a Debbie answer. Because I we have done this before at Procter, but we and there has continued to be development in that

area. Since we've removed to be MIT, there have been no applications in Procter at all since we moved to eight year. The one that we're waiting for, right, so Procter four is in discussions and in permitting. They haven't applied yet. In fact, they're trying to find out if they have applied, and they're still hedging. So that we can tell if they apply for twelve year. If they build it and don't apply for anything, one, apparently, they need it. But to you know? So but we haven't had anything else in Procter. The one that's getting ready to start now where Jasminka was, that came in before the change that they had. They hear that

was the last one.

And I think to, you know, to their point, like, there's so many market conditions you hear when they say exactly what it is, but Procter's also pretty confined. It's you know, you're tearing things down to build. Right? So we haven't seen a lot more development there. But,

you know, but we do get

I mean, we get a lot of twelve years in smaller. You know? And there's a lot in Hilltop smaller projects.

You know? So it's still as a. It's not used as much as it used

to be, you know, the twelve year issues for now, but you don't have a specific example. I'm not seeing.

Yeah. I and part of the reason why I ask is I I'm trying to understand if we do these removals, does that incentivize doing other parts of the city? Particularly, I think, different parts of my district economic development and whether that would help us solve these projects because they're. Well, we're not gonna look here. We're not gonna look there, but we could look over here kind of situation. And so I don't know if, like, after we removed eight year, maybe that pushed some developers to actually build the building. Right? I don't know if that was a deciding factor or not. But if we remove this, does that mean they work somewhere else to build as well? So does

it kinda create that economic track track? So

that's kind of where I'm where I'm thinking. I think that was so my questions were about how we're gonna know if it's working or not. The other so one of the so I just to kind of reference. One of the reasons I because I was pretty adamant about getting rid the ear as much as possible. One thing that's changed in my life is the fact that eight year projects are not coming in for 12 extensions, which means that.

So I I would be surprised if Aspire didn't show up seven years from now and ask for an extension. That's what what we. So one of the reasons why I've continued to kind of, I guess, be more spruly here is that I think what it means is that then these projects show up for housing in the future. Like, the the most will take the extension of affordability. And so that's something I I when I think about kind of this conversation here is getting rid of the eight year, well, it is initially not giving us the development one or, like, the one.

Will it mean there's support later is out there? What other something I've been thinking about. But my question and that was fine. My question was around do you think the change that we're proposing around taking a year through and half a year 20 units, does that get to most of what you're thinking? Will that take care of most of the issue here?

Because I well, I guess, in my mind, when I look at these census tracts, I don't see, like, very few, like, large open parcels where you would see MFT projects come on from the ground that would basically, I'm saying it. I think when I look at you there is I think what you're gonna see most of is probably things that are 20 under 20 units. So we're actually already kind of dealing with that issue of the MFT's gone under 20, and that there aren't very many places where we're gonna see a lot of big projects, more than 20 coming out of the ground in that area just because there's not a lot of property. So do you think that that that change is just eliminating the eight year at the for the smalls, it actually takes care of most of the issues here, or do you think it it it an

issue as to address this other one?

I've been thinking about that a lot, and I think as I drive through the drove through the neighborhood,

you can

see exactly what it takes to build

20 units, and the distance between 20 to 200 is

a whole lot of length. So you can build because we have done home and diploma. We extended what our URs look like, and you can build 20 units in UR 3, which is right, which extends all the way to

the end of MLK.

And so there's a 20 unit going up across the street from McHarbor. Mhmm. And we're in what was a single family kind of neighborhood. So and it's just one small residence. I don't know how they're gonna get 20 units in there. Oh, I do know how they're doing. I've seen a small 20 unit complex. And right now, that is legal for them to use the eight year NFTE and charge as much as they want to, which is great, which is fine. They might not have parking, and there's no way that they have parking. There's just a kind of a lot of different things that go into it.

And if they have a choice between 20% of their units affordable across student school and not, I would rather them just choose the 12% because when they get the parking lot is to get everything else. And but they always have the opportunity to lose the eight year, and I just don't think we should. You can do it if you want to, but I just don't think we

should pay for it.

Yep. I don't think I should communicate to pay for it. Yeah. I think, you know and so that's where, I guess, where my only concern about the post birth quarter is that I think that the addressing things 20 or lower takes care of most of the challenges we've talked about. But what I'm worried is Aspire works because there's very large housing projects like this.

And I just I would like there to be an option if someone wanted to build a larger project that was market rate that could also provide mixed income in that area and also be a place for people who are, like, coming here, who it might be a displacement for someone in the neighborhood where it's like, well, I wanna live in this area. I'm go outbid somebody in this old apart older apartment building, reach them out. But now there's this newer building here also there, and then I won't be putting pressure over here. I I just I think that's where I I my and and it's kind strange. I don't know why I just looked at this.

That's where I where I'm a little hesitant around that. Game in eight years, I'm afraid we might lose some bigger projects that could bring some much could bring some of what some economic diversity to the area that can provide more opportunities for people and actually kinda take pressure off displacement while this other part is, like, taking care of, like, the the real risk, which I think is sure, which is which is tearing down a house with 20 people on it. That's part of it.

I agree with what I'm saying. We should always do

it where we already are paying for 289 market rate units. So if somebody wants to move that, is looking for a place what I'm saying is that they already have that place to go, and they have all of the other houses that are already market rated, apartments that are already around. So if I'm putting together a 20 unit today and I have the option of doing single bedroom, one studios, I can choose. Do I wanna serve people at a certain income, or I can choose to serve students or whomever I wanna serve. And I don't actually have to deal with anything.

I can just ink I can just do whatever rent I want, and I'll just serve the kids on the light road that maybe are gonna go to Seattle or gonna go to work or whatever. And I'll just ask for these higher rents, but I also get a property tax Yep. For that. And I get to choose. And it's easier to just

do the eight year, and then I don't

have to worry about anybody's income at all. And a lot of times, people that are building 20 units are still at that point. Now if they're building 200 units, they were really talking about a math problem, and it does make more sense financially to use the 12. At 20, they're still at a point of just doing ease.

And I and I agree. And that's why this first one, I think, we're at full here. I don't think any less than 20 should have. So I'm off world that. I think we're at the issue that I'm concerned about with this is that there might be someone who's looking to make it, you know, a 200 unit apartment building, and they're only gonna do the eight year thing for and that that won't come out of the ground.

And and we wouldn't I mean and there'd be no way to tell it what the makeover was on that. So I I my I guess, just to be honest, my inclination is to start with this part where we get rid of the eight year for anything more than twenty minutes and address, I mean, a lot of the challenges we're talking about here. The eight year in place, and then in three years from now, if we all of a sudden see a bunch of larger eight year projects or one eight year project coming out of the ground that's a real challenge, then we could turn the data on quicker.

It would be too late, and we already have that. We have a 289 building that we would not have been able to

say no to. We just have disinfects.

Yeah. No. And I and I yes. And I agree with that part. I think, like and this is I guess this should be a

question I have for Dennis.

How many of your projects have come out of these two census tracts in the last twelve years? Other than Slackers. Only Slackers.

Oh, how?

I mean, there might be some smaller I mean, I guess my before like, guess what it's Before I would be comfortable with this, I would wanna see something that says that in these two census tracts, we there's been a there's been a lot of eight year projects coming out of the ground that are bigger than 20 units. So they're they're above what we're already what I'm already closing here that and then there's been a lot of them that were that's a risk factor to the payment. Because I think for the most part, this takes care of most of the challenges here. That just be my and that we also kind of I I I think and then the house with where we have a lot of big projects already there. And so as Fire balances that, there's also could be another project or two to help kind of continue to provide some more complete stuff there.

So that that's I guess that would be my question, which be I think the proposal here addresses 95% of of the what you're proposing here, and I would have questions about if this gets us the other 5% too. So that that was that's perfect. And so, do you have a question?

Yeah. I'm just I wanna go back to, like, the fact that you took so you took me a year out of a doctor. And it's, like, this really affluent place where they

get to say they don't want any more high rises.

I just wanna make sure that we did all of our due diligence because I think that she's bringing up a good point. Just I think it's a good point, and I don't have enough information at all. I just feel like I just found out about this again. Just say it again. But I am curious about how we got to that, that we removed it from Procter, and I think they just all complained. I got this. And I if people don't complain on the Hilltop, then I'm

gonna do some paper.

I understand that price a little bit.

Well, it wasn't just complaints. It was the premise that the buildings would come out we had the buildings would come out of the ground. The rents were high enough. Buildings The would come out of ground without the tax exemption, and then what we really need to support it. So I guess for me to to to go with this situation to support that, I would need to be convinced that the rents would be high enough to support development to absentee your tax exemption for this area.

That's what drove that conversation. Thank you. And if the estimate expires at that level, then it would be that's good evidence to be able to understand that it it would come out of the ground that but when we remove the a here, we had no other projects come out of the ground. There's one proposed to come out of ground that is gonna be delivered out of the tax exemption. But they have been very clear that project is going to be luxury, top of the market, unattainable for most people because that's the way they're gonna make it pencil.

And so, I mean, it so there's a benefit of we're not subsidizing that project, but the other side is it's it's it's gonna be very luxury. And so I guess one of my questions would be if we take that to this situation, do we then get just luxury housing? Right? Because they're the ones that are, like, top in the marketplace, and it actually even further out. Now I pushed back on this. Like, so you're telling me that the price would be cheaper versus that. And they they said, yes. But, you know, here's what I here's my suggestions. We're running up on how we had some. I I don't think it's.

I would move that we add council Deborah McDonald's components to the items to be considered full council meeting. So we add this to the full council, and then we can have our discussion there. And then what we did last time is we went through each one of these as a discussion item, created a package that then we then move forward through to council. But I think just based on this conversation now, with people's questions, the data, think I it's probably better for

us to continue the conversation with

the counselor at call. Sure.

I just wanna make sure that Christina knows what data we are getting. So if you need to work out what is the the data that you were asking for.

Well, I think well, I think we've already talked through kind of the first questions, which is, how do we know what's gonna work for the office? I think the in a time when we are in desperate need of housing, the the data point from three years now, I I don't want to be will not take up. I meant what that would be. But I things will get built because the we're seeing something built. So don't think that's the answer, but how are gonna assess it?

And then I think the data point would be to Debbie. How many eight year projects come out of these census tracts in the last couple years? How many twelve year projects have come out? And then of the eight year projects, what are the rents that we see for those projects to kinda get an idea of what we're talking about here and so on. Otherwise, I I mean, I am in full agreement with you on the idea that I don't wanna see any more smaller projects come through being here because they're just actively making a choice not to use the twelve year. So but most I think we're almost we're there for a whole.

I he sort of said it, but I was thinking, like, how much like, how many larger projects are in

the house of three projects. How much

of the larger projects are there

or how many are coming? Well, I

guess we provided a half a whole picture to see how many are coming Here. Are they actually gonna get the are they are they shovel, like, shovel ready? Or Well, we

can only see the ones

that are submitted for permit,

so it's gonna be hard to see what's happening, right,

outside of just looking at

the trends of how many have

bills. Try and do that. I can ask.

Listen. Go like this.

Yes. There are some questions that I

can give you all this data from the NFT. Do you want data for public or you know? I think we should know about all the development team case because it sounds like it sounds like and I also appreciate the conversation about, like, how far in does the UR three go. I mean, that's that's really that's also a part of this. It's not just the front property. It could be also in like, impacting deeper into the neighborhood is what you're saying. Correct?

Yeah. You can build over 20 units on a single house lot. Yes. Those are the ones that I'm concerned about. It's not really the 300 units. We're not gonna get probably not really worried about these room right now for those. Could be room could be room on the MLK Corridor. But because the

cost of land is so high, I don't know. Okay.

So I so we will add deputy mayor's part to the item. One of the data speaks here for for the committee. So we'll make a change to CCR. And so I think it's time for us to send this on to the next one. Vice chair Bushnell. I moved before the council consideration request regarding multifamily tax exempt program with the full city council with amendments Mhmm. For consideration. Second. K. So move a second. All those in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Alright.

We will work to get a date on the study session with Erica to finger to finish up this conversation, and we'll brief our conference for our colleagues. Nice. Last time we did this, we quoted that here and looked like the study session right at. A little bit. Okay. With that, topics for upcoming meetings. I'd like to call on Amy Schulo to take place at the topics for upcoming meetings. Great. So on August 9 meet, I know on the agenda, it says we're gonna have a discussion about regulations related to massage businesses, but that got bumped. So the nineteenth, we're gonna have a level three telecommunications franchise agreement with the old the from jet leaders coming up to do that.

September 2 is the day after Labor Day. So we'll have a item for that meeting. We may consider Yeah. We'll probably consider canceling that one. And Yep. And we're still working on something for the sixteenth. We should have some massage conversation? Yeah. So Steph has been working for about two years now on massage parlors, and the real issue is 80% of them are legitimate, not legitimate services. We've had some that offer other services that aren't offered by people.

And, again, part of the effort was related to doing our part to end you with trafficking kind of situations where people are brought here and forced to choose things in these places. So we've had some success, but some of our recalcitrant Saudi parlor folks have been more nimble than our rules and regulations allow. So we're struggling on this last little kind of bit of how do we prevent our bad actors from bad acting here. And We're working with the industry. So we've they had conversations with the associations and stuff related to this.

We're trying to come up with a regulatory scheme to give us a few more tools to help us get the bad actors out of here. But, yeah, a little more discussions that. I've been lobbied by the massage industry about our.

You can see by just massage therapy. It's like like massage parlor, not massage therapy. And I guess

that's why you didn't

Yeah. Part part of our trouble is, like, say Washington has to differentiate if you have a license as massage therapist.

You're massage

We should probably talk.

Therapist. And you need to talk to them. Part of it is their reciprocal agreements with other states? Because we found some of our bad actors are using that as a loophole to I can go get a massage license in Idaho, and we accept that here, and there's no requirement. So we're working on a whole package of proposals for you guys to help us kinda tighten the net around this. And, again, the ultimate goal is to give us more regulatory authority to make those out with you. Okay. Sounds good? Well, I'll be looking forward to that further along. Are there any other items of interest, vice chair Bushnell?

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to give a heads up in case any of the public's listening. I know when we first started our NFT product or NFT kind of review, I had talked about homeownership opportunities. On further study of this, it's the math was mapping in terms of NFT. So I think additional research on my part is necessary. And so I just wanted to kinda close the loop on that. And maybe NFT is not the the right tool for that with homeownership or or maybe there's a way, but I need to continue to have conversations with policy partners and others to really see if MFTP is the right tool to make homeownership opportunities and be able to focus. So just wanted to close the loop on that. I'm I'm still wanting to pursue that, but it's gonna take a lot more conversations and a lot more math and time to make it work. So thank you so much.

Thank you to the vice chair. And with that, I'll entertain the final motion. I move to adjourn. So moved. Second. I'll move in person if I would say aye. Aye. Okay. We stand adjourned. Thank

you. Alright. What's that? You.