Thank you, Brad.
For those who are not in the room, Brad just took the clock off the wall because
time does not exist here today on Tuesday, August 25th, 2026.
Welcome to city council work session. I see council member Cassie, council
member Jefferson, council member Agabi, lovely to see your faces virtually. I
see council member Sullivan, mayor Posan von Holtz, council member Schwarzout,
council member Randon, we have our city administrator Paul Simmons, myself
serving as mayor, Lena Daw, we have our city attorney, Karen Katrick, we have
Melody, we have Lance, and we have Chief Helens, and we have a special guest,
which ties us into number three. Oh, we also have Sharon and Brown.
That's our roll call item number three. Washington City's Insurance Authority
Training Council best practices. Karen Kpatrick, who do we have with us
tonight? I'm happy to introduce Ann Bennett who's with us tonight um from
WCIA and to provide us some great training. Um, some of you have attended
similar training in the past, but um, I believe you'll be giving us some
background on WCIA um, as well as uh, potential um, areas
of li liability exposure for council members um, and best practices to avoid
those. So, um, take it away. >> Well, thank you very much uh, for having
me. Uh, as Karen mentioned, I'm Anne Bennett. I'm the executive director of
WCIA. I just passed 30 years with WCIA. So, yeah, in July. So, I can't believe
it. I can't believe it went by that fast. So, uh this training I always
appreciate it when it's interactive. So, please feel free to ask questions. Um
and in fact, the last one I did, um I had council members kind of ch not I I
don't challenging is strong, but just saying, well, what what about this, what
about that? Those are great trainings. So feel free um happy to answer and
sometimes I may defer um to Karen uh if it's an issue that I'm going to say I'm
going to defer to your city attorney on that but um I am happy to report that uh
Tomwater has been a member of WCIA since 1985.
So uh we are a municipal risk sharing pool. So basically we were created in
1981 and it was when cities could not get insurance and so they nine cities
pulled together money and created us. We're actually a public entity. Um we're
overseen by um the state risk managers office and we act like insurance but
we're not an insurance company. Um, we have over now we're over 166 members,
$222 million in assets, and that is all public funds. We're actually audited by
the state auditor's office. Um, what are the advantages for being in WCIA? It is
a member-run organization. Every single member has a delegate and a
vote to our full board. Karen is the delegate for Tomwater. And um it all of
the decisions on what we do, how we do it is driven by the membership. So we
not only provide that kind of insurance like coverage, but we really our mission
is to assist members in loss prevention. Uh, Tumb Water has a fantastic loss
record and um, I always kind of check when I come out and you guys have done
very very well um, in controlling losses and you do use a lot of our programs.
You have stability in rates. Um, unlike your insurance carrier where you submit
an application, you're like, "Oh, I wonder why my rate went up." And they
say, "Oh, well, cost clients." Ours is completely transparent. It's done by an
outside actuary who looks at your losses and it's got basically an overall what
do we need in terms of covering costs. We're a nonprofit and then it's modified
by um your losses and then from that we use worker hours as an exposure. So it's
how many workers do you have and that's um the exposure base that's used. The
really good news is that all of the coverage decisions, they're made by me
and if you don't like my coverage decision, you can go to our board um and
appeal that. So again, unlike insurance where you're, you know, sending it off
and wondering what happened, my mission is to find coverage rather than um look
for reasons to deny you coverage. So, every single member um has an assigned
risk management rep and we come out and do all kinds of best practices, reviews,
um help with any questions that you guys have and we do extensive training
throughout. From the insurance standpoint, um we ensure your auto
liability, your employment liability, your law enforcement liability, as well
as your general liability. And that's the, you know, sidewalks, um, sewer
backups, water main bras, things like that. So, um, you have 20 million per
occurrence and we ensure the first 5 million per occurrence. So, we have
claims control the entire way. We use reinsurance up above that, and we have
control of the claims, that whole layer, which is very unusual. Most um, don't
have that type of, but we're uh, we work with our reinsurance partners and they
give us that. You also have additional um insurance coverage through us.
Property auto, boiler machinery, uh crime fidelity and cyber and pollution.
We also do that and we buy that from the internet.
So kind of want to give you a little bit of
update as to why it is so important uh that you control liability at your level
as well as throughout the city. So in the traditional insurance market, it's
cyclical. There's hard markets and soft markets. And it used to always go like
this um year-over-year. Oh, it's a hard market, you know, which means it's hard
to get coverage. The pricing's high or it's a soft market. Things got cheaper.
And that was usually driven by losses. So, Hurricane Sandy happened, hard
market, then thing, you know, they start making profit and then they can give
relief and it's a soft market. We have had a prolonged what's called a
prolonged hard market and public entities are specifically problematic um
to ensure. So for example our rates for reinsurance um for the last 10 years
went up 700%. 700. Now um WCIA's overall liability
increase for 2026 and now for 2027 is 3%. And that's the value of pooling is
that you're not feeling those shocks that others who are individually
insuring can get. I will say that we are paying more money for less coverage. We
used to self-insure the first four million. Now we have been pushed up to 5
million and they'd like to push us. When I say they, I'm talking our reinsurers.
They'd like us to take on more. So, um, property, the first party property
market is crazy soft. It's cheap. And so what we've been doing during this um
cycle is buying more earthquake coverage, more flood coverage. So we're
using the cheaper prices to increase the member's coverage.
So why is it important? Here's some headlines. And I will tell you these are
actually outdated. Um there's been even higher headlines on these dollar
amounts. And these used to be shocking, but I can tell you that they've only
gone up from there. Uh recently there was a $30 million verdict against the
city of Seattle on the CHOP uh case. I think you guys remember there is been
cases against the state in the hundreds of millions. Uh Cleellum actually that
22 million on breaching a development agreement. Um they're actually currently
going through bankruptcy. >> Yeah. At least didn't they? They're
going bankrupt. >> Yeah, they're going through bankruptcy
on that. Um so what's going on here and why is this happening? Um this is a
nationwide issue. Um there's a proliferation of what's called um
nuclear verdicts and that is any verdict over $10 million. And what's happening
is you know when you look at the states it was used to be a west coast problem.
It's moving across the nation. Per capita Washington is number three. And I
can tell you that Florida and Georgia have undergone massive tort reform. And
I know with you guys down here, you're very aware their tort reform discussions
going on. And we are actively involved. We're working with AWC, the Association
of Counties. I'm talking to representatives about, you know, this is
a problem for public entities and we need to come up with real solutions. And
so we're going to work on that um quite a bit this session. We've had some I I
would say productive discussions. Um the state is 1 billion with a B in debt in
their self- insurance fund um because of losses. So uh it is bad out there and
I'm glad that we're finally having some conversations about.
So the important thing is how can you as council members avoid um creating
liability for your organization? And what I'll tell you is here's some good
news. As a legislator, you receive an absolute immunity while you are
undertaking legislative actions. So when you're adopting budgets, ordinances,
um, resolutions, when you're a body as a whole, you as an individual have
absolute immunity. Now, we're going to in the future kind of talk about a few
areas where you can get sued individually for your actions, but in
general, when you're legislating, you have an absolute immunity. When I first
started at WCI, this didn't exist, and I used to get lawsuits all the time that
named council members um individually, and then a case came down and said, "No,
no, they're legislating. They should have absolute immunity." So, um, but
again, remember it's not acting as an individual outside the council as a
whole when you're legislating. >> I just have a question on that, right?
Because I'm no longer on council. Now I'm serving as mayor in the executive,
right? And I just got to go back to our most recent example. And then when
documentation was changed and my name was put on it to be sued about the Davis
sneaker Gary Oak Tree. So council wouldn't couldn't get sued, but the
mayor got sued. But if it was if the council had made a decision, then they
couldn't have gotten sued >> individually.
» Individually. But >> I think I think the litigation you're
referring to, you actually were sued in your official,
right? >> Um but but Right. And that's a good but
it's a good that while you're protected as an individual that doesn't mean if
the council took a you know knowingly took some sort of illegal action the
entity the city could make sense.
So here's an area uh where Tom has done a a great thing which we advocate for is
the use of hearing examiners. Um that actually means you have less issues with
the appearance of fairness doctrine which is the doctrine that says you must
be fair and impartial when hearing land use appeals. So that you know it has
been problematic in the past when councils have undertaken that. And
that's because you want to talk to your constituents, you want to get opinions,
and then that means um it's problematic for you to sit as a judge being fair and
impartial. So, it also eliminates all those arbitrary and capriccious um
allegations against your decisions as a council. So, um having a a hearing
examiner is a big big that doesn't mean that as a council you can't still create
liability for the city. And so I'm going to talk about two cases. Um the first
one, Westmark versus Berian, was one of ours. Uh the city of Birian incorporated
um back in 1993. And part of the reason they incorporated
is they didn't like the development that was going on under King County and
mostly they wanted more single family homes, less apartments. And this is a
long time and the land use laws have completely changed since this decision.
So it's, you know, this really a lot of this delay couldn't happen. But the the
this whole case was delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed on both sides. And what
happened is during that period where this project was being reviewed, the
council was constantly saying, "How can we stop this development? We don't like
apartments. This is why we incorporate. We don't want this. We don't like this."
And so as this case progressed, at one point there was a mediation and there
was a settlement and WCIA agreed to pay $200,000 and the city council was going
to approve this um development with, you know, certain caveats.
So what happened is that we went forward, settlement agreement signed,
everything's good to go. And then as the development started to move forward, the
council said, "Well, you know what? We didn't approve that in open session, so
we can take it back." And they did. And so they said, "We're not going to follow
through. It wasn't approved in open session. It's illegal. Therefore, uh,
sorry, we're not going to continue with this.
So, then they sued for, you know, breach of contract, trying to enforce it. Well,
actually, the council was right. There was no contract because it wasn't an
open session. So, then it was reopened and off to the races again. So, this
case ended up going to trial. And when it went to trial, the case that was
presented, while we were saying, well, you know, they there were environmental
impacts, they didn't do their part, they didn't, you know, uphold this or that
part of their end of the bargain. The entire time the jury heard that the
council didn't want it, here's what the council said. Here's what And so that
jury, and this is I mean in 2008, awarded $10 million
Yeah. And so that was a bit shocking. [laughter]
That was very shocking. So what happens when you get a verdict for $10 million?
You think I'm going to appeal it. I'm an appeal. That that's outrageous. Now, not
so much. But then this is outrageous. The court of appeals excoriated the city
and said there was a torchious interference. They interfered with this
business. It was intentional. They knew what they were doing and this developer
was wrong. And so they upheld the verdict and that's when we said we need
to start training on this because verts matter and they will be used against
you. And I so so as Ann's saying this, I'm just
thinking as an elected and on council, you serve
as a delegate and a trustee, right? On certain issues, you are representing a
voice and you're voting that way and other way otherwise you're they're
entrusting you to vote for the betterment of Tom Water, right? And so
when you're out and people are asking you and you are giving your personal
opinion, well, I don't like that. I don't want that in Tom Water. this is
why I'm concerned about that, right? Because you have your personal opinion,
but when you're serving on council, everyone's paying attention, right? So,
there's been some examples. I think you can all think of some current examples
where you might like it or not like it and how you've been framing that in the
community can put us at liability. And I think to add to that, you know, we
have very vocal communities that have strong opinions
at the end of the day, help me out if I'm wrong here, you know, council's job
isn't to like or not like a particular development. It's to determine does this
development meet the requirements of what's allowed in this space. And so we
just have to and the public usually doesn't understand that. They think that
council has a lot more control than you have. So there's a there's always a
communication and educational exercise that we need to do, but just being aware
of that we can, you know, your role isn't to like or not like, it's to
approve or not. >> I mean, I go back to council member
Kathy, right, to model how she puts everything back to our strategic goals
and priorities, the elements in the comprehensive plan. Everything that Joan
talks about and hears about, she frames it back to what we are unified in doing
it, right? So whether she likes something or not, Joan is always framing
it back to the urban forestry plan. That's why she's been so advocate like
so passionate about that because what we currently have is not where we're trying
to go. So she's been really pushing that so it aligns. So if we can circle back
to Joan Cathy, right, and model that of what you're saying to link it back to
the stuff that you all have been working on, then you're safer, right?
I see Joan shaking her head. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, another case uh is
a good example and I call this the listen to your city
um of Springs versus City of Spokane. Um, this involved a big development uh
that was going through the process was fully vested and the community was very
much against this project and was voicing that. The mayor uh then decided
that he would invite all of the people who were against the project to a
council meeting. Uh then said in open session, I want to know the status of
this project. Who's the development director? Development director said, uh
it is proceeding with grading permits. They will be breaking ground this week.
And the mayor said, um I do not want you to issue those grading permits. you need
to stop this development. So, for whatever reason, Karen I know would say,
"Hold on, we need to have an executive session. Let's go." And you, she would
go into executive session and she would explain the legal reasons why you don't
want to do that. For whatever reason, that escapes me. Nobody's ever explained
it to me. The city attorney went on the record and said, you know, Mr. Mayor,
you cannot do this. it is illegal for you to stop this. They're fully vested.
The, you know, they the time is over. You cannot stop this project. And the
mayor said, "I don't care. These people want this stopped. Stop the project.
Don't issue the permits." >> So, what do you think happened? Mission
Springs sued. >> Yeah.
» And they said, "Uh-uh, fully vested. You don't get to do this." And what happened
in the case is because it was on the record from the city attorney saying if
you do this you're >> the court found that the city the mayors
had violated both federal and state law by what they did and the delay. Now
because the decision came down as intentionally violated
there was no coverage. their insurance carrier said, "Uh, that was no accident.
You knew you were breaking the law." So, to this day, I don't know who paid for
it. I know there was big money and there was all kinds of other litigation after
the fact. Um, but that case is one that when you are given legal advice, you
want to listen to that legal advice. Um, and again, uh, know that, you know, your
city attorney says is going to say, "We need to go in executive session. We need
to discuss this so that you're aware of the risk that you're creating for this."
I don't know, Karen, did you ever find out who paid that? [laughter]
» I never to the day I don't know. >> Yeah.
» Yes. I'm guessing the cities themselves did. Um, I just want to mention a little
bit about development agreements. And this kind of comes on the heels of the
Cleellum um, arbitration decision. Development agreements are contracts.
And so contracts are not covered by insurance because it is a contract. And
if you breach a contract, it's not an accident. It's not looked upon under
tort law. It's looked upon um, under contract law. So I just there is nothing
wrong with development agreements. Um, but I just want you to be aware of that
there are times when you might have a long-term development agreement and you
know you should know that you are binding a future council to those
decisions and sometimes that can be um somewhat problematic but it is a
contract and if you are inheriting a development agreement um that is
something that you have already bargained for and so you don't you know
a prior council has already made that contract and breaching it comes with um
probably no coverage for me um as well as uh liability for the city. The other
thing I will say >> full disclosure, there's three
development agreements currently under discussion for consideration that coming
forward to council in the next time frame. So there's there's a series of
development that are current >> and they're a good way of you know
deciding the rules for both parties. So, I'm not anti them. It's just
[clears throat] more I want to explain to you that, you know, when you go that
route, um, >> your city attorney is a little more
skeptical, but yes. [laughter] >> So, um, I will say we there was one of
our members had a case where there was a development agreement that was in play
for a long time. All of their code changed and the current council was very
much against this development agreement. And so there was I think what the court
said you kind the city slow played working that and then oh it expired oh
now you got to use the new rules and the court said no not really yeah it expired
but you city delayed too much so that that was an interesting take and again
we weren't involved but I am aware of it that is it really an expiration date and
the court said you don't get to play gotcha um and ruled against uh the city
on that one. All right. Personnel. Um this is an area
where I say you want to make sure you're staying within your role as a council
member. Um you want to stay in your legislative role. It's adopting
policies. It's setting budget. You do not want to stray into the mayor's role.
Um that is discipline. hiring, firing. Anytime I have seen a council member
stray into that area, nothing good comes of it. Um, mainly because personnel law
is very complex. There are all kinds of laws to protect employees and you don't
want to get involved and have confusion with the employee andor the city itself.
So, what we always say is you want to leave all of that up to the mayor. If
you're aware of an issue, please report it to Paul and the mayor so that hey,
there's an issue going on. It's been brought to my attention and I've advised
the employee that I'm going to notify the mayor or Paul
» and can we Ann and Karen because we recently did a change regarding approval
of contracts, right? We added the police chief. Could you both talk about what is
when we say hiring firing, but then sometimes we're presenting a contract to
council. Sometimes there's confusion. So [clears throat] I believe what you're
referring to is that um under our city code, although the mayor makes an
appointment of the directors, there are some positions that require confirmation
by the council. And so those um those positions and and if we're approving a
director contract, at least in the past, um the contracts would come to council.
So um the uh finance director, the city administrator, the city attorney and the
police chief require confirmation by the council um for that appointment.
However, that firing decision would not require.
So, what I will also mention is we have a program, we call it our pre-defense
review that we offer legal advice because personnel is always changing and
very complex where our members can call and get a consultation with a personnel
attorney and we walk through the entire process and sometimes we're saying no,
you know, you can't or hey, how can we help you? Here's the next steps. Um, one
area where we're getting a lot of phone calls is harassment, discrimination. And
I really don't know what happened during the pandemic, but when people came back
to work, we don't know how to work well together. And it's very, very disturbing
to me how what I'm seeing um out there. I mean, it really is. And so, what I
will say is remember that you are all held to the city's harassment
discrimination policy. So, you should know what that is. Um, I personally I
look at it as you don't have to know all of the intricacies of the law. Treat
people how you would want to be treated. And I think the better is treat people
how they want to be treated. And you probably aren't going to get yourself
into trouble. But I think everyone knows what's appropriate and what's not. And
that's what's shocking me here is I think this is knowing behavior and and a
yeah, that's for other people, not me. And so we are getting a lot of
complaints. This is an area where you can be sued individually if you are
choosing to harass an employee. And you know it it doesn't matter whether it's
within your role as a council person. You can be sued individually for
harassing or discriminating against an employee.
» And we have Peter, you have your hand up. [clears throat]
» Yes. I I think municipal code need to be set aside from executive rule.
Uh oh, I'm sorry. Isn't that legislative? I
got you daydreaming. Don't mind me.
» Hate to hear your voice, Peter. [laughter]
» Carry on. >> Thank you, Peter.
Um, anything else from council? Eileen. Well, the harassment piece of it. Yeah.
It's just like all not so much like not this but um directed at elected
officials and their staff and stuff and so you know like Lieutenant Governor
Tech has a whole thing about stability this whole program now and stuff like
that because starting yeah with COVID and and you
know when just use whatever language you want and we and I used to work at the
legislature and we became Yeah. just targets and the filth and the stuff that
people would send to us and the stuff that was on the phone and everything.
It's just so how do we get protected? Well, I mean
unfortunately and I what I'm talking about in liability is what we call I
mean there is harassment and then there's illegal harassment and it's
defined and unfortunately um you know a lot of what's going on
against you is probably not illegal from a liability standpoint. Um, what I will
say is there are areas where, and we're going to get into this a little bit
later, but there are areas where, you know, a staff person probably has some
rights depending on how things are phrased with them. So, if it's um,
I don't I don't like the job she's doing because she's a woman and she's too
emotional, that's illegal and that's not okay. So there's a little bit of nuance
there for, you know, and as an employee, we're protected, um, from that. So, um,
but unfortunately, um, this is an area which I agree with you, it's gotten out
of control on elected officials. Um, and I I don't have an easy answer for you. I
really don't. Um, I think the civility initiatives that are going on are are
great, and I'm hoping those continue. I really do. Um again, this area also has
come up in um elections where there was a a mayor who was touching female
employees inappropriately. And so the idea was that at that point the city
manager said, I'm, you know, I am restricting you from any part of city
hall. You cannot interact with my staff. We're going to send you through some
training. And that happened and then elections came and guess who campaigned
against them? The women who had been touched and they had signs, they went to
the, you know, the meetings and said, "I this is not okay." And so again, I mean,
he should have known that. Um, but be aware it has long-term ramifications for
you as well. Uh, negligent misrepresentation. This is
we'll kind of go through an example here, but this is where we ask that you
don't make specific promises and assurances to people and that's because
of this thing called negligent misrepresentation.
So what this I'll give you an example first and we'll kind of walk through it.
So back many years ago, one of our cities has a downtown that has cute, you
know, it's all cedar shingles. And so this town's code said if you take down
cedar shingle, you have to put up cedar shingle on your business. So a business
owner went into city hall, met with the mayor, and said, "Look, I can't afford
that. I'm going to have to shut down unless you waste that." And the mayor
said, "Well, you know what? We love your business. I'll go ahead and wave that.
Well, unfortunately, he never told the code enforcement officer that he was
waving it, and he didn't have the authority to wave it. It's code. And so,
this business owner tore down all of their shingle and put up um other
sighting. And so, what happened was he filed a claim for negligent
misrepresentation. There was a specific promise. There was an assurance that you
could do it. And he relied on it and it damaged him. And so we WCIA paid for the
replacement of, you know, taking down all of the stuff he had put up and the
cost of that. So that's negligent misrepresentation. If you make a promise
and somebody relies on it and they're damaged because of it and you were
wrong, we that could create liability. So what I always say is refer questions
to staff. These are your experts. Staff are the experts here. You can always
say, "I don't know, but I know where you can get the answer. It's here." So,
again, um you also don't want to take matters into your own hands. I've had
situations back in the day with like a sewer backup where I mean, trust me,
it's a horrible thing that when it happens, and I've had council members
say, "Don't worry, we will take care of everything. Just make a list. We'll pay
for it all." And that sounds really nice until you realize that it was caused by
a contractor putting concrete down the manhole and they're responsible, but the
citizen said,"I was told that you would take care of it all."
» Y >> and I relied on that and I hired all
these people and now I've got to fight with a contractor. Not okay.
» So again, um I always say I don't know, but I know where I can get you an answer
and that's the safest thing to do. Defamation. And this is an area um that
if you are legislating and you are having a healthy debate, that's what
you're here for. You are here to have debate. But you need to be careful when
you're speaking about individuals that can give rise to liability if there
is any untruth. So there are times when you can talk about public officials. Um
there's kind of a higher bar if you're a public official and this kind of gets to
what we're talking about is there is no defamation when you're talking about
highlevel public officials. So even I would probably be considered a highle
public official as an executive director but it's still not a good practice and
especially staff or any other private individual that could give rise to
liability. So, what I would say is that again, um, most of the time, especially
if you have an issue where, um, you're going to talk about performance of an
employee, you want to do that in executive session. That's what it's
there for. So, um, often this will come up with contracts for, you know, the
city administrator is a good one where you're going to have those conversations
in executive session so that you don't create um, an avenue for defamation. And
the one lawsuit I had um from that was actually a city administrator and a
council member continuously called that person a liar and said, "They lie. I
challenge you. You're lying. You're not telling the truth." And did it
repeatedly. The city um administrator left employment. And then the council
member took it upon themselves to contact the new employer and say, "I
can't believe you hired this person. They're a liar. They will lie to your
face. they will misrepresent. they will. And so what happened is there was a
lawsuit that said this whole time I, you know, yes, as a high-end city official,
yes, I am protected under that idea that they can say these things. However, it
went next level after I left. And WCIA said, "That's not in the course and
scope of your duties as a council member." And that council member had no
coverage through us because we said, "You went too far." and that was with
the city agreed um and said no we we shouldn't have to defend that. That was
100% him as an individual, not as a council member. And so that's where um
the lawsuit gave rise to liability. So again, treat others as you'd like to be
treated. Would you like those kind of things um being said about you in a
public meeting? Probably not. Yeah, it's one of the reasons our
council rules um for public comment say to speak to the council as a whole and
not individually. And the same goes with council um during debate um speak to the
issues. Um it doesn't have to be personal and individual's needs.
And I will say a lot of times when I do this training, people will say, "But
what about campaigns?" Believe it or not, there is a decision, a court
decision that says you can defame your um opponent and not it's not illegal for
you to defame someone when you're um >> but it would be illegal to do it in city
hall in these chambers. So, >> right. [laughter]
But I remember like what where are we at that we have a court decision that says
you can defame your opponent? I mean again I'll I'll stop. [laughter]
So the next area I want to talk to you about um and this is kind of becoming a
hot topic um and what we're advocating for with the legislature. So I have this
term here politically political engineering but I want to walk you
through why this is so important. So in the state of Washington we have
something called joint and several liability and this is what we're asking
to reform. So joint and several liability says if two parties are sued
and the plaintiff is fault-free, if there is at least 1% of fault
attributed to a party, they are responsible for the entire amount of
damages awarded. So for example, you could have a case where the city is
maybe 10% at fault and another party is 90% at fault. the plaintiffs can collect
the entire amount from the city even though they're only 10% at fault. So
what this has led to um is what is called deep pocket liability. And so
what we have seen is often this is used in road design cases. And so you have a
horrific injury and the at fault party doesn't have insurance or not enough
insurance. they will then look to another party, a deep pocket to see if
they can get at least 1% of liability assigned to that um entity so that they
can collect the entire amount. So um this means a lot of these cases um get
brought frequently because there's not enough insurance to cover the injuries.
So these become engineering what we call engineering malpractice cases. And it's
extremely important that when you're defending the decision of a crosswalk,
of a road, of any type of traffic treatment that it be done with engineers
using engineering guidance and because you're going to have to be able to say
this decision was because of XYZ and this is the engineering behind it.
When in the past we would find what we call political engineering where council
will say, "I really want a crosswalk here." People are are jaywalking. We
need a crosswalk. Well, that can be a very dangerous proposition. They're not
force fields. They need to be engineered. And you know, a midblock
crosswalk is one of the most dangerous things you can install. Um, and so they
have to be engineered and there needs to be appropriate treatments for signage.
Sometimes you need lights, sometimes you need, you know, full stopping. So that's
why you want to make sure that you are following your traffic engineering um,
advice and that they are making that decision.
» So bringing this up, we are getting a lot of these concerns, right? And so
when I have been going out, I take Brandon Hicks comes out. And so we have
those black boxes. So when we hear a concern, we also have our traffic team
that you can send constituents to, right? It's a whole team with multiple
departments that research. They go out, they track the data, at least like
10,000 trips, right? And they figure all of that out and they'll explain all that
stuff. So that's why anything that comes in, we have the traffic team, traffic
team, traffic team, traffic team, right? But your job as an ambassador is
to hear all that and then connect them >> to the right piece and then let them do
their thing >> and and you know that's exactly let
staff respond to these complaints. >> That's why we hired them.
» Yep. And and you want to avoid inflammatory types of statements. Um I
was at a council meeting many years ago and I heard on the record how many
people have to die before we put a crosswalk in.
» Yeah. [laughter] And so, you know, especially from the council, you don't
want to have those statements. I will also say sometimes you will have a
horrific accident occur in your city and you want to resist um the temptation to
immediately address andor fix that problem. It is horrific. It's horrible.
But you can really create liability. We've had situations where um you know,
the driver said, "I just never saw the kid in the crosswalk. The sunlight was
in my eyes." But afterwards the council said, "Oh, that was an accident waiting
to happen. There was speeding all down that road. I knew someday somebody would
be killed. They were called by the plaintiffs as a witness at trial."
» That is an example we have experienced with a couple incidents blaming it on
one thing and then that's why we have Dr. Bowers and police who researched it
and it was not what the stereotype was. It was this anomaly and something else
happened that had nothing to do. Right. So, we have two recent examples of that
where it wasn't speed data, it wasn't because of location, it was because of
some other factor. >> And so, just keep that in mind um as
these come up. Um it sounds like you've got a great um you know, way to address
all of this. So, that, you know, isn't always the case. So, I very much
appreciate that that you guys are doing that ahead of time. Any questions on
that one? and watch the legislative tour committee for um joint and several
liability. We're asking them um for we have several asked for it. So, we're
we're trying to get that one through. I don't think it'll happen this year, but
we'll keep having the conversation. >> Put it on our lobbyist list track for
council. >> Yeah.
» Was legislation in the past, right? Last session, right?
» They they were trying, but it didn't get very far. and and so AWC, myself, the
association of counties, we're all kind of trying to um bring this forward and
we have a whole bunch of apps that could help solve this problem. So, this has
always been a discussion. It really has not gained traction, but we're going to
keep trying. So, we'll see. We'll see what happens.
Uh this is an area where I'm going to ask you to resist the temptation to
share. Please do not leak executive session information. Executive session
um exists for a reason because you're having conversations that if they were
out in the public, it would be a detriment to the city. So, I always
equate it to you're buying a house. You know, you're buying a house and you want
to talk to your significant other about what's our top dollar, where do we want
to go, what's our maximum, what are we thinking, and you're having those
discussions, you know, on your home in the privacy of whatever conversation
you're having. If you had that in the public domain, what is the seller going
to do? I'll take your top number. And this has happened. Um, I had a case
where I went into a mediation and I, you know, mediations are, you know, you're
you're making offers, you're receiving offers. And finally, at one point I
said, "Well, that's my top dollar. Um, that's where I'm at." And it was where I
was at for that day. And the media came back and said, "You know what? They know
what authority you have because the council asked and the city attorney said
she got authority up to this amount." Now, that doesn't mean just because I
have the authority doesn't mean that's my dollar. I I was just I had authority
to go that high, but I wasn't going to do that.
» And I was stunned because now they'll never accept anything less than that
number. >> So, we then said to that council, we're
done. We are not going to communicate what's going on in cases. We're not
going to give statuses because we can't trust that that won't be legal.
» That's right. So, just know that is our penalty when we know that there's leaks.
Um, I've had situations where my whole defense plan somehow ended up on the
front page of a newspaper and I know that came from a council member and I
again, um, if you are in executive session and you're given material,
always give it back. Um there was a case that um one of our attorneys handed out
some information during executive session giving out legal advice and
somehow missed one of the pieces of paper. They came out. They all were on
the dis and one of the council members got up and walked over to the attorney
for the citizens group and said here you go. And I have never seen a city
attorney move so fast in my life. um just leapt across the room, started, you
know, this is you, you know, we did not wave privilege. And they're kind of
arguing over this piece of paper and she quickly turned to every council member
said, "Did you wave privilege? Did you wave privilege? Did you wave privilege?"
Because the you can't wave privilege individually. It's the council as a
whole has that attorney client privilege and luckily was able to get that handled
immediately and said, you know, that is a privilege document. Nobody here waved
privilege. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. Don't do that. And then what ended up happening is the
council sanctioned that council member um for doing that. And so again um it is
possible that you could have sanctions and it happened in that area. So just be
aware. Uh as always be mindful of your written
communications. Um you want to make sure you're using the city email. That is for
public records. It must be retained. The city needs to be able to produce any of
the emails you have written on behalf of the city when you're, you know, working
on in your role as a council member. So, you want to make sure you're using your
city email address, not your personal address. It is um discoverable in
litigation. So, think about I mean, once again, words matter. So, think about if
that email was produced, what what would you how would you feel about that being
on the front page of the newspaper? That's the best
» we just updated your council rules, right? When you know Peter had asked
great questions at times, what if it's in a timely manner, right? When Tracy
and Melody are reaching out to you and Britney,
» do you have anything on your personal device? Do you have anything on your
city like email, phone, all that? So, when they're asking, it's because
they're really asking. So, we had talked about what's a timely manner to respond
back because you don't know behind the scenes of who's requesting what. So, you
have to make sure that you have the capacity to give everything that you
have. Peter, I see Peter, you were unmuted now.
» No, I was just shaking my head. Yes, >> I'll take it, Peter. I'll take it. But
that's why we want to make sure that we connect with you and you right. That's
why we have your text messages, your city cell phones, that's why you have
those because then staff can pull that. They can pull your emails, but if you're
doing something on your personal email or your personal phone or your social
media, you have to share that as well if it's related to that topic. That's why
we want you to keep everything separate. That's why I have three phones.
Everything is separate. I do the same. [laughter]
I have two phones. They're all separate. I don't do any of my WCI business on my
personal computer or my personal phone. >> Then you don't have to worry about it.
and then I know there's nothing there and it's all being housed within our
servers for my public records officer to search. Um, also I just a brief thing on
social media remember is it a um personal account, is it a city account
or is it an election account? And I will tell you AWC does a fantastic training
on social media. So, um, if you can, you want to do that training. Um, my
involvement in this is really more on the first amendment side of things. So,
um, if you want detail, definitely go through AWC on that. Um, the real
question is if you have a city email account, you can do something which is
called opening a public forum. So, a public forum is where you have
discussions back and forth with the public. And when you open a public forum
with the exception of certain areas, you cannot block or stop that dialogue. So
you have to be very careful. I mean there has to be certain exceptions met.
And so we had a case where a mayor opened a public forum. And sorry these
are all mayor. That's not I'm not I'm not disar not disparaging mayors here.
But he had his personal account. He started talking city business and was
like throwing out how do you feel about that constituents? What are you
thinking? >> On a personal page.
» On a personal page. And so this then became because he was asking city
questions, city business. It became a city page for purposes of opening up a
public forum. And then someone started posting on it and saying and and this
person was a member of a hate group and a lot of what was posted was not very
nice and he blocked that person. That person immediately filed a first
amendment lawsuit said you opened a public forum. You don't get to shut me
down because you don't like what I'm saying. And guess what? They were right
and we had to pay him. So just be aware of that aspect. That's the only aspect
I'm kind of addressing here is that first amendment often and I don't know
if you guys do cities do have um social media policies
» and then just the mayor has a social >> and then every all the council member
would potentially have a campaign page. >> Yeah. And those are totally separate,
» right? >> So there is a there was a decision that
came down on that that said and so there are some decisions out there that talk
about how you're using it. Um but I think that's
» council's been going back and forth if they want a page or not. So far no one
has one. >> Yeah. Our our city um sites have a very
robust um policies. What >> I said dialogue [laughter]
at that >> and and they're monitored.
» So that's really important. and then you know your your campaign
» what are on your own. So it's that middle ground. Um I think where where
there's most exposure >> if you do want one, right? I just had to
do it for the mayor's page. You have to get act staff has access. You have to
vault it, right? Because it's open to public information and PDRs, right? And
then they go in and answer questions and stuff like that. So they have full
access to it because it's all public information. So if you do want that,
you're going to have to go through the city to do that to have a monitor and
everything is vaulted and captured and then you can't block anything.
» Well, that's not I'm not blocking.
» It needs to be pertinent to the topic that was introduced on the
» Yes. the discussion. I have a question about email and um is
just like like a a social norm like we don't respond typically to constituents
but I don't know if that's something that we've accepted as a whole or if
that's part of council rules or >> you can reply
» we can I didn't I didn't know >> my name is Lea you can reply
» I do reply >> I feel uncomfortable I mean it depends
on the topic >> and and that's I mean I think that's the
I think that kind of opens up. I mean, other than Yeah. Have a great day. And I
mean, I used to respond. >> We're not having you answer, but you can
reply back and say, "Got it. I forward it to staff. We'll circle back."
» Yeah. Because >> Okay. But I just Okay.
» Yeah. I'm not having you I don't want you to answer the question.
» I'm just thinking about like and not our council, but like other councils.
» We're not worried about other council. >> I'm just throwing it out there as a
saying that if there's anything as far as um our liability when we're
responding. >> Yeah. That's why you always forward them
to staff because you don't want to answer an engineering question because
you're not an engineer but you're >> represent come in and I will then reply
and go got it council has it forward it to applicable staff they'll
» yeah but one particular from
» when do you serve on a I'm thinking oh so anyway
» well give an example what that name means because we're talking about
liability here >> so um as far as they serve on, you know,
as a council member and then you serve on a committee and then going that far
to even responding to constituents as a committee member. I don't I mean I just
kind of feel like >> you're getting Yeah, really getting
before you do that, you want to talk >> when you're serving representing the
city on another committee. >> Yeah.
» I think that the response is the same. there's staff assigned those committees
and so that you can still refer people to staff um if you're not comfortable
with >> well it's like other than letting the
executive director as that was their task to answer the question probably
» yeah they took the lead to do that >> absolutely staff in my experience staff
is always happy to answer those questions
» yeah I think I see what you're I thought you
were more >> I thought you were more asking for when
the constituents outreach you to meet and I know I get a lot of questions
about can I meet with these folks. >> I mean just got that request right and
she checked in right so yeah. Yeah. And I think a couple things like if you're
on an intergovernmental group for another governmental agency, I
think you can work with their staff and you can also supplement that with our
staff from Twater too. >> If you're not satisfied with their staff
and their staff's response. I think the other thing too is if a message comes in
to the full council, >> I'll ask staff to share that to share
their response. You know, they'll respond to it and then I'll say make
sure you share that with council. Yeah. And I always try to add the caveat like
if you need additional followup or have additional questions or if the you know
if that didn't fully if you didn't feel like there the staff response fully hit
the mark then that then always reach follow back up with us so that we can
then correct that message. I I think something that Eileen's referring to is
we are on outside committees and sometimes I think that electeds forget
that when they're on these outside boards or committees, they're not
representing themselves as these are my beliefs and these are my wants and my
needs. I'm representing all of council. And I think that that
does become problematic. >> But yeah.
» Yeah. And that's it. It's just like it hasn't happened before, but it's
starting to etch up a little. And what was the norm that we didn't, you know,
we don't respond, you know, that count that you took care of it. Like you see
that starting to >> we have that we don't do that.
» We're seeing other juris right because that came back because Peter on one of
his assignments came back and said, "Yeah, another jurisdiction saying that
they can't represent and they can't vote." Right. We all had the discussion
is no like you're voting representing the city and we're giving you like we're
entrusting you to represent the city and vote right so but if you do have a
question but that's why you come back and give your council assignments right
we entrust Peter on his committee to vote for us there not like hold anything
up and come back right but that's why you have the staff assigned you have
your assignments it's a good example >> it is
so with that >> I'm done you guys were fantastic. Do you
have any other questions for me? I'm happy to answer.
» Angela, Peter, any comments thoughts what you heard tonight? Anything come up
for you? >> No.
Good presentation. >> Good presentation.
» Good. Angela, >> yes, it was very good. I always um
think twice after briefings like this. Thank [clears throat] you.
» Joan's going to give a thumbs up. >> Thank you,
» Megan, Kelly, Eileen, Brandon. And she's always available. So, if you
have questions and Yeah. And thank you so much for being a member of WCIA. We
really appreciate it. >> Thank you.
» Thank you very much.
H how how is that going to go after that?
» [laughter]
» Community develop 2026 work plan status update chair and Brad
they're going to start with music now >> acappella [laughter]
» we have a consultant that we're gonna invite in virtually
» he's a panelist status what are we doing first
» it's
We don't apologize. Thanks for joining the table.
[clears throat]
» And Sharon, who do we have on? >> Well, we we have Eric Bagwell, but I was
told >> we're doing the work first. So, Eric
will join us for the next >> Yeah,
» Eric, we will say hi to you now. We will wait until the next item.
» No problem. [laughter]
» So, Community Development has a council approved work plan and we'll be coming
to you in December for a joint planning commission council work session to
develop the 2027 work plan. We came to you last December. Um, and I wanted to
come to you at the midpoint of the year just to tell you how we're progressing,
what's on track, what's slower, what's taking longer. Um, so just to check in
with you and I'm just going to go line by line what this is kind of the layout
of the work plan if you remember what that was. Um,
I did not.
» Okay. So we have um the city under the growth management act we are allowed to
update the comprehensive plan once per year and we had four comp plan related
elements. Um in 2025 we updated most of the comp plan but we had two elements
that weren't part of that 2021 update. One was the parks plan and one was the
economic development plan. Parks plan was on this year's work plan but it is
going to be delayed. Um I believe they're applying for a grant application
to get a consultant. So they are scheduled for adoption in December 2027.
So that's not part of this year's work fund. Um economic development plan is
proceeding and we hope to have that to you mid December for council adoption or
economic plan. And then we have a joint plan with Hston County. Um they're
leading on that and they haven't gotten going. So not
well that will probably carry over 20% as well. There had been a UG swap
application. uh the applicant withdrew and then let you speak to the urban
growth area study 2027. >> So related to the urban growth swap
application uh that prompted on the dire on the city's part to look at the whole
beach uh we have a number of reasons to look at what could be expanded or
retracted but we think it would be more appropriate to do that on a citywide
level. We're preparing an RFP uh to issue this fall and then we're going to
be commencing work on that in next year. Uh from that study, we anticipate we'll
have some changes to UVA that will need to be on the county docket to address.
Uh but we'll involve that point.
» There we go. It didn't work. Okay. Next items have to do with the development
regulations or the code. So we had a state mandated um code update for
housing codes and we had anticipated we have an anticipated adoption date in
January. Um the transportation impact fee is coming to you in um January as
well. Uh we had a housekeeping ordinance that you adopted in April. Remember what
was in there? I don't remember in that anyway it was minor housekeeping things
that you've already approved. Um the multif family tax exemption um code
expires in December 2026. Eric Bagwell is our consultant evaluating that
program. He's going to speak to that in a moment. What we're bringing to you um
for approval is just to extend that program by one year to give him time to
do his study because you won't have his final results until early next year. And
then you'll be able to make another round of code amendments to adapt the
program. But for now, we're just going to move the deadline so it doesn't
completely expire. just giving us another year to get the results of that.
Uh thirst county code, they have a code title 22 that pertains to all of the
area in the um urban growth area, but this is the area parts of the land that
city will eventually annex. Um they are going to update their title 22. We're
going to have an opportunity to review it. Basically adopting all of our zones
and regulations, but we haven't seen that yet. It's led by them. So there's
been a delay there. Then most of you joined us on the urban forestry
management bus tour to see the sites. We are working very hard to um bring you
some code early part of next year, but it's taking longer than we had
anticipated may go longer than our anticipated date of February.
» Uh John has her hand up. >> Yes, John. There you are. Hello.
» Can you do it again? I have a question on the um last one, the um
» anticipated uh uh thing in February. Um will this urban forestry management plan
amendments have anything to do with changing our
tree ordinance? Is that still part of >> of of doing?
» Yes, it's a landscape code. the tree preservation and the street tree code.
» So,
I I' I've kind of lost where the the um the tree code is, the one for anyone who
does any kind of developing or scraping the trees off the earth and how many and
what it costs and all of that. We've had this tree code that's quite old or
barelyed along the way. And I'm wondering is that is that included in
this or is this a se or is it a separate >> it is it is included in the tree
preservation code. So this project was paused in 2023 and we've resumed it this
year >> which
» this leads into Joe. I've reviewed the three version I mean I reviewed the
three different entities and I was just asking um I submitted my comments but I
think council needs to see it. >> Yeah. So Joan just as a quick update of
of why we're still in progress working through this. Number one, it's been a
threeyear gap since we did the original work. There's been a change in
administration. There's been new staff coming on uh to replace me. And I think
to be honest, there's a better direction going forward. And I want to pursue what
is being done to make sure that we get the best code possible. And so that's
why the work is still underway. U we'll be providing updates as we move forward,
but all the things that we've been talking about, all the concerns that
were raised earlier are still valid and are still being considered as we're
looking through this. We also have a climate element that we didn't have in
2023 and so we're trying to align it with that as well as water conservation
goals. So we have a lot more to do than just pick it up and adopt it and so it's
it's more than we anticipated and it's going to take a little time.
» It's really really good. I mean a lot of the stuff all your stuff is incorporated
some element the the gist of my edits were like placement move the natural
stuff up move the stuff up and highlight it. It's really, really, really good.
And I do think it's time to share some version iteration with because it's
going to take them time as well. >> Yeah. As soon as we have a draft, we
will. >> Right.
» Very good. Well, I'm glad that >> I'm glad what Brad said. It we're the
only two that have stuck around so long that we know what it used to be.
» [laughter] >> Oh,
» I think also the very important thing is
we've got some really good concepts, we've got good ideas, but it's also
making sure that uh anybody understands when they look at the code what they
need to do and all those kinds of things. And that's where we're really
putting in a lot of effort. So, I'm I'm hopeful we'll get a good product out of
this better than the thousand words that I usually produce to get one.
» Yeah. >> We also made a decision this year to
move to a repeal and replace instead of just going in surgically because what
you saw was the surgical and there were a lot of issues there. It wasn't clear
what the applicants were supposed to submit. It wasn't clear what the
planner's objective criteria were and so we need to go through. So, we've changed
direction and so it's going to take a little more time to get what you want.
So, we're getting there. Yeah, it's really really good council. Like really
» thanks for your patience. >> We've been working a long time.
So I'm >> Yeah,
» I'm glad that >> I'm glad to
» Thank you. >> Okay. Um
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, council member.
» Okay. Um these are additional regulations that weren't in our work
plan, but we needed to attend to, and you've already approved two of them. One
was a building demolition code update and one was a parking lot lighting code
update along the I5 corridor. And then we came to you earlier this year and you
gave us approval to pursue um getting code in front of you for the battery
energy storage system. And we've been a little bit delayed getting that started
because of our other projects, but that's slated for spring. We'll be on
our work plan in 2027. And these other planning projects that
aren't related to comp plan and code, um we've had two annexations. one that you
approved in March for 93rd Avenue and Case Road and one that's coming to you
in October for Black Lake Belmore and then do you want to speak to the
brewery redevelopment plan? >> Yeah, so that process is now restarting.
We now have a consultant that's going to be helping us with that
restarted the project. So that will be also something that we'll be working on
as part of the community development uh department in coordination with the
other departments and executives. So >> the other line item is comprehensive
plan monitoring and scoping. This is related to our uh replacement of the
permit database. Right? Is that right?
» Yeah. So we're replacing our whole permit system uh and replacing with a
brand new one. One very important component of that is a reporting and
monitoring for all of our comprehensive plan things. We want to be have an
ability to say, "Yeah, we're actually doing what we said we wanted to do." Uh
so that's what we're discussing there. Our system is just reaching end of life
and so we aren't
My text. My text. I can't hear you.
Hello. Hello.
I can hear you. Angela stand. We I can't hear the city uh meeting
though. Okay.
I didn't have any Greg.
» Council members, I'm checking in with IT staff, so hold on. I'm not quite sure
what's happening. Technical difficulties.
» Thank you.
If you all can hear me still, Lance is looking into it. Sounds like it might
just be a few members. He'll get back to us with the recommendation.
Okay, if you can still hear me, Lance is recommending we just reconnect,
disconnect, and re and relo. Oh yeah.
I'm back.
Council
member Kathy, I can hear you. I don't know if the room can hear us though.
I'm not seeing any nodding heads or shaking heads.
I'll check back in with plants. >> Right.
you recommending Ann coming to do that training. We all really really like her.
Yeah, >> I said it was a trigger for me when you
were like,
» "Oh, >> we're live."
» You do that every time. Okay. So, thank you, Peter. Thank you, Angela. Eric, I'm
still not going to talk to you until your agenda items up. We're looking for
Joan. You want to come with us?
» I just got to go to bed.
» Peter, we're right there with you. >> Peter's like horizontal. We're almost
done. Council, we're almost done. Sharon, bring us home.
» All right, we're almost there. Uh, okay.
» Page seven. Okay, we're almost there. I think this is the last the last page.
Um, other planning project. We talked about the permit system transition.
We're supporting that with a halftime employee public engagement. We are using
social media campaigns for urban forestry and housing. Um, and we are
bringing up one of the below the line um projects which is like project that we
didn't weren't sure we could get to, but we are. It's the citywide design
guidelines that's coming to you together. So, you're going to get a lot
in the fall. >> Um, and engaged.
» Yeah. And so we're doing that with a very small team. Most things are on
track, but some things are taking longer than anticipated. And um there you have
it. >> That's why staff come to you to share to
tell you where they're at. Right. >> So this is a great update.
» Right. And so let's segue into the next.
» Now we can all acknowledge Eric and say hi.
» Hi Eric. >> Hi Eric.
» Good evening. Thank you for having me here.
Shall I share my screen or uh Sharon or um do you break the internet? Share it.
» Why don't you share it, Eric? And then you can um
» let's see if that crashes anything. Let's do it.
» If not, we can do it. Yeah. >> So, we're on to multifamily tax
exemption program evaluation in your pack.
» Correct. >> Preliminary findings.
» Let me put this into the full screen. Can everybody see my
screen? It looks like it's loading. >> Yes.
» How's that look? >> There you go. Perfect.
» All right. Well, thank you again for having me. It's an honor to be here and
it's been a privilege to work with Sharon and Brad on this project so far.
So, uh, thank you again. So, the top of the conversation is again, uh, the
multif family tax exemption program that the city of Tumbwater has currently on
the books. what we've been doing is doing an evaluation of how effective it
has been so far. Um, and so I guess the short answer is, and I'll get into the
data and analysis here in a second, and the short answer is it really depends on
what you're trying to achieve with the program. So the next slide is this just
gives you an overview of the districts where the multif family tax exemption
currently uh is allowed to work and can be given to projects that are in these
areas. So, we have the Little Rock Road sub area, we have the Tumbl Water Town
Center, we have the Capitol Boulevard corridor, and we have the Brewery
District. Those are the four main areas. Um, now the the 8-year program that
currently exists doesn't work in all of these uh geographic areas, but the
12-year does. The 12-year can apply to all four of these districts.
Um, this gives you a snapshot of where the most recent multif family
development has been in the city. Um, so this is looking at both MFTTE projects.
Sorry, John. Yes. >> Um,
could you say why the 8-year doesn't work.
» Um, I didn't say why. I'm not I haven't said why it doesn't work.
» Okay.
district. >> What's that?
» Uh I think Eric Eric meant that the 8-year only applies in two districts,
the the Bury District and the Capitol corridor.
» Correct. >> It doesn't apply or it isn't an option
available in the other two. >> Exactly.
» I think it was a word choice. >> Yep. My apologies.
» Thank you. >> Yeah.
Uh so here again is a map of the again the blue areas are the districts where
MFTTE currently applies and then we're looking at MFTTE multif family tax
exemption projects versus developments multif family housing developments that
have been built since 2017 in the city that did not take advantage or did not
receive a multif family tax exemption. Um so as you can see here a lot of this
development has been happening over here which was on remind me what Little Rock
Road sub area. So the majority of MFTTE projects so far to date have been
concentrated in the Little Rock Road sub area um with some smatterings in up up
north in the Brewery District um and a little bit in um uh the Capitol
Boulevard corridor. There has been no uh development in the um Twater Town Center
to date that received a multif family tax exemption. Um the green dots again
are the non multif family tax exemption projects. So projects mult normal multif
family developments that have popped up in the city since 2017. And you can see
they're a bit concentrated up into the northwest, a little bit in in the C
broad Capitol Boulevard corridor area, and a little bit near uh the Little Rock
Road sub area, but not directly in it.
In terms of unit production, again, it's mostly been concentrated again in the
Little Rock Road sub area. So, this is just a snapshot of the units. So up top
you'll see the 8 and 12 year options in the brewy district and the capital
corridor and these are the total number of units and the total number of
projects that have been developed using multif family tax exemption in in those
two districts. And then the 12-year option only with a 20% affordable set
aside. So 20% of the units must be deed restricted affordable. um in the Little
Rock Road sub area have been there's been three projects and about 562 units
to date. Um some of those are market rate units again and uh again 20% of
those are have been deeed restricted as affordable.
So this here is just a a general overview of how affordable housing
typically works. I thought it'd be helpful to sort of just
give the give the council a little bit of a refresher on how um affordable
housing typically works. So, Thirstston County area median income is set by the
US Department of uh housing and urban development. Currently, it is at
$122,800 per year in income for a fourperson
household. Now, HUD then breaks that down based on household size and unit
type. So you can see in this top um table that we have the the percent of
the area median income. So 100% would be 100% of the area median income and going
down to 30%. And then you can see depending on the household size, so one
person, two person, three person, four person, etc. And the unit type, a studio
one, two, threebedroom unit, you're going to get different amounts um of
area income that qualify for those units. And then going from
there, how we determine affordable rents, we take uh a 30% of that income
which is considered affordable by the US Department of Housing Preser Housing and
Urban Development um and divide that by 12 and that gives you the monthly rent
for that unit type and that household size. So as you can see here, you have a
one person household in a studio at at 100% AMI. The most they could pay in
rent would be $2,150 per month, for example. That's the most
they could pay.
» Next slide. Now, here is some data analysis we did.
This we this we looked at market rents currently.
» Can you >> Yeah, can we hold on one second?
Brandon, >> can you go back to that?
» Yeah. because the maximum you're saying that they
they can pay up to $2,150 a month for one person for this.
» Yes. If they are if the unit is deed restricted to 100% of the area median
income. So, for example, in the MFTTE program, now your current eight um your
current 12-year program requires between 80% and 115% of the area immediate
income in terms of rent. So, the rent could be as low as 7, for example, for
one person's studio. It could be as low as 1720 a month or could be even above
that 2,150 a month if they can if the market can support that, of course.
Yes, Jim. >> Is there is there anybody anywhere
um in these local cities or county or the
whole country? Anybody talking about changes in any of this stuff that the
government has set as standards or 30% or 80% or this or that because this is
not this doesn't even make sense for today anymore. And so I'm just wondering
is there any is there any push anywhere that things
like this need could need to be adjusted or um
» there have been some efforts to do for example set you know a lower percentage
of income to as considered affordable. So there's been some efforts to go below
30% say 20% of income. There's been some efforts on that front. Nothing has gone
by you know past Congress or anything like that. Um and then on you know on
the in terms of the AMIs you know part of the challenge has been since for
example the financial crisis of 2008 you we've actually seen median incomes go up
everywhere across the country. So you if you look at you even Tumb water back in
2010 you would see like a steady progression of area median income
continue to grow because people's incomes have actually continued to rise.
Um, now how that is counted. There's been some debate about whether we should
count certain areas. For example, HUD oftentimes brings in other areas, not
just county, but also sometimes brings in other metropolitan areas into the mix
or other jurisdictions with into the mix that maybe sometimes drives up or drives
down the area mean income. But generally speaking, there has not been any efforts
to actually change how AMI is calculated um by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development. >> Yeah. Because Yeah. the median income
might be going up, but the poverty level is also going up. And so those two
things are are getting farther and farther apart. And I just wonder how as
as a [clears throat] city or coming together with our constituents, no, our
I mean our leaders here in Thirstston County or whatever.
I think some adjustments need to be made or we just have a lot of people that
aren't going to make it because I know lots of people who can't pay that kind
of rent. >> Sure. Yeah.
» It can it concerns me that uh and conversations about doing big things can
start right here in a seven member council.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Eric, before you consider Thank you, Joan. Eric, before you continue, Brandon
had something. >> Okay. Sorry about that. We can't see.
» I don't know. Do you in particular, but what mechanisms or
areas are we able to go ahead and choose this on? Yes, this to me is
» we don't change the definition. You choose the percentage. Right. Council
chose 80 to 150. You can choose the percentage. We don't change the federal
definition. >> Okay.
» Correct. You could say on MF you could go down to
as low as 50% AMI, >> but that doesn't necessarily mean a
developer is going to build that project, right? And that's the what
we'll get into here in a second, right? Setting a lower set standard doesn't
necessarily mean that those projects will get built.
» I understand that to me though, it's just it's disgusting. $2,150
for one person for a studio. That is not affordable. That's not a team. So
» train. >> That's an example, right?
» We're not. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. Well, >> yeah. It's very difficult. But I
understand what you're saying, but it's very difficult for anybody to get to
those numbers as a single person to spend 2,100,
» right? It's based on what you're making that, right? So if you're not making
that, then this is not. So thank you. just
» correct. >> Yep. And what I'll show in a minute is
that in reality people in Tumb Water, most people in Tumb are not paying that
in rent. So I'll I'll demonstrate that here in a second. Um so what we did here
was looked at this is what we did. We pulled data on what current rents are in
Tumb Water, right? So you'll see here in the green bar chart, those are the
current observed rents, average rents for new construction
multif family projects built between 2020 and 2026, so this year. Um, and
current rents on average across the city range between a studio and a
three-bedroom unit from 71% of the AMI, so 1500 about $1,500 a month in rent to
81% AMI for a three-bedroom, which would be about 20 nearly $2,500 a month in
rent. So, as you can see, um, we, you know, the the rent that I showed in the
previous chart, that 2150 isn't actually a rent that's being, you know, common
rent in in the city. The common rent is roughly between that 60 and 80% AMI
range. So, that is what we're currently observing as the market rate rents. And
the orange chart demonstrates that. So, the rents affordable at 100% of the area
mean income would have to be at 200 2,150. and that would be above what
we've observed in terms of the data. So that's not really what rents, you know,
are are um happening in in or achievable rents that are being observed in in the
city right now. So So the main point here is that the actual rents uh are
below what we would say as 100% of the area income and are actually below what
you're saying is the 12-year program. So it actually most of the time they're
below the 80 to 115% that the multif family tax exemption currently requires
and here is just demonstrating that on same thing. So market rents are below
the 12-year MFT AMI range right now. So, um, again, the current new construction
average rents are 72% to about 77% in terms of area median income in terms of
rent.
One point I'd like to make and I think it's really critical to to highlight
this point in the data is we also looked at older properties um in in Tumbwater
and what we observed is actually the rents you know that you all just spoke
to trying to get to like 50 to 60% AMI for example are actually found in what
we call naturally occurring affordable housing. And so naturally occurring
affordable housing are older properties that simply can't command high rents
because they lack some of the amenities that new construction projects often
provide or they're they some you know they're older properties that are just
less attractive to a lot of uh individuals or families. And so actually
the rents that they can charge are below what most new construction multif family
properties are. And so you actually have a good bit of supply right now.
» Yeah. Eric, thank you. Hold on a second. And
then Megan has as I'm listening to Eric, I'm literally thinking home energy
score. How would that impact these homes that Megan? Go ahead.
» Home energy. >> I'm looking at this chart.
» Uh, a question about the chart that you're sharing right now.
» Uh, are you saying that homes built in the 1980s are
available for rent in our community for $788 a month?
Um, yes, there are a few properties. Part of the challenge is there are only
a handful of actually properties that still exist in the city that were built
in the 1980s. And of those that do exist, the rents are quite low because
the quality of the product can simply not command high rents. So those those
buildings may actually be in need of some repair. Um, they may be located in
less desirable neighborhoods for compared to what other market projects
have been built. And so actually the rents that they can achieve on those on
those units, the owner or the developer um are quite low and they don't need to
be high because they don't have any debt for example sitting on those properties.
They don't need to cover debt a lot of times. And so you have what we call
again naturally occurring affordable housing happening in the city that are
just in older properties.
» Multifamily are these multif family in these are all multif family units.
And again, there's not a large supply.
» Yes. Again, these are probably legacy renters who have been there for decades
and maybe they're, you know, live in the, you know, in a unit that's next
door adjacent to, you know, a a land owner and they've been stay they've been
there a long time and this is the observed rent that's been been in place.
Um, I obviously don't know the ins and outs of those individual units, but I'm
just speculating on what they may be.
So, the whole point here is that you actually have a good bit of supply of
affordable housing in some capacity. And on the one hand, you're incentivizing
the construction of new trying to incentivize the construction of new
housing, but the existing affordable units that may be existing in your
community are receiving no incentive to actually stay affordable.
One more follow-up question. This doesn't quantify like how much supply is
affordable. I'm very curious because I see the dollar amounts, but I don't
know. Does this represent like two units or 200 units?
» Good question. We can certainly come back to you and provide the information
at our next uh council hearing. We we didn't provide the full number. That
would have been a good data point to include. Thanks.
» So, this isn't about homes. talking about houses. This is just all
multifamily. >> This is all multif family because that's
where the tax exemption applies to just multif family tax exemption and it only
applies to multif family developments.
» So this is just one category of affordability or not affordability.
» It's one category of housing type. Correct. So but multif family also could
be as small as a forplex right and go up to 100 units. So it can it covers a v
wide range of housing um types >> but it's not people living in single
houses or >> it is not single family homes
» group something like that. >> Yeah a duplex or triplex could count
would count um as a multif family >> project.
Uh next slide is just giving you a little overview about our approach to
our analysis. So this is our methodology. um we call it a performer.
It's a very technical term but really it is just like a financial analysis. What
we're doing is taking the costs what it costs to build a building a new multif
family building and looking at the revenues that that project could
achieve. So basically taking again those market rents that we've observed in the
data and comparing what how much of the revenue can cover the costs and how much
of the land budget exists. So what we're solving for is land because in order to
build any multif family housing you need to identify a parcel of land to be for
the project to be built on. And so if the land budget exceeds what we observe
as the median or typical land price then we determine and based on the revenues
and costs we can identify whether a project is financially feasible to do.
If the land budget is too small, what could the project can afford compared to
what we observe as the typical land cost that we have a little gap and you'll see
that in the bottom chart and we call what we there's a little gap between the
land cost and the land budget. Uh that gap means that the project's going to
need some subsidy probably of some kind public subsidies, grants, other programs
to help make sure that project is financially feasible.
As part of that this analysis, we also looked at what we call prototypes. So we
looked at a couple different housing types that would qualify for the multif
family tax exemption. So we have town homes.
On the left we have threetory woodframe, you know, small lot we call small lot.
So this would be like a, you know, a 40 to 50 unit building with surface parking
as you can see in the image. And on the right we have a threetory wood frame uh
that has something more like a tuck under or a large lot. Sorry, a large
lot. So, a bigger site um that can accommodate maybe up to 100 units. And
then on the bottom one, we have a fivetory woodframe um building. This is
going to be your um uh your highest density type of multif family housing.
So, it's going to be could be surface parked or it could have what we call
tuck under parking where there's a little bit of parking that goes
underneath the building. Um and that would be the highest highest density um
type of multif family housing we analyzed.
Eric, for just a moment, all of these examples are are actually in Tumblr
water. The town homes are up on top of Tumblr Hill. The wood frame is the North
Street Apartments. >> Uh and then the other two examples are
Kingswood and Rockwell over in Little Rock.
» Yeah, thank you, Brad. Appreciate that. Helpful.
» Next slide. So this is really what the gist of our analysis is is we're looking
at market rate development. Okay. And we're looking at those different town
homes and trying again trying to solve for land. So what we observed in the
data is that most vacant underutilized land comes around somewhere between 12
and $21 per square foot. That's how much it costs to acquire what we call vacant
or under utilized land. This is going to be a parcel that's been sitting there.
Hasn't really been used for much. it's maybe dirt or maybe there is a small
building next to a large empty lot and that would be something we consider
underutilized. It isn't built out. Um so what we've observed is that most land
costs at least for that type. So vacant or underly utilized land is around $21
to $12 a square foot um or sorry $13 roughly $14 a square foot. And then we
also looked at well what is the median price of land in Twater? So that's that
black line you see up top roughly about 40 48 $49. Um that tells us where
roughly the middle in the market is. What is land transacting for currently?
Um and that we're and what we've observed is that's roughly around $49
per square foot. Now going again going back to the prototypes, the types of
housing we analyzed in our approach. So town homes, threetory wood frame, the
threetory foot frame with a larger lot, small lot and then the fivetory wood
frame. You can see here the orange bars are telling us based on market rate
rents that we've observed in the data. This is how much land per square foot
these types of buildings can achieve can afford.
So, as you can see, only the threetory wood frame, the $14 uh per square foot
can only is the only prototype, only one that can actually be built on
potentially if they're able to find a a piece of land that costs $14 per square
foot. The other ones do fall short. They do they cannot pay the price of land.
So, that means they're infeasible. They cannot be built. And again, these are
projects where there is no multif family tax exemption, right? there's just like
they're paying their property taxes. They're trying to build a a new multif
family building, but unfortunately they are financially infeasible. And this is
part of the reason why I think as I showed you in the map earlier of where
the developments have occurred, you don't see very much multif family
development that is not taxexempt being built in the city currently, at least
since 2020.
Next slide. Now, if we apply the 8-year multif family tax exemption to those uh
five different prototypes of housing of multif family housing, you can see
there's a it's a big change. So, now going from the orange bars from the
previous slide to the now green bars, you can see most of those housing types
can now afford most of the vacant and underutilized uh land that may exist in
the city. So they can, for example, town homes can now achieve about $23 per
square feet in land. The threetory wood frame, both large and small, can get 29
between 29 and $19 per square foot in terms of the cost of land. The only one
that has a negative land budget is the fivetory, the higher density housing
type. Part of the reason for that is that is a much more expensive. It costs
much more to build that housing type. And so given what we've observed in
market rents, even with the tax exemption, that project wouldn't be
built with the 8-year program. And that's actually what we've observed.
We've seen that most of the multif family housing development that's been
built in Tumb Water, at least since 2017, has mostly been your threetory
woodframe um uh developments, uh three or fourtory
woodframe developments with mostly surface parking. And I think that we
showed you in the in the sides as well as some town homes for example as well.
Um, >> any questions on this?
» I I I have a question. So, how how many take one of these what's what is the
rent going to be? >> So, we're taking that average rent.
» Pardon? >> As part of our analysis, we're taking
that average rent that I showed earlier. >> Okay.
» Let me go back to the slide just really quick so I can just give you that.
So this see these green bars here. We took average rents and applied it to the
unit types within the prototypes that we built that we designed here for the
analysis. >> And that gives us roughly what the all
the revenue that a project could generate depending on the size versus
the cost of building that project >> and not paying taxes for 12 years.
Well, so the first slide here shows they're still paying taxes and which
shows that they're in feasible. The next slide says, okay, the green bars,
they're not paying taxes for eight years and now they can actually afford to
acquire more land and actually potentially are feasible if they were
able to acquire or able to find land at that price.
» I thought we were talking only about 12 year.
» This is the eight-year right now. This is just giving you an example of if the
eight year were applied to these different housing types, how are they
feasible? Okay. >> And do we qualify for the 8-year here?
» Uh you have two districts that currently offer the 8-year um as an option.
» And if it was 12, >> Eric, the 8-year,
sorry, the 8year does not have the affordable housing option. We don't It's
just production. Yeah. You don't you don't have to you don't have to
designate anything affordable living, right? Affordable.
» Yeah. >> That's
because it's quite a thing. If you look at the one of the charts that you sent
us or that we we saw, you know, there was 600 and some units and
110 of them were affordable. I mean, that seems to be the ratio. That's
that's bad. I mean, from my point of view, but uh
» well, I like to Joan, I like to challenge that because what I what I
showed you earlier is actually market rents are at those same rents. What
you're saying is affordable as in part of MFT program. You're saying it's
between 80 and 115%. But actually what the market has been delivering in
Tumbwater since since uh 2020 has been rents that are below that at 77 to 72%
AMI. So you're actually getting
» I'm gonna jump in for a second. Eric, I'm gonna jump in. Thank you Joan. One
um we don't need to challenge council. So I'd ask that language next time.
» And then also I'm just noting the time. There's a lag on technology. So, Eric,
you're talking over us because there's a lag.
» Um, it is almost 8 o'clock. This was just supposed to be a heads up to all of
you. So, I think I'm getting confused by Eric's presentation right now. So, I
would like us to wrap this up, go to the key takeaways and next steps and have
council follow up with additional questions because there is not enough
time tonight to go over this and I have more questions now than I did before
this started. So, can we get to the summary and we will follow up next time?
» Okay. I'm sorry if I came across as challenging or questioning what you were
I was I was just repeating things that I thought I read and I I may not have had
all the all the different uh you know numbers and amounts in the right
district. >> Sure. And I wasn't I wasn't
» John. You don't have to apologize. Joan, you are on council. Your job is to ask
questions. You are golden. Brad, >> I just like to offer staff is also
available for the individual council members to answer some of these
questions and I it took me a couple readroughs to understand it. Yes.
» So, I'm more than happy to explain what I could understand as well.
» That's perfect. Thank you. Did uh Angela, Peter, Jones, did you hear that?
Uh connecting with Brad and Sharon about this more thoroughly because this is
going to be an ongoing conversation. Thank you. All right.
» Can we ask for Can we ask for a one on one uh one hour presentation or sit down
and talk about this because I have more question than I that I could think of.
» Yeah. >> Yeah. Agreed, Peter. Great idea. Yes.
Like we're just beginning this and so Peter, all of council is shaking their
head in agreement with you. So yes, we'll work with that with Brad and
Sharon. before we get to Paul Eileen. >> So, and just to clarify for them is that
we're not even we won't be looking at this until 2027 and it's not even until
December of 2027, right? Yeah. >> Because we're waiting for him to finish
his preliminary finding, >> right? And so, so that I just Yeah. I
wanted to kind of >> So, this is perfect timing, right, to
really dig into this, right? We have a year
» his report. It's really good. >> We're not rushing this, right? So, great
comment, Peter. We'll do that, right? And thank you, Joan. And then Paul,
» I was just gonna say that I'll have uh Britney reach out and coordinate
meetings with Brad and Sharon. Uh we'll have Britney or Jessica, one of one or
the other. We'll reach out and schedule uh offer meetings for you to schedule on
your team. >> Yeah. Perfect.
» And I think we're going to the key takeaways now.
» Yeah. So the main the last slide here and I'll go to the key takeaways was
just pointing out the going to the 12-ear. If we apply the 12-year, you can
see most in the green bars, it actually then becomes even more feasible across
all these different housing types.
» Can you can you jump to the last slide? Key takeaway slide, Eric, and maybe walk
through. Yeah. >> So, the key
» on technology >> just to reiterate some of the points
I've I've tried to make is um the current program is influencing housing
development outcomes. So, you are getting housing built as a result of the
program, which I think is really important. We need supply just as much
as we need affordability. And part of getting affordability is actually having
supply of housing. Um the second point is market rate rents are within the
affordability requirement. So the point here is that you have a 12-year MFTTE
program, but you're really just delivering more market rate housing
because most of the affordable units are actually roughly at market rate rents in
the city. So you're not actually delivering any deeper affordability
result. Uh third point is older again older properties are a source of what we
call again naturally affordable housing. So you you are h you do have affordable
housing in your community and I think it's critical to also think about
maintaining that affordability on existing units is an important thing. Um
fourth point is without MFT most market again most market rate wouldn't projects
wouldn't be possible. So you wouldn't get the supply of housing that you
actually started you need to have in your community regardless of what you
think about rents. Um so it's really important to get supply as as a as as a
driver to drive down rents as well. U with MFTTE prototypes you know um most
of them can afford vacant or underutilized land but doesn't mean they
can afford all parcels of land. So MFT helps again on feasibility. And then the
second point which I didn't get to to show on the slide was if you ask if you
require the MFTTE goes even deeper in terms of affordable housing requirement.
So let's say you set 20% of the units at 70% of the area median income. Most of
those prototypes then are no longer feasible. So you're not going to
necessarily get those units built even if you ask you know demand deeper
affordability. So this is a calibration exercise. We're trying to find the right
affordable set aside to make sure development still continues to occur
without making it too burdensome to be able to achieve the actual housing
development that the community really needs.
So some I guess questions for the city and priorities, you know, should MFT
focus on delivering as many deeply affordable needs as possible or should
it be about incentivizing housing production? Again, we need housing
supply just like we do also need affordability. [snorts] Uh should
geographic areas stay the same or be revised? Um this question for you all. I
don't know you know your community better than I do. So curious if there's
other geographic areas you think where this would be better applied in terms of
trying to get housing outcomes that you want to see. And then third is should
the city place greater priority on preservation? Again going back to that
point that you do have affordable housing in older properties and
preservation of those properties and preservation of those affordable rents
is an important and as well. Um, so just in terms of next steps,
again, we're doing task three is coming up. We're doing a deeper analysis of the
multif family tax exemption design. We're that includes looking at a 20-year
MFT option. So that's something we'll look into. And then task four will
provide a final report as well as a fiscal analysis looking at the fiscal
trade-offs of this program versus um not having it, for example. Um so that's
something that'll be included in our task for final report. And then our next
meeting um in terms of the council meeting will be on in January 12th and
we'll present report back on where things have landed.
» One thing I'm going to ask is the next presentation be in person, whatever that
looks like, because there's a lag and now I'm even more annoyed because of the
lag. So I'd like the next one to be in person, please.
» Sounds good. >> Happy to do it.
Yeah. So when we come back in January, we'll be bringing a staff report with
recommendations what code changes what we think we would propose because we're
trying to achieve two goals. One is housing production and one is
affordability. And this is tied to the other uh consultancy. They're looking at
um other ways we could achieve affordably. Maybe MFT isn't the best way
to try to meet every goal. Maybe it's better to just have it be for housing
production and have other programs available for hopefully.
» Right. And this in the interim one-on ones with staff and any other updates
can also come to council but also general government, right?
» We'll be seeing this in general. >> Yes. So ongoing work. This is just the
beginning phase. We all have questions which means we're all engaged and we're
all dedicated to figure something out to serve our community. So this is awesome.
» You're also welcome to email if you have want to email questions and we can get
them answered and then we can share them with all of you. So that might be
another way to have it ready. It's just noting the time. It's 7:57.
Mayor Protown, what did you have? >> I I just wondered what other and this
goes to the planning commission and equity commission to
» So, this is not an actual we're not taking the code through yet. We're just
looking at what do you want to do with it? So, when we come to you in January,
they're like, "Here's some options. What would you like to do?" Then you'll be
directing us. We want to do this. Then we do the code change and then it goes
through the whole >> this came from the when Michael also
were on council with Joan Cathy and myself in general government right
working with Brad there were like is this even working are we like it's so
arbitrary are we making up these percentages and so the concept was yeah
we allow it right now but then we got to study it and figure out in the scheme of
water and the regional housing council and all the other inner city transit
TRPC what does it really look like for Tom water and so that was the
negotiation we let this keep going and we figure out how we're going to move
forward and what that really looks like. >> Well, we come back to you with those
findings, then you'll direct us, yes, you want to do this or that, and then
we'll do the >> And then I think that's where the
engagement of the equity commission and the planning commission, whomever else
you think needs to be talking about. >> John, did you have something?
» I don't want you to sign me up with Brad because it'll make his hair stand on
Anderson. He's talked to me so many times [laughter]
and had many talk. >> His body posture right now, Jim.
» So, don't don't put me on don't put me on my his his list for people to talk
to. >> I'm gonna have you circle back like
we're at. >> Yeah, I'll circle back.
» Make us both dizzy. >> We have mayor, city administrator's
report. My report is at 7:59 and I'm done for the day. Paul,
» if you're done, I'm done. >> Meeting at 7:59. Thank you everybody.