[0:06] Thank you, Brad.
[0:10] For those who are not in the room, Brad
just took the clock off the wall because
[0:15] time does not exist here today on
Tuesday, August 25th, 2026.
[0:21] Welcome to city council work session. I
see council member Cassie, council
[0:27] member Jefferson, council member Agabi,
lovely to see your faces virtually. I
[0:32] see council member Sullivan, mayor Posan
von Holtz, council member Schwarzout,
[0:35] council member Randon, we have our city
administrator Paul Simmons, myself
[0:39] serving as mayor, Lena Daw, we have our
city attorney, Karen Katrick, we have
[0:42] Melody, we have Lance, and we have Chief
Helens, and we have a special guest,
[0:45] which ties us into number three. Oh, we
also have Sharon and Brown.
[0:51] That's our roll call item number three.
Washington City's Insurance Authority
[0:56] Training Council best practices. Karen
Kpatrick, who do we have with us
[1:00] tonight? I'm happy to introduce Ann
Bennett who's with us tonight um from
[1:07] WCIA and to provide us some great
training. Um, some of you have attended
[1:12] similar training in the past, but um, I
believe you'll be giving us some
[1:17] background on WCIA
um, as well as uh, potential um, areas
[1:23] of li liability exposure for council
members um, and best practices to avoid
[1:29] those. So, um, take it away.
>> Well, thank you very much uh, for having
[1:36] me. Uh, as Karen mentioned, I'm Anne
Bennett. I'm the executive director of
[1:40] WCIA. I just passed 30 years with WCIA.
So, yeah, in July. So, I can't believe
[1:47] it. I can't believe it went by that
fast. So, uh this training I always
[1:53] appreciate it when it's interactive. So,
please feel free to ask questions. Um
[1:58] and in fact, the last one I did, um I
had council members kind of ch not I I
[2:02] don't challenging is strong, but just
saying, well, what what about this, what
[2:05] about that? Those are great trainings.
So feel free um happy to answer and
[2:10] sometimes I may defer um to Karen uh if
it's an issue that I'm going to say I'm
[2:15] going to defer to your city attorney on
that but um I am happy to report that uh
[2:21] Tomwater has been a member of WCIA since
1985.
[2:26] So uh we are a municipal risk sharing
pool. So basically we were created in
[2:34] 1981 and it was when cities could not
get insurance and so they nine cities
[2:40] pulled together money and created us.
We're actually a public entity. Um we're
[2:45] overseen by um the state risk managers
office and we act like insurance but
[2:51] we're not an insurance company. Um, we
have over now we're over 166 members,
[2:57] $222 million in assets, and that is all
public funds. We're actually audited by
[3:04] the state auditor's office. Um, what are
the advantages for being in WCIA? It is
[3:10] a member-run organization.
Every single member has a delegate and a
[3:15] vote to our full board. Karen is the
delegate for Tomwater. And um it all of
[3:20] the decisions on what we do, how we do
it is driven by the membership. So we
[3:28] not only provide that kind of insurance
like coverage, but we really our mission
[3:32] is to assist members in loss prevention.
Uh, Tumb Water has a fantastic loss
[3:38] record and um, I always kind of check
when I come out and you guys have done
[3:43] very very well um, in controlling losses
and you do use a lot of our programs.
[3:50] You have stability in rates. Um, unlike
your insurance carrier where you submit
[3:55] an application, you're like, "Oh, I
wonder why my rate went up." And they
[3:58] say, "Oh, well, cost clients." Ours is
completely transparent. It's done by an
[4:03] outside actuary who looks at your losses
and it's got basically an overall what
[4:09] do we need in terms of covering costs.
We're a nonprofit and then it's modified
[4:14] by um your losses and then from that we
use worker hours as an exposure. So it's
[4:21] how many workers do you have and that's
um the exposure base that's used. The
[4:26] really good news is that all of the
coverage decisions, they're made by me
[4:30] and if you don't like my coverage
decision, you can go to our board um and
[4:35] appeal that. So again, unlike insurance
where you're, you know, sending it off
[4:40] and wondering what happened, my mission
is to find coverage rather than um look
[4:45] for reasons to deny you coverage. So,
every single member um has an assigned
[4:51] risk management rep and we come out and
do all kinds of best practices, reviews,
[4:57] um help with any questions that you guys
have and we do extensive training
[5:01] throughout. From the insurance
standpoint, um we ensure your auto
[5:06] liability, your employment liability,
your law enforcement liability, as well
[5:11] as your general liability. And that's
the, you know, sidewalks, um, sewer
[5:16] backups, water main bras, things like
that. So, um, you have 20 million per
[5:21] occurrence and we ensure the first 5
million per occurrence. So, we have
[5:25] claims control the entire way. We use
reinsurance up above that, and we have
[5:30] control of the claims, that whole layer,
which is very unusual. Most um, don't
[5:36] have that type of, but we're uh, we work
with our reinsurance partners and they
[5:40] give us that. You also have additional
um insurance coverage through us.
[5:45] Property auto, boiler machinery, uh
crime fidelity and cyber and pollution.
[5:51] We also do that and we buy that from the
internet.
[5:55] So
kind of want to give you a little bit of
[5:59] update as to why it is so important uh
that you control liability at your level
[6:04] as well as throughout the city. So in
the traditional insurance market, it's
[6:09] cyclical. There's hard markets and soft
markets. And it used to always go like
[6:13] this um year-over-year. Oh, it's a hard
market, you know, which means it's hard
[6:17] to get coverage. The pricing's high or
it's a soft market. Things got cheaper.
[6:20] And that was usually driven by losses.
So, Hurricane Sandy happened, hard
[6:25] market, then thing, you know, they start
making profit and then they can give
[6:30] relief and it's a soft market. We have
had a prolonged what's called a
[6:34] prolonged hard market and public
entities are specifically problematic um
[6:40] to ensure. So for example our rates for
reinsurance um for the last 10 years
[6:45] went up 700%.
700. Now um WCIA's overall liability
[6:54] increase for 2026 and now for 2027 is
3%. And that's the value of pooling is
[7:00] that you're not feeling those shocks
that others who are individually
[7:05] insuring can get. I will say that we are
paying more money for less coverage. We
[7:10] used to self-insure the first four
million. Now we have been pushed up to 5
[7:15] million and they'd like to push us. When
I say they, I'm talking our reinsurers.
[7:18] They'd like us to take on more. So, um,
property, the first party property
[7:23] market is crazy soft. It's cheap. And so
what we've been doing during this um
[7:30] cycle is buying more earthquake
coverage, more flood coverage. So we're
[7:33] using the cheaper prices to increase the
member's coverage.
[7:38] So why is it important? Here's some
headlines. And I will tell you these are
[7:41] actually outdated. Um there's been even
higher headlines on these dollar
[7:46] amounts. And these used to be shocking,
but I can tell you that they've only
[7:50] gone up from there. Uh recently there
was a $30 million verdict against the
[7:55] city of Seattle on the CHOP uh case. I
think you guys remember there is been
[8:01] cases against the state in the hundreds
of millions. Uh Cleellum actually that
[8:06] 22 million on breaching a development
agreement. Um they're actually currently
[8:11] going through bankruptcy.
>> Yeah. At least didn't they? They're
[8:13] going bankrupt.
>> Yeah, they're going through bankruptcy
[8:16] on that. Um so what's going on here and
why is this happening? Um this is a
[8:22] nationwide issue. Um there's a
proliferation of what's called um
[8:27] nuclear verdicts and that is any verdict
over $10 million. And what's happening
[8:33] is you know when you look at the states
it was used to be a west coast problem.
[8:38] It's moving across the nation. Per
capita Washington is number three. And I
[8:45] can tell you that Florida and Georgia
have undergone massive tort reform. And
[8:50] I know with you guys down here, you're
very aware their tort reform discussions
[8:55] going on. And we are actively involved.
We're working with AWC, the Association
[8:59] of Counties. I'm talking to
representatives about, you know, this is
[9:04] a problem for public entities and we
need to come up with real solutions. And
[9:09] so we're going to work on that um quite
a bit this session. We've had some I I
[9:14] would say productive discussions. Um the
state is 1 billion with a B in debt in
[9:20] their self- insurance fund um because of
losses. So uh it is bad out there and
[9:27] I'm glad that we're finally having some
conversations about.
[9:31] So the important thing is how can you as
council members avoid um creating
[9:38] liability for your organization? And
what I'll tell you is here's some good
[9:43] news. As a legislator, you receive an
absolute immunity while you are
[9:49] undertaking legislative actions. So when
you're adopting budgets, ordinances,
[9:54] um, resolutions, when you're a body as a
whole, you as an individual have
[10:00] absolute immunity. Now, we're going to
in the future kind of talk about a few
[10:04] areas where you can get sued
individually for your actions, but in
[10:08] general, when you're legislating, you
have an absolute immunity. When I first
[10:12] started at WCI, this didn't exist, and I
used to get lawsuits all the time that
[10:16] named council members um individually,
and then a case came down and said, "No,
[10:21] no, they're legislating. They should
have absolute immunity." So, um, but
[10:25] again, remember it's not acting as an
individual outside the council as a
[10:29] whole when you're legislating.
>> I just have a question on that, right?
[10:33] Because I'm no longer on council. Now
I'm serving as mayor in the executive,
[10:37] right? And I just got to go back to our
most recent example. And then when
[10:41] documentation was changed and my name
was put on it to be sued about the Davis
[10:46] sneaker Gary Oak Tree. So council
wouldn't couldn't get sued, but the
[10:50] mayor got sued. But if it was if the
council had made a decision, then they
[10:54] couldn't have gotten sued
>> individually.
[10:56] » Individually. But
>> I think I think the litigation you're
[11:01] referring to, you actually were sued in
your official,
[11:08] right?
>> Um but but Right. And that's a good but
[11:10] it's a good that while you're protected
as an individual that doesn't mean if
[11:16] the council took a you know knowingly
took some sort of illegal action the
[11:22] entity the city could
make sense.
[11:30] So here's an area uh where Tom has done
a a great thing which we advocate for is
[11:35] the use of hearing examiners. Um that
actually means you have less issues with
[11:41] the appearance of fairness doctrine
which is the doctrine that says you must
[11:45] be fair and impartial when hearing land
use appeals. So that you know it has
[11:50] been problematic in the past when
councils have undertaken that. And
[11:53] that's because you want to talk to your
constituents, you want to get opinions,
[11:56] and then that means um it's problematic
for you to sit as a judge being fair and
[12:02] impartial. So, it also eliminates all
those arbitrary and capriccious um
[12:07] allegations against your decisions as a
council. So, um having a a hearing
[12:13] examiner is a big big that doesn't mean
that as a council you can't still create
[12:20] liability for the city. And so I'm going
to talk about two cases. Um the first
[12:24] one, Westmark versus Berian, was one of
ours. Uh the city of Birian incorporated
[12:30] um back in 1993.
And part of the reason they incorporated
[12:34] is they didn't like the development that
was going on under King County and
[12:39] mostly they wanted more single family
homes, less apartments. And this is a
[12:42] long time and the land use laws have
completely changed since this decision.
[12:46] So it's, you know, this really a lot of
this delay couldn't happen. But the the
[12:52] this whole case was delayed, delayed,
delayed, delayed on both sides. And what
[12:59] happened is during that period where
this project was being reviewed, the
[13:06] council was constantly saying, "How can
we stop this development? We don't like
[13:11] apartments. This is why we incorporate.
We don't want this. We don't like this."
[13:16] And so as this case progressed, at one
point there was a mediation and there
[13:23] was a settlement and WCIA agreed to pay
$200,000 and the city council was going
[13:29] to approve this um development with, you
know, certain caveats.
[13:35] So what happened is that we went
forward, settlement agreement signed,
[13:41] everything's good to go. And then as the
development started to move forward, the
[13:48] council said, "Well, you know what? We
didn't approve that in open session, so
[13:53] we can take it back." And they did. And
so they said, "We're not going to follow
[13:58] through. It wasn't approved in open
session. It's illegal. Therefore, uh,
[14:03] sorry, we're not going to continue with
this.
[14:06] So, then they sued for, you know, breach
of contract, trying to enforce it. Well,
[14:12] actually, the council was right. There
was no contract because it wasn't an
[14:16] open session. So, then it was reopened
and off to the races again. So, this
[14:22] case ended up going to trial. And when
it went to trial, the case that was
[14:27] presented, while we were saying, well,
you know, they there were environmental
[14:32] impacts, they didn't do their part, they
didn't, you know, uphold this or that
[14:37] part of their end of the bargain. The
entire time the jury heard that the
[14:43] council didn't want it, here's what the
council said. Here's what And so that
[14:48] jury, and this is I mean in 2008,
awarded $10 million
[14:54] Yeah. And so that was a bit shocking.
[laughter]
[14:58] That was very shocking. So what happens
when you get a verdict for $10 million?
[15:02] You think I'm going to appeal it. I'm an
appeal. That that's outrageous. Now, not
[15:06] so much. But then this is outrageous.
The court of appeals excoriated the city
[15:12] and said there was a torchious
interference. They interfered with this
[15:16] business. It was intentional. They knew
what they were doing and this developer
[15:22] was wrong. And so they upheld the
verdict and that's when we said we need
[15:28] to start training on this because verts
matter and they will be used against
[15:33] you. And I so
so as Ann's saying this, I'm just
[15:39] thinking
as an elected and on council, you serve
[15:43] as a delegate and a trustee, right? On
certain issues, you are representing a
[15:47] voice and you're voting that way and
other way otherwise you're they're
[15:51] entrusting you to vote for the
betterment of Tom Water, right? And so
[15:55] when you're out and people are asking
you and you are giving your personal
[15:58] opinion, well, I don't like that. I
don't want that in Tom Water. this is
[16:02] why I'm concerned about that, right?
Because you have your personal opinion,
[16:06] but when you're serving on council,
everyone's paying attention, right? So,
[16:12] there's been some examples. I think you
can all think of some current examples
[16:16] where you might like it or not like it
and how you've been framing that in the
[16:20] community can put us at liability.
And I think to add to that, you know, we
[16:26] have very vocal communities that have
strong opinions
[16:32] at the end of the day, help me out if
I'm wrong here, you know, council's job
[16:36] isn't to like or not like a particular
development. It's to determine does this
[16:41] development meet the requirements of
what's allowed in this space. And so we
[16:47] just have to and the public usually
doesn't understand that. They think that
[16:50] council has a lot more control than you
have. So there's a there's always a
[16:54] communication and educational exercise
that we need to do, but just being aware
[16:59] of that we can, you know, your role
isn't to like or not like, it's to
[17:03] approve or not.
>> I mean, I go back to council member
[17:06] Kathy, right, to model how she puts
everything back to our strategic goals
[17:11] and priorities, the elements in the
comprehensive plan. Everything that Joan
[17:15] talks about and hears about, she frames
it back to what we are unified in doing
[17:19] it, right? So whether she likes
something or not, Joan is always framing
[17:23] it back to the urban forestry plan.
That's why she's been so advocate like
[17:27] so passionate about that because what we
currently have is not where we're trying
[17:30] to go. So she's been really pushing that
so it aligns. So if we can circle back
[17:37] to Joan Cathy, right, and model that of
what you're saying to link it back to
[17:42] the stuff that you all have been working
on, then you're safer, right?
[17:50] I see Joan shaking her head. Yes. Yes.
Thank you. Yeah. Uh, another case uh is
[17:57] a good example and I call this the
listen to your city
[18:01] um of Springs versus City of Spokane.
Um, this involved a big development uh
[18:08] that was going through the process was
fully vested and the community was very
[18:14] much against this project and was
voicing that. The mayor uh then decided
[18:21] that he would invite all of the people
who were against the project to a
[18:26] council meeting. Uh then said in open
session, I want to know the status of
[18:33] this project. Who's the development
director? Development director said, uh
[18:38] it is proceeding with grading permits.
They will be breaking ground this week.
[18:42] And the mayor said, um I do not want you
to issue those grading permits. you need
[18:47] to stop this development. So, for
whatever reason, Karen I know would say,
[18:53] "Hold on, we need to have an executive
session. Let's go." And you, she would
[18:57] go into executive session and she would
explain the legal reasons why you don't
[19:01] want to do that. For whatever reason,
that escapes me. Nobody's ever explained
[19:05] it to me. The city attorney went on the
record and said, you know, Mr. Mayor,
[19:12] you cannot do this. it is illegal for
you to stop this. They're fully vested.
[19:18] The, you know, they the time is over.
You cannot stop this project. And the
[19:24] mayor said, "I don't care. These people
want this stopped. Stop the project.
[19:28] Don't issue the permits."
>> So, what do you think happened? Mission
[19:33] Springs sued.
>> Yeah.
[19:35] » And they said, "Uh-uh, fully vested. You
don't get to do this." And what happened
[19:40] in the case is because it was on the
record from the city attorney saying if
[19:45] you do this you're
>> the court found that the city the mayors
[19:52] had violated both federal and state law
by what they did and the delay. Now
[20:00] because the decision came down as
intentionally violated
[20:06] there was no coverage. their insurance
carrier said, "Uh, that was no accident.
[20:10] You knew you were breaking the law." So,
to this day, I don't know who paid for
[20:16] it. I know there was big money and there
was all kinds of other litigation after
[20:20] the fact. Um, but that case is one that
when you are given legal advice, you
[20:27] want to listen to that legal advice. Um,
and again, uh, know that, you know, your
[20:34] city attorney says is going to say, "We
need to go in executive session. We need
[20:38] to discuss this so that you're aware of
the risk that you're creating for this."
[20:42] I don't know, Karen, did you ever find
out who paid that? [laughter]
[20:46] » I never to the day I don't know.
>> Yeah.
[20:50] » Yes. I'm guessing the cities themselves
did. Um, I just want to mention a little
[20:54] bit about development agreements. And
this kind of comes on the heels of the
[20:58] Cleellum um, arbitration decision.
Development agreements are contracts.
[21:05] And so contracts are not covered by
insurance because it is a contract. And
[21:09] if you breach a contract, it's not an
accident. It's not looked upon under
[21:14] tort law. It's looked upon um, under
contract law. So I just there is nothing
[21:20] wrong with development agreements. Um,
but I just want you to be aware of that
[21:24] there are times when you might have a
long-term development agreement and you
[21:30] know you should know that you are
binding a future council to those
[21:33] decisions and sometimes that can be um
somewhat problematic but it is a
[21:38] contract and if you are inheriting a
development agreement um that is
[21:43] something that you have already
bargained for and so you don't you know
[21:46] a prior council has already made that
contract and breaching it comes with um
[21:51] probably no coverage for me um as well
as uh liability for the city. The other
[21:58] thing I will say
>> full disclosure, there's three
[22:01] development agreements currently under
discussion for consideration that coming
[22:06] forward to council in the next time
frame. So there's there's a series of
[22:11] development that are current
>> and they're a good way of you know
[22:18] deciding the rules for both parties. So,
I'm not anti them. It's just
[22:21] [clears throat] more I want to explain
to you that, you know, when you go that
[22:25] route, um,
>> your city attorney is a little more
[22:28] skeptical, but yes. [laughter]
>> So, um, I will say we there was one of
[22:34] our members had a case where there was a
development agreement that was in play
[22:38] for a long time. All of their code
changed and the current council was very
[22:45] much against this development agreement.
And so there was I think what the court
[22:50] said you kind the city slow played
working that and then oh it expired oh
[22:56] now you got to use the new rules and the
court said no not really yeah it expired
[23:01] but you city delayed too much so that
that was an interesting take and again
[23:08] we weren't involved but I am aware of it
that is it really an expiration date and
[23:13] the court said you don't get to play
gotcha um and ruled against uh the city
[23:19] on that one.
All right. Personnel. Um this is an area
[23:26] where I say you want to make sure you're
staying within your role as a council
[23:31] member. Um you want to stay in your
legislative role. It's adopting
[23:36] policies. It's setting budget. You do
not want to stray into the mayor's role.
[23:43] Um that is discipline. hiring, firing.
Anytime I have seen a council member
[23:51] stray into that area, nothing good comes
of it. Um, mainly because personnel law
[23:57] is very complex. There are all kinds of
laws to protect employees and you don't
[24:03] want to get involved and have confusion
with the employee andor the city itself.
[24:09] So, what we always say is you want to
leave all of that up to the mayor. If
[24:14] you're aware of an issue, please report
it to Paul and the mayor so that hey,
[24:20] there's an issue going on. It's been
brought to my attention and I've advised
[24:24] the employee that I'm going to notify
the mayor or Paul
[24:28] » and can we Ann and Karen because we
recently did a change regarding approval
[24:33] of contracts, right? We added the police
chief. Could you both talk about what is
[24:37] when we say hiring firing, but then
sometimes we're presenting a contract to
[24:42] council. Sometimes there's confusion.
So [clears throat] I believe what you're
[24:48] referring to is that um under our city
code, although the mayor makes an
[24:53] appointment of the directors, there are
some positions that require confirmation
[24:59] by the council. And so those um those
positions and and if we're approving a
[25:05] director contract, at least in the past,
um the contracts would come to council.
[25:11] So um the uh finance director, the city
administrator, the city attorney and the
[25:17] police chief require confirmation by the
council um for that appointment.
[25:22] However, that firing decision would not
require.
[25:30] So, what I will also mention is we have
a program, we call it our pre-defense
[25:35] review that we offer legal advice
because personnel is always changing and
[25:40] very complex where our members can call
and get a consultation with a personnel
[25:46] attorney and we walk through the entire
process and sometimes we're saying no,
[25:51] you know, you can't or hey, how can we
help you? Here's the next steps. Um, one
[25:55] area where we're getting a lot of phone
calls is harassment, discrimination. And
[26:00] I really don't know what happened during
the pandemic, but when people came back
[26:04] to work, we don't know how to work well
together. And it's very, very disturbing
[26:09] to me how what I'm seeing um out there.
I mean, it really is. And so, what I
[26:17] will say is remember that you are all
held to the city's harassment
[26:22] discrimination policy. So, you should
know what that is. Um, I personally I
[26:28] look at it as you don't have to know all
of the intricacies of the law. Treat
[26:33] people how you would want to be treated.
And I think the better is treat people
[26:37] how they want to be treated. And you
probably aren't going to get yourself
[26:41] into trouble. But I think everyone knows
what's appropriate and what's not. And
[26:45] that's what's shocking me here is I
think this is knowing behavior and and a
[26:51] yeah, that's for other people, not me.
And so we are getting a lot of
[26:56] complaints. This is an area where you
can be sued individually if you are
[27:00] choosing to harass an employee. And you
know it it doesn't matter whether it's
[27:06] within your role as a council person.
You can be sued individually for
[27:09] harassing or discriminating against an
employee.
[27:12] » And we have Peter, you have your hand
up. [clears throat]
[27:15] » Yes. I I think municipal code need to be
set aside from executive rule.
[27:23] Uh
oh, I'm sorry. Isn't that legislative? I
[27:28] got you daydreaming. Don't mind me.
[27:35] » Hate to hear your voice, Peter.
[laughter]
[27:37] » Carry on.
>> Thank you, Peter.
[27:43] Um, anything else from council? Eileen.
Well, the harassment piece of it. Yeah.
[27:49] It's just like all not so much like not
this but um directed at elected
[27:54] officials and their staff and stuff and
so you know like Lieutenant Governor
[28:00] Tech has a whole thing about stability
this whole program now and stuff like
[28:03] that because
starting yeah with COVID and and you
[28:08] know when just use whatever language you
want and we and I used to work at the
[28:13] legislature and we became Yeah. just
targets and the filth and the stuff that
[28:17] people would send to us and the stuff
that was on the phone and everything.
[28:20] It's just
so how do we get protected? Well, I mean
[28:26] unfortunately and I what I'm talking
about in liability is what we call I
[28:31] mean there is harassment and then
there's illegal harassment and it's
[28:35] defined and unfortunately
um you know a lot of what's going on
[28:40] against you is probably not illegal from
a liability standpoint. Um, what I will
[28:46] say is there are areas where, and we're
going to get into this a little bit
[28:52] later, but there are areas where, you
know, a staff person probably has some
[28:58] rights depending on how things are
phrased with them. So, if it's um,
[29:05] I don't I don't like the job she's doing
because she's a woman and she's too
[29:09] emotional, that's illegal and that's not
okay. So there's a little bit of nuance
[29:16] there for, you know, and as an employee,
we're protected, um, from that. So, um,
[29:22] but unfortunately, um, this is an area
which I agree with you, it's gotten out
[29:27] of control on elected officials. Um, and
I I don't have an easy answer for you. I
[29:34] really don't. Um, I think the civility
initiatives that are going on are are
[29:39] great, and I'm hoping those continue. I
really do. Um again, this area also has
[29:46] come up in um elections where there was
a a mayor who was touching female
[29:53] employees inappropriately. And so the
idea was that at that point the city
[29:58] manager said, I'm, you know, I am
restricting you from any part of city
[30:03] hall. You cannot interact with my staff.
We're going to send you through some
[30:06] training. And that happened and then
elections came and guess who campaigned
[30:12] against them? The women who had been
touched and they had signs, they went to
[30:19] the, you know, the meetings and said, "I
this is not okay." And so again, I mean,
[30:26] he should have known that. Um, but be
aware it has long-term ramifications for
[30:31] you as well.
Uh, negligent misrepresentation. This is
[30:37] we'll kind of go through an example
here, but this is where we ask that you
[30:41] don't make specific promises and
assurances to people and that's because
[30:46] of this thing called negligent
misrepresentation.
[30:50] So what this I'll give you an example
first and we'll kind of walk through it.
[30:54] So back many years ago, one of our
cities has a downtown that has cute, you
[31:00] know, it's all cedar shingles. And so
this town's code said if you take down
[31:05] cedar shingle, you have to put up cedar
shingle on your business. So a business
[31:10] owner went into city hall, met with the
mayor, and said, "Look, I can't afford
[31:15] that. I'm going to have to shut down
unless you waste that." And the mayor
[31:19] said, "Well, you know what? We love your
business. I'll go ahead and wave that.
[31:24] Well, unfortunately, he never told the
code enforcement officer that he was
[31:28] waving it, and he didn't have the
authority to wave it. It's code. And so,
[31:32] this business owner tore down all of
their shingle and put up um other
[31:37] sighting. And so, what happened was he
filed a claim for negligent
[31:42] misrepresentation. There was a specific
promise. There was an assurance that you
[31:47] could do it. And he relied on it and it
damaged him. And so we WCIA paid for the
[31:54] replacement of, you know, taking down
all of the stuff he had put up and the
[31:59] cost of that. So that's negligent
misrepresentation. If you make a promise
[32:04] and somebody relies on it and they're
damaged because of it and you were
[32:09] wrong, we that could create liability.
So what I always say is refer questions
[32:15] to staff. These are your experts. Staff
are the experts here. You can always
[32:20] say, "I don't know, but I know where you
can get the answer. It's here." So,
[32:25] again, um you also don't want to take
matters into your own hands. I've had
[32:30] situations back in the day with like a
sewer backup where I mean, trust me,
[32:35] it's a horrible thing that when it
happens, and I've had council members
[32:38] say, "Don't worry, we will take care of
everything. Just make a list. We'll pay
[32:42] for it all." And that sounds really nice
until you realize that it was caused by
[32:47] a contractor putting concrete down the
manhole and they're responsible, but the
[32:52] citizen said,"I was told that you would
take care of it all."
[32:55] » Y
>> and I relied on that and I hired all
[32:57] these people and now I've got to fight
with a contractor. Not okay.
[33:01] » So again, um I always say I don't know,
but I know where I can get you an answer
[33:07] and that's the safest thing to do.
Defamation. And this is an area um that
[33:16] if you are legislating and you are
having a healthy debate, that's what
[33:20] you're here for. You are here to have
debate. But you need to be careful when
[33:26] you're speaking about individuals
that can give rise to liability if there
[33:32] is any untruth. So there are times when
you can talk about public officials. Um
[33:40] there's kind of a higher bar if you're a
public official and this kind of gets to
[33:44] what we're talking about is there is no
defamation when you're talking about
[33:48] highlevel public officials. So even I
would probably be considered a highle
[33:53] public official as an executive director
but it's still not a good practice and
[34:00] especially staff or any other private
individual that could give rise to
[34:05] liability. So, what I would say is that
again, um, most of the time, especially
[34:12] if you have an issue where, um, you're
going to talk about performance of an
[34:17] employee, you want to do that in
executive session. That's what it's
[34:20] there for. So, um, often this will come
up with contracts for, you know, the
[34:26] city administrator is a good one where
you're going to have those conversations
[34:29] in executive session so that you don't
create um, an avenue for defamation. And
[34:35] the one lawsuit I had um from that was
actually a city administrator and a
[34:41] council member continuously called that
person a liar and said, "They lie. I
[34:46] challenge you. You're lying. You're not
telling the truth." And did it
[34:51] repeatedly. The city um administrator
left employment. And then the council
[34:56] member took it upon themselves to
contact the new employer and say, "I
[35:01] can't believe you hired this person.
They're a liar. They will lie to your
[35:04] face. they will misrepresent. they will.
And so what happened is there was a
[35:10] lawsuit that said this whole time I, you
know, yes, as a high-end city official,
[35:17] yes, I am protected under that idea that
they can say these things. However, it
[35:23] went next level after I left. And WCIA
said, "That's not in the course and
[35:29] scope of your duties as a council
member." And that council member had no
[35:32] coverage through us because we said,
"You went too far." and that was with
[35:36] the city agreed um and said no we we
shouldn't have to defend that. That was
[35:42] 100% him as an individual, not as a
council member. And so that's where um
[35:47] the lawsuit gave rise to liability. So
again, treat others as you'd like to be
[35:52] treated. Would you like those kind of
things um being said about you in a
[35:55] public meeting? Probably not.
Yeah, it's one of the reasons our
[35:59] council rules um for public comment say
to speak to the council as a whole and
[36:05] not individually. And the same goes with
council um during debate um speak to the
[36:10] issues. Um it doesn't have to be
personal and individual's needs.
[36:17] And I will say a lot of times when I do
this training, people will say, "But
[36:21] what about campaigns?" Believe it or
not, there is a decision, a court
[36:24] decision that says you can defame your
um opponent and not it's not illegal for
[36:29] you to defame someone when you're um
>> but it would be illegal to do it in city
[36:34] hall in these chambers. So,
>> right. [laughter]
[36:39] But I remember like what where are we at
that we have a court decision that says
[36:43] you can defame your opponent? I mean
again I'll I'll stop. [laughter]
[36:51] So the next area I want to talk to you
about um and this is kind of becoming a
[36:56] hot topic um and what we're advocating
for with the legislature. So I have this
[37:01] term here politically political
engineering but I want to walk you
[37:05] through why this is so important. So in
the state of Washington we have
[37:09] something called joint and several
liability and this is what we're asking
[37:13] to reform. So joint and several
liability says if two parties are sued
[37:20] and the plaintiff is fault-free,
if there is at least 1% of fault
[37:26] attributed to a party, they are
responsible for the entire amount of
[37:31] damages awarded. So for example, you
could have a case where the city is
[37:37] maybe 10% at fault and another party is
90% at fault. the plaintiffs can collect
[37:45] the entire amount from the city even
though they're only 10% at fault. So
[37:51] what this has led to um is what is
called deep pocket liability. And so
[37:58] what we have seen is often this is used
in road design cases. And so you have a
[38:05] horrific injury and the at fault party
doesn't have insurance or not enough
[38:11] insurance. they will then look to
another party, a deep pocket to see if
[38:17] they can get at least 1% of liability
assigned to that um entity so that they
[38:23] can collect the entire amount. So um
this means a lot of these cases um get
[38:30] brought frequently because there's not
enough insurance to cover the injuries.
[38:36] So these become engineering what we call
engineering malpractice cases. And it's
[38:42] extremely important that when you're
defending the decision of a crosswalk,
[38:47] of a road, of any type of traffic
treatment that it be done with engineers
[38:53] using engineering guidance and because
you're going to have to be able to say
[38:58] this decision was because of XYZ and
this is the engineering behind it.
[39:04] When in the past we would find what we
call political engineering where council
[39:09] will say, "I really want a crosswalk
here." People are are jaywalking. We
[39:14] need a crosswalk. Well, that can be a
very dangerous proposition. They're not
[39:20] force fields. They need to be
engineered. And you know, a midblock
[39:25] crosswalk is one of the most dangerous
things you can install. Um, and so they
[39:30] have to be engineered and there needs to
be appropriate treatments for signage.
[39:34] Sometimes you need lights, sometimes you
need, you know, full stopping. So that's
[39:39] why you want to make sure that you are
following your traffic engineering um,
[39:45] advice and that they are making that
decision.
[39:48] » So bringing this up, we are getting a
lot of these concerns, right? And so
[39:55] when I have been going out, I take
Brandon Hicks comes out. And so we have
[40:00] those black boxes. So when we hear a
concern, we also have our traffic team
[40:04] that you can send constituents to,
right? It's a whole team with multiple
[40:08] departments that research. They go out,
they track the data, at least like
[40:11] 10,000 trips, right? And they figure all
of that out and they'll explain all that
[40:15] stuff. So that's why anything that comes
in, we have the traffic team, traffic
[40:19] team, traffic team, traffic team,
right? But your job as an ambassador is
[40:24] to hear all that and then connect them
>> to the right piece and then let them do
[40:28] their thing
>> and and you know that's exactly let
[40:32] staff respond to these complaints.
>> That's why we hired them.
[40:35] » Yep. And and you want to avoid
inflammatory types of statements. Um I
[40:40] was at a council meeting many years ago
and I heard on the record how many
[40:43] people have to die before we put a
crosswalk in.
[40:47] » Yeah. [laughter] And so, you know,
especially from the council, you don't
[40:52] want to have those statements. I will
also say sometimes you will have a
[40:55] horrific accident occur in your city and
you want to resist um the temptation to
[41:01] immediately address andor fix that
problem. It is horrific. It's horrible.
[41:06] But you can really create liability.
We've had situations where um you know,
[41:11] the driver said, "I just never saw the
kid in the crosswalk. The sunlight was
[41:16] in my eyes." But afterwards the council
said, "Oh, that was an accident waiting
[41:19] to happen. There was speeding all down
that road. I knew someday somebody would
[41:24] be killed. They were called by the
plaintiffs as a witness at trial."
[41:29] » That is an example we have experienced
with a couple incidents blaming it on
[41:33] one thing and then that's why we have
Dr. Bowers and police who researched it
[41:37] and it was not what the stereotype was.
It was this anomaly and something else
[41:42] happened that had nothing to do. Right.
So, we have two recent examples of that
[41:48] where it wasn't speed data, it wasn't
because of location, it was because of
[41:52] some other factor.
>> And so, just keep that in mind um as
[41:57] these come up. Um it sounds like you've
got a great um you know, way to address
[42:03] all of this. So, that, you know, isn't
always the case. So, I very much
[42:07] appreciate that that you guys are doing
that ahead of time. Any questions on
[42:11] that one? and watch the legislative tour
committee for um joint and several
[42:16] liability. We're asking them um for we
have several asked for it. So, we're
[42:20] we're trying to get that one through. I
don't think it'll happen this year, but
[42:23] we'll keep having the conversation.
>> Put it on our lobbyist list track for
[42:28] council.
>> Yeah.
[42:30] » Was legislation in the past, right?
Last session, right?
[42:34] » They they were trying, but it didn't get
very far. and and so AWC, myself, the
[42:40] association of counties, we're all kind
of trying to um bring this forward and
[42:46] we have a whole bunch of apps that could
help solve this problem. So, this has
[42:49] always been a discussion. It really has
not gained traction, but we're going to
[42:53] keep trying. So, we'll see. We'll see
what happens.
[42:59] Uh this is an area where I'm going to
ask you to resist the temptation to
[43:03] share. Please do not leak executive
session information. Executive session
[43:09] um exists for a reason because you're
having conversations that if they were
[43:14] out in the public, it would be a
detriment to the city. So, I always
[43:17] equate it to you're buying a house. You
know, you're buying a house and you want
[43:22] to talk to your significant other about
what's our top dollar, where do we want
[43:26] to go, what's our maximum, what are we
thinking, and you're having those
[43:31] discussions, you know, on your home in
the privacy of whatever conversation
[43:37] you're having. If you had that in the
public domain, what is the seller going
[43:41] to do? I'll take your top number. And
this has happened. Um, I had a case
[43:46] where I went into a mediation and I, you
know, mediations are, you know, you're
[43:52] you're making offers, you're receiving
offers. And finally, at one point I
[43:56] said, "Well, that's my top dollar. Um,
that's where I'm at." And it was where I
[44:00] was at for that day. And the media came
back and said, "You know what? They know
[44:04] what authority you have because the
council asked and the city attorney said
[44:09] she got authority up to this amount."
Now, that doesn't mean just because I
[44:12] have the authority doesn't mean that's
my dollar. I I was just I had authority
[44:16] to go that high, but I wasn't going to
do that.
[44:19] » And I was stunned because now they'll
never accept anything less than that
[44:25] number.
>> So, we then said to that council, we're
[44:30] done. We are not going to communicate
what's going on in cases. We're not
[44:33] going to give statuses because we can't
trust that that won't be legal.
[44:38] » That's right. So, just know that is our
penalty when we know that there's leaks.
[44:44] Um, I've had situations where my whole
defense plan somehow ended up on the
[44:49] front page of a newspaper and I know
that came from a council member and I
[44:52] again, um, if you are in executive
session and you're given material,
[44:58] always give it back. Um there was a case
that um one of our attorneys handed out
[45:03] some information during executive
session giving out legal advice and
[45:07] somehow missed one of the pieces of
paper. They came out. They all were on
[45:11] the dis and one of the council members
got up and walked over to the attorney
[45:17] for the citizens group and said here you
go. And I have never seen a city
[45:22] attorney move so fast in my life. um
just leapt across the room, started, you
[45:28] know, this is you, you know, we did not
wave privilege. And they're kind of
[45:31] arguing over this piece of paper and she
quickly turned to every council member
[45:35] said, "Did you wave privilege? Did you
wave privilege? Did you wave privilege?"
[45:38] Because the you can't wave privilege
individually. It's the council as a
[45:42] whole has that attorney client privilege
and luckily was able to get that handled
[45:47] immediately and said, you know, that is
a privilege document. Nobody here waved
[45:51] privilege.
>> Yeah.
[45:53] » Yeah. Don't do that.
And then what ended up happening is the
[45:57] council sanctioned that council member
um for doing that. And so again um it is
[46:02] possible that you could have sanctions
and it happened in that area. So just be
[46:07] aware.
Uh as always be mindful of your written
[46:12] communications. Um you want to make sure
you're using the city email. That is for
[46:18] public records. It must be retained. The
city needs to be able to produce any of
[46:25] the emails you have written on behalf of
the city when you're, you know, working
[46:30] on in your role as a council member. So,
you want to make sure you're using your
[46:35] city email address, not your personal
address. It is um discoverable in
[46:40] litigation. So, think about I mean, once
again, words matter. So, think about if
[46:45] that email was produced, what what would
you how would you feel about that being
[46:52] on the front page of the newspaper?
That's the best
[46:54] » we just updated your council rules,
right? When you know Peter had asked
[46:58] great questions at times, what if it's
in a timely manner, right? When Tracy
[47:01] and Melody are reaching out to you and
Britney,
[47:04] » do you have anything on your personal
device? Do you have anything on your
[47:06] city like email, phone, all that? So,
when they're asking, it's because
[47:10] they're really asking. So, we had talked
about what's a timely manner to respond
[47:14] back because you don't know behind the
scenes of who's requesting what. So, you
[47:18] have to make sure that you have the
capacity to give everything that you
[47:22] have. Peter, I see Peter, you were
unmuted now.
[47:28] » No, I was just shaking my head. Yes,
>> I'll take it, Peter. I'll take it. But
[47:34] that's why we want to make sure that we
connect with you and you right. That's
[47:39] why we have your text messages, your
city cell phones, that's why you have
[47:42] those because then staff can pull that.
They can pull your emails, but if you're
[47:46] doing something on your personal email
or your personal phone or your social
[47:49] media, you have to share that as well if
it's related to that topic. That's why
[47:53] we want you to keep everything separate.
That's why I have three phones.
[47:56] Everything is separate. I do the same.
[laughter]
[47:59] I have two phones. They're all separate.
I don't do any of my WCI business on my
[48:04] personal computer or my personal phone.
>> Then you don't have to worry about it.
[48:07] and then I know there's nothing there
and it's all being housed within our
[48:11] servers for my public records officer to
search. Um, also I just a brief thing on
[48:18] social media remember is it a um
personal account, is it a city account
[48:24] or is it an election account? And I will
tell you AWC does a fantastic training
[48:29] on social media. So, um, if you can, you
want to do that training. Um, my
[48:34] involvement in this is really more on
the first amendment side of things. So,
[48:39] um, if you want detail, definitely go
through AWC on that. Um, the real
[48:44] question is if you have a city email
account, you can do something which is
[48:50] called opening a public forum. So, a
public forum is where you have
[48:54] discussions back and forth with the
public. And when you open a public forum
[48:59] with the exception of certain areas, you
cannot block or stop that dialogue. So
[49:06] you have to be very careful. I mean
there has to be certain exceptions met.
[49:10] And so we had a case where a mayor
opened a public forum. And sorry these
[49:16] are all mayor. That's not I'm not I'm
not disar not disparaging mayors here.
[49:20] But he had his personal account. He
started talking city business and was
[49:26] like throwing out how do you feel about
that constituents? What are you
[49:30] thinking?
>> On a personal page.
[49:31] » On a personal page. And so this then
became because he was asking city
[49:38] questions, city business. It became a
city page for purposes of opening up a
[49:45] public forum. And then someone started
posting on it and saying and and this
[49:52] person was a member of a hate group and
a lot of what was posted was not very
[49:56] nice and he blocked that person. That
person immediately filed a first
[50:03] amendment lawsuit said you opened a
public forum. You don't get to shut me
[50:07] down because you don't like what I'm
saying. And guess what? They were right
[50:11] and we had to pay him. So just be aware
of that aspect. That's the only aspect
[50:17] I'm kind of addressing here is that
first amendment often and I don't know
[50:21] if you guys do cities do have um social
media policies
[50:26] » and then just the mayor has a social
>> and then every all the council member
[50:32] would potentially have a campaign page.
>> Yeah. And those are totally separate,
[50:37] » right?
>> So there is a there was a decision that
[50:40] came down on that that said and so there
are some decisions out there that talk
[50:43] about how you're using it. Um but I
think that's
[50:46] » council's been going back and forth if
they want a page or not. So far no one
[50:51] has one.
>> Yeah. Our our city um sites have a very
[50:57] robust um policies. What
>> I said dialogue [laughter]
[51:04] at that
>> and and they're monitored.
[51:10] » So that's really important. and then you
know your your campaign
[51:16] » what are on your own. So it's that
middle ground. Um I think where where
[51:22] there's most exposure
>> if you do want one, right? I just had to
[51:25] do it for the mayor's page. You have to
get act staff has access. You have to
[51:30] vault it, right? Because it's open to
public information and PDRs, right? And
[51:34] then they go in and answer questions and
stuff like that. So they have full
[51:37] access to it because it's all public
information. So if you do want that,
[51:40] you're going to have to go through the
city to do that to have a monitor and
[51:44] everything is vaulted and captured and
then you can't block anything.
[51:49] » Well, that's not
I'm not blocking.
[51:54] » It needs to be pertinent to the topic
that was introduced on the
[51:59] » Yes. the discussion.
I have a question about email and um is
[52:05] just like like a a social norm like we
don't respond typically to constituents
[52:10] but I don't know if that's something
that we've accepted as a whole or if
[52:14] that's part of council rules or
>> you can reply
[52:18] » we can I didn't I didn't know
>> my name is Lea you can reply
[52:22] » I do reply
>> I feel uncomfortable I mean it depends
[52:26] on the topic
>> and and that's I mean I think that's the
[52:30] I think that kind of opens up. I mean,
other than Yeah. Have a great day. And I
[52:33] mean, I used to respond.
>> We're not having you answer, but you can
[52:37] reply back and say, "Got it. I forward
it to staff. We'll circle back."
[52:40] » Yeah. Because
>> Okay. But I just Okay.
[52:43] » Yeah. I'm not having you I don't want
you to answer the question.
[52:45] » I'm just thinking about like and not our
council, but like other councils.
[52:49] » We're not worried about other council.
>> I'm just throwing it out there as a
[52:52] saying that if there's anything as far
as um our liability when we're
[52:57] responding.
>> Yeah. That's why you always forward them
[53:00] to staff because you don't want to
answer an engineering question because
[53:04] you're not an engineer but you're
>> represent come in and I will then reply
[53:08] and go got it council has it forward it
to applicable staff they'll
[53:13] » yeah but
one particular from
[53:19] » when do you serve on a I'm thinking oh
so anyway
[53:23] » well give an example what that name
means because we're talking about
[53:25] liability here
>> so um as far as they serve on, you know,
[53:31] as a council member and then you serve
on a committee and then going that far
[53:35] to even responding to constituents as a
committee member. I don't I mean I just
[53:39] kind of feel like
>> you're getting Yeah, really getting
[53:43] before you do that, you want to talk
>> when you're serving representing the
[53:47] city on another committee.
>> Yeah.
[53:49] » I think that the response is the same.
there's staff assigned those committees
[53:54] and so that you can still refer people
to staff um if you're not comfortable
[53:58] with
>> well it's like other than letting the
[54:01] executive director as that was their
task to answer the question probably
[54:06] » yeah they took the lead to do that
>> absolutely staff in my experience staff
[54:13] is always happy to answer those
questions
[54:16] » yeah
I think I see what you're I thought you
[54:21] were more
>> I thought you were more asking for when
[54:24] the constituents outreach you to meet
and I know I get a lot of questions
[54:28] about can I meet with these folks.
>> I mean just got that request right and
[54:33] she checked in right so yeah. Yeah. And
I think a couple things like if you're
[54:38] on an intergovernmental
group for another governmental agency, I
[54:44] think you can work with their staff and
you can also supplement that with our
[54:48] staff from Twater too.
>> If you're not satisfied with their staff
[54:52] and their staff's response. I think the
other thing too is if a message comes in
[54:55] to the full council,
>> I'll ask staff to share that to share
[55:00] their response. You know, they'll
respond to it and then I'll say make
[55:03] sure you share that with council. Yeah.
And I always try to add the caveat like
[55:07] if you need additional followup or have
additional questions or if the you know
[55:11] if that didn't fully if you didn't feel
like there the staff response fully hit
[55:15] the mark then that then always reach
follow back up with us so that we can
[55:19] then correct that message. I I think
something that Eileen's referring to is
[55:23] we are on outside committees and
sometimes I think that electeds forget
[55:28] that when they're on these outside
boards or committees, they're not
[55:33] representing themselves as these are my
beliefs and these are my wants and my
[55:38] needs. I'm representing
all of council. And I think that that
[55:43] does become problematic.
>> But yeah.
[55:46] » Yeah. And that's it. It's just like it
hasn't happened before, but it's
[55:50] starting to etch up a little. And what
was the norm that we didn't, you know,
[55:54] we don't respond, you know, that count
that you took care of it. Like you see
[55:58] that starting to
>> we have that we don't do that.
[56:01] » We're seeing other juris right because
that came back because Peter on one of
[56:05] his assignments came back and said,
"Yeah, another jurisdiction saying that
[56:08] they can't represent and they can't
vote." Right. We all had the discussion
[56:12] is no like you're voting representing
the city and we're giving you like we're
[56:15] entrusting you to represent the city and
vote right so but if you do have a
[56:19] question but that's why you come back
and give your council assignments right
[56:22] we entrust Peter on his committee to
vote for us there not like hold anything
[56:27] up and come back right but that's why
you have the staff assigned you have
[56:31] your assignments it's a good example
>> it is
[56:36] so with that
>> I'm done you guys were fantastic. Do you
[56:41] have any other questions for me? I'm
happy to answer.
[56:45] » Angela, Peter, any comments thoughts
what you heard tonight? Anything come up
[56:50] for you?
>> No.
[56:54] Good presentation.
>> Good presentation.
[56:58] » Good. Angela,
>> yes, it was very good. I always um
[57:04] think twice after briefings like this.
Thank [clears throat] you.
[57:15] » Joan's going to give a thumbs up.
>> Thank you,
[57:17] » Megan, Kelly, Eileen, Brandon.
And she's always available. So, if you
[57:22] have questions and Yeah. And thank you
so much for being a member of WCIA. We
[57:27] really appreciate it.
>> Thank you.
[57:30] » Thank you very much.
[57:34] H how how is that going to go after
that?
[57:37] » [laughter]
[57:39] » Community develop 2026 work plan status
update chair and Brad
[57:47] they're going to start with music now
>> acappella [laughter]
[57:52] » we have a consultant that we're gonna
invite in virtually
[57:57] » he's a panelist
status what are we doing first
[58:02] » it's
[58:09] We don't apologize. Thanks for joining
the table.
[58:15] [clears throat]
[58:17] » And Sharon, who do we have on?
>> Well, we we have Eric Bagwell, but I was
[58:22] told
>> we're doing the work first. So, Eric
[58:27] will join us for the next
>> Yeah,
[58:29] » Eric, we will say hi to you now. We will
wait until the next item.
[58:32] » No problem. [laughter]
[58:37] » So, Community Development has a council
approved work plan and we'll be coming
[58:40] to you in December for a joint planning
commission council work session to
[58:44] develop the 2027 work plan. We came to
you last December. Um, and I wanted to
[58:49] come to you at the midpoint of the year
just to tell you how we're progressing,
[58:52] what's on track, what's slower, what's
taking longer. Um, so just to check in
[58:57] with you and I'm just going to go line
by line what this is kind of the layout
[59:00] of the work plan if you remember what
that was. Um,
[59:11] I did not.
[59:15] » Okay. So we have um the city under the
growth management act we are allowed to
[59:20] update the comprehensive plan once per
year and we had four comp plan related
[59:25] elements. Um in 2025 we updated most of
the comp plan but we had two elements
[59:30] that weren't part of that 2021 update.
One was the parks plan and one was the
[59:35] economic development plan. Parks plan
was on this year's work plan but it is
[59:39] going to be delayed. Um I believe
they're applying for a grant application
[59:43] to get a consultant. So they are
scheduled for adoption in December 2027.
[59:48] So that's not part of this year's work
fund. Um economic development plan is
[59:52] proceeding and we hope to have that to
you mid December for council adoption or
[59:57] economic plan. And then we have a joint
plan with Hston County. Um they're
[1:00:03] leading on that and they haven't gotten
going. So not
[1:00:08] well that will probably carry over 20%
as well. There had been a UG swap
[1:00:12] application. uh the applicant withdrew
and then let you speak to the urban
[1:00:18] growth area study 2027.
>> So related to the urban growth swap
[1:00:23] application uh that prompted on the dire
on the city's part to look at the whole
[1:00:28] beach uh we have a number of reasons to
look at what could be expanded or
[1:00:32] retracted but we think it would be more
appropriate to do that on a citywide
[1:00:36] level. We're preparing an RFP uh to
issue this fall and then we're going to
[1:00:42] be commencing work on that in next year.
Uh from that study, we anticipate we'll
[1:00:47] have some changes to UVA that will need
to be on the county docket to address.
[1:00:51] Uh but we'll involve
that point.
[1:01:03] » There we go. It didn't work. Okay. Next
items have to do with the development
[1:01:06] regulations or the code. So we had a
state mandated um code update for
[1:01:11] housing codes and we had anticipated we
have an anticipated adoption date in
[1:01:15] January. Um the transportation impact
fee is coming to you in um January as
[1:01:20] well. Uh we had a housekeeping ordinance
that you adopted in April. Remember what
[1:01:26] was in there? I don't remember in that
anyway it was minor housekeeping things
[1:01:29] that you've already approved. Um the
multif family tax exemption um code
[1:01:35] expires in December 2026. Eric Bagwell
is our consultant evaluating that
[1:01:39] program. He's going to speak to that in
a moment. What we're bringing to you um
[1:01:43] for approval is just to extend that
program by one year to give him time to
[1:01:47] do his study because you won't have his
final results until early next year. And
[1:01:52] then you'll be able to make another
round of code amendments to adapt the
[1:01:55] program. But for now, we're just going
to move the deadline so it doesn't
[1:01:58] completely expire. just giving us
another year to get the results of that.
[1:02:02] Uh thirst county code, they have a code
title 22 that pertains to all of the
[1:02:07] area in the um urban growth area, but
this is the area parts of the land that
[1:02:12] city will eventually annex. Um they are
going to update their title 22. We're
[1:02:16] going to have an opportunity to review
it. Basically adopting all of our zones
[1:02:19] and regulations, but we haven't seen
that yet. It's led by them. So there's
[1:02:22] been a delay there. Then most of you
joined us on the urban forestry
[1:02:27] management bus tour to see the sites. We
are working very hard to um bring you
[1:02:33] some code early part of next year, but
it's taking longer than we had
[1:02:38] anticipated may go longer than our
anticipated date of February.
[1:02:43] » Uh John has her hand up.
>> Yes, John. There you are. Hello.
[1:02:57] » Can you do it again? I have a question
on the um last one, the um
[1:03:05] » anticipated uh uh thing in February. Um
will this urban forestry management plan
[1:03:14] amendments
have anything to do with changing our
[1:03:18] tree ordinance? Is that still part of
>> of of doing?
[1:03:25] » Yes, it's a landscape code. the tree
preservation and the street tree code.
[1:03:31] » So,
[1:03:34] I I' I've kind of lost where the the um
the tree code is, the one for anyone who
[1:03:41] does any kind of developing or scraping
the trees off the earth and how many and
[1:03:47] what it costs and all of that. We've had
this tree code that's quite old or
[1:03:54] barelyed along the way. And I'm
wondering is that is that included in
[1:04:00] this or is this a se or is it a separate
>> it is it is included in the tree
[1:04:06] preservation code. So this project was
paused in 2023 and we've resumed it this
[1:04:11] year
>> which
[1:04:14] » this leads into Joe. I've reviewed the
three version I mean I reviewed the
[1:04:18] three different entities and I was just
asking um I submitted my comments but I
[1:04:23] think council needs to see it.
>> Yeah. So Joan just as a quick update of
[1:04:28] of why we're still in progress working
through this. Number one, it's been a
[1:04:33] threeyear gap since we did the original
work. There's been a change in
[1:04:36] administration. There's been new staff
coming on uh to replace me. And I think
[1:04:41] to be honest, there's a better direction
going forward. And I want to pursue what
[1:04:46] is being done to make sure that we get
the best code possible. And so that's
[1:04:50] why the work is still underway. U we'll
be providing updates as we move forward,
[1:04:55] but all the things that we've been
talking about, all the concerns that
[1:04:58] were raised earlier are still valid and
are still being considered as we're
[1:05:02] looking through this. We also have a
climate element that we didn't have in
[1:05:05] 2023 and so we're trying to align it
with that as well as water conservation
[1:05:09] goals. So we have a lot more to do than
just pick it up and adopt it and so it's
[1:05:14] it's more than we anticipated and it's
going to take a little time.
[1:05:17] » It's really really good. I mean a lot of
the stuff all your stuff is incorporated
[1:05:21] some element the the gist of my edits
were like placement move the natural
[1:05:26] stuff up move the stuff up and highlight
it. It's really, really, really good.
[1:05:31] And I do think it's time to share some
version iteration with because it's
[1:05:36] going to take them time as well.
>> Yeah. As soon as we have a draft, we
[1:05:40] will.
>> Right.
[1:05:41] » Very good. Well, I'm glad that
>> I'm glad what Brad said. It we're the
[1:05:48] only two that have stuck around so long
that we know what it used to be.
[1:05:52] » [laughter]
>> Oh,
[1:05:58] » I
think also the very important thing is
[1:06:02] we've got some really good concepts,
we've got good ideas, but it's also
[1:06:05] making sure that uh anybody understands
when they look at the code what they
[1:06:10] need to do and all those kinds of
things. And that's where we're really
[1:06:13] putting in a lot of effort. So, I'm I'm
hopeful we'll get a good product out of
[1:06:17] this better than the thousand words that
I usually produce to get one.
[1:06:22] » Yeah.
>> We also made a decision this year to
[1:06:24] move to a repeal and replace instead of
just going in surgically because what
[1:06:28] you saw was the surgical and there were
a lot of issues there. It wasn't clear
[1:06:31] what the applicants were supposed to
submit. It wasn't clear what the
[1:06:34] planner's objective criteria were and so
we need to go through. So, we've changed
[1:06:38] direction and so it's going to take a
little more time to get what you want.
[1:06:42] So, we're getting there. Yeah, it's
really really good council. Like really
[1:06:49] » thanks for your patience.
>> We've been working a long time.
[1:06:53] So I'm
>> Yeah,
[1:06:54] » I'm glad that
>> I'm glad to
[1:06:59] » Thank you.
>> Okay. Um
[1:07:02] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, council
member.
[1:07:05] » Okay. Um these are additional
regulations that weren't in our work
[1:07:08] plan, but we needed to attend to, and
you've already approved two of them. One
[1:07:11] was a building demolition code update
and one was a parking lot lighting code
[1:07:14] update along the I5 corridor. And then
we came to you earlier this year and you
[1:07:19] gave us approval to pursue um getting
code in front of you for the battery
[1:07:23] energy storage system. And we've been a
little bit delayed getting that started
[1:07:26] because of our other projects, but
that's slated for spring. We'll be on
[1:07:30] our work plan in 2027.
And these other planning projects that
[1:07:35] aren't related to comp plan and code, um
we've had two annexations. one that you
[1:07:39] approved in March for 93rd Avenue and
Case Road and one that's coming to you
[1:07:44] in October for Black Lake Belmore
and then do you want to speak to the
[1:07:49] brewery redevelopment plan?
>> Yeah, so that process is now restarting.
[1:07:54] We now have a consultant that's going to
be helping us with that
[1:07:58] restarted the project. So that will be
also something that we'll be working on
[1:08:02] as part of the community development uh
department in coordination with the
[1:08:05] other departments and executives. So
>> the other line item is comprehensive
[1:08:11] plan monitoring and scoping. This is
related to our uh replacement of the
[1:08:15] permit database.
Right? Is that right?
[1:08:18] » Yeah. So we're replacing our whole
permit system uh and replacing with a
[1:08:22] brand new one. One very important
component of that is a reporting and
[1:08:26] monitoring for all of our comprehensive
plan things. We want to be have an
[1:08:30] ability to say, "Yeah, we're actually
doing what we said we wanted to do." Uh
[1:08:34] so that's what we're discussing there.
Our system is just reaching end of life
[1:08:38] and so we aren't
[1:09:38] My text. My text. I can't hear you.
[1:09:44] Hello. Hello.
[1:09:48] I can hear you. Angela stand.
We I can't hear the city uh meeting
[1:09:54] though.
Okay.
[1:10:09] I didn't have any Greg.
[1:10:14] » Council members, I'm checking in with IT
staff, so hold on. I'm not quite sure
[1:10:19] what's happening. Technical
difficulties.
[1:10:21] » Thank you.
[1:12:12] If you all can hear me still, Lance is
looking into it. Sounds like it might
[1:12:14] just be a few members. He'll get back to
us with the recommendation.
[1:13:02] Okay, if you can still hear me, Lance is
recommending we just reconnect,
[1:13:06] disconnect, and re and relo. Oh yeah.
[1:14:06] I'm back.
[1:14:22] Council
[1:14:30] member Kathy, I can hear you. I don't
know if the room can hear us though.
[1:14:34] I'm not seeing any nodding heads or
shaking heads.
[1:14:38] I'll check back in with plants.
>> Right.
[1:17:02] you recommending Ann coming to do that
training. We all really really like her.
[1:17:06] Yeah,
>> I said it was a trigger for me when you
[1:17:09] were like,
[1:17:14] » "Oh,
>> we're live."
[1:17:22] » You do that every time. Okay. So, thank
you, Peter. Thank you, Angela. Eric, I'm
[1:17:28] still not going to talk to you until
your agenda items up. We're looking for
[1:17:32] Joan.
You want to come with us?
[1:17:42] » I just got to go to bed.
[1:17:47] » Peter, we're right there with you.
>> Peter's like horizontal. We're almost
[1:17:53] done. Council, we're almost done.
Sharon, bring us home.
[1:17:56] » All right, we're almost there. Uh,
okay.
[1:18:02] » Page seven. Okay, we're almost there. I
think this is the last the last page.
[1:18:06] Um, other planning project. We talked
about the permit system transition.
[1:18:10] We're supporting that with a halftime
employee public engagement. We are using
[1:18:15] social media campaigns for urban
forestry and housing. Um, and we are
[1:18:20] bringing up one of the below the line um
projects which is like project that we
[1:18:24] didn't weren't sure we could get to, but
we are. It's the citywide design
[1:18:26] guidelines that's coming to you
together. So, you're going to get a lot
[1:18:29] in the fall.
>> Um, and engaged.
[1:18:32] » Yeah. And so we're doing that with a
very small team. Most things are on
[1:18:35] track, but some things are taking longer
than anticipated. And um there you have
[1:18:40] it.
>> That's why staff come to you to share to
[1:18:42] tell you where they're at. Right.
>> So this is a great update.
[1:18:46] » Right. And so let's
segue into the next.
[1:18:51] » Now we can all acknowledge Eric and say
hi.
[1:18:54] » Hi Eric.
>> Hi Eric.
[1:18:55] » Good evening. Thank you for having me
here.
[1:18:59] Shall I share my screen or uh Sharon or
um do you break the internet? Share it.
[1:19:06] » Why don't you share it, Eric? And then
you can um
[1:19:09] » let's see if that crashes anything.
Let's do it.
[1:19:12] » If not, we can do it. Yeah.
>> So, we're on to multifamily tax
[1:19:17] exemption program evaluation in your
pack.
[1:19:21] » Correct.
>> Preliminary findings.
[1:19:24] » Let me put this into
the full screen. Can everybody see my
[1:19:29] screen? It looks like it's loading.
>> Yes.
[1:19:33] » How's that look?
>> There you go. Perfect.
[1:19:36] » All right. Well, thank you again for
having me. It's an honor to be here and
[1:19:39] it's been a privilege to work with
Sharon and Brad on this project so far.
[1:19:43] So, uh, thank you again. So, the top of
the conversation is again, uh, the
[1:19:47] multif family tax exemption program that
the city of Tumbwater has currently on
[1:19:51] the books. what we've been doing is
doing an evaluation of how effective it
[1:19:55] has been so far. Um, and so I guess the
short answer is, and I'll get into the
[1:20:00] data and analysis here in a second, and
the short answer is it really depends on
[1:20:04] what you're trying to achieve with the
program. So the next slide is this just
[1:20:09] gives you an overview of the districts
where the multif family tax exemption
[1:20:14] currently uh is allowed to work and can
be given to projects that are in these
[1:20:19] areas. So, we have the Little Rock Road
sub area, we have the Tumbl Water Town
[1:20:23] Center, we have the Capitol Boulevard
corridor, and we have the Brewery
[1:20:26] District. Those are the four main areas.
Um, now the the 8-year program that
[1:20:31] currently exists doesn't work in all of
these uh geographic areas, but the
[1:20:36] 12-year does. The 12-year can apply to
all four of these districts.
[1:20:43] Um, this gives you a snapshot of where
the most recent multif family
[1:20:47] development has been in the city. Um, so
this is looking at both MFTTE projects.
[1:20:53] Sorry, John. Yes.
>> Um,
[1:20:56] could you say why the 8-year doesn't
work.
[1:21:00] » Um, I didn't say why. I'm not I haven't
said why it doesn't work.
[1:21:04] » Okay.
[1:21:08] district.
>> What's that?
[1:21:11] » Uh I think Eric Eric meant that the
8-year only applies in two districts,
[1:21:17] the the Bury District and the Capitol
corridor.
[1:21:19] » Correct.
>> It doesn't apply or it isn't an option
[1:21:23] available in the other two.
>> Exactly.
[1:21:25] » I think it was a word choice.
>> Yep. My apologies.
[1:21:29] » Thank you.
>> Yeah.
[1:21:32] Uh so here again is a map of the again
the blue areas are the districts where
[1:21:38] MFTTE currently applies and then we're
looking at MFTTE multif family tax
[1:21:43] exemption projects versus developments
multif family housing developments that
[1:21:48] have been built since 2017 in the city
that did not take advantage or did not
[1:21:54] receive a multif family tax exemption.
Um so as you can see here a lot of this
[1:21:59] development has been happening over here
which was on remind me what Little Rock
[1:22:03] Road sub area. So the majority of MFTTE
projects so far to date have been
[1:22:08] concentrated in the Little Rock Road sub
area um with some smatterings in up up
[1:22:14] north in the Brewery District um and a
little bit in um uh the Capitol
[1:22:19] Boulevard corridor. There has been no uh
development in the um Twater Town Center
[1:22:24] to date that received a multif family
tax exemption. Um the green dots again
[1:22:28] are the non multif family tax exemption
projects. So projects mult normal multif
[1:22:34] family developments that have popped up
in the city since 2017. And you can see
[1:22:38] they're a bit concentrated up into the
northwest, a little bit in in the C
[1:22:43] broad Capitol Boulevard corridor area,
and a little bit near uh the Little Rock
[1:22:48] Road sub area, but not directly in it.
[1:22:55] In terms of unit production, again, it's
mostly been concentrated again in the
[1:22:59] Little Rock Road sub area. So, this is
just a snapshot of the units. So up top
[1:23:04] you'll see the 8 and 12 year options in
the brewy district and the capital
[1:23:07] corridor and these are the total number
of units and the total number of
[1:23:10] projects that have been developed using
multif family tax exemption in in those
[1:23:15] two districts. And then the 12-year
option only with a 20% affordable set
[1:23:20] aside. So 20% of the units must be deed
restricted affordable. um in the Little
[1:23:27] Rock Road sub area have been there's
been three projects and about 562 units
[1:23:31] to date. Um some of those are market
rate units again and uh again 20% of
[1:23:38] those are have been deeed restricted as
affordable.
[1:23:44] So this here is just a a general
overview of how affordable housing
[1:23:49] typically works. I thought it'd be
helpful to sort of just
[1:23:52] give the give the council a little bit
of a refresher on how um affordable
[1:23:56] housing typically works. So, Thirstston
County area median income is set by the
[1:24:01] US Department of uh housing and urban
development. Currently, it is at
[1:24:06] $122,800
per year in income for a fourperson
[1:24:10] household. Now, HUD then breaks that
down based on household size and unit
[1:24:16] type. So you can see in this top um
table that we have the the percent of
[1:24:22] the area median income. So 100% would be
100% of the area median income and going
[1:24:26] down to 30%. And then you can see
depending on the household size, so one
[1:24:31] person, two person, three person, four
person, etc. And the unit type, a studio
[1:24:35] one, two, threebedroom unit, you're
going to get different amounts um of
[1:24:41] area income that qualify
for those units. And then going from
[1:24:46] there, how we determine affordable
rents, we take uh a 30% of that income
[1:24:52] which is considered affordable by the US
Department of Housing Preser Housing and
[1:24:56] Urban Development um and divide that by
12 and that gives you the monthly rent
[1:25:02] for that unit type and that household
size. So as you can see here, you have a
[1:25:06] one person household in a studio at at
100% AMI. The most they could pay in
[1:25:12] rent would be $2,150
per month, for example. That's the most
[1:25:16] they could pay.
[1:25:20] » Next slide.
Now, here is some data analysis we did.
[1:25:24] This we this we looked at market rents
currently.
[1:25:27] » Can you
>> Yeah, can we hold on one second?
[1:25:30] Brandon,
>> can you go back to that?
[1:25:34] » Yeah. because the maximum you're saying
that they
[1:25:38] they can pay up to $2,150
a month for one person for this.
[1:25:45] » Yes. If they are if the unit is deed
restricted to 100% of the area median
[1:25:50] income. So, for example, in the MFTTE
program, now your current eight um your
[1:25:58] current 12-year program requires between
80% and 115% of the area immediate
[1:26:04] income in terms of rent. So, the rent
could be as low as 7, for example, for
[1:26:08] one person's studio. It could be as low
as 1720 a month or could be even above
[1:26:15] that 2,150 a month if they can if the
market can support that, of course.
[1:26:22] Yes, Jim.
>> Is there is there anybody anywhere
[1:26:28] um in
these local cities or county or the
[1:26:35] whole country? Anybody talking about
changes in any of this stuff that the
[1:26:39] government has set as standards or 30%
or 80% or this or that because this is
[1:26:46] not this doesn't even make sense for
today anymore. And so I'm just wondering
[1:26:52] is there any
is there any push anywhere that things
[1:26:56] like this need could need to be adjusted
or um
[1:27:00] » there have been some efforts to do for
example set you know a lower percentage
[1:27:06] of income to as considered affordable.
So there's been some efforts to go below
[1:27:10] 30% say 20% of income. There's been some
efforts on that front. Nothing has gone
[1:27:15] by you know past Congress or anything
like that. Um and then on you know on
[1:27:19] the in terms of the AMIs you know part
of the challenge has been since for
[1:27:23] example the financial crisis of 2008 you
we've actually seen median incomes go up
[1:27:29] everywhere across the country. So you if
you look at you even Tumb water back in
[1:27:34] 2010 you would see like a steady
progression of area median income
[1:27:39] continue to grow because people's
incomes have actually continued to rise.
[1:27:42] Um, now how that is counted. There's
been some debate about whether we should
[1:27:46] count certain areas. For example, HUD
oftentimes brings in other areas, not
[1:27:51] just county, but also sometimes brings
in other metropolitan areas into the mix
[1:27:56] or other jurisdictions with into the mix
that maybe sometimes drives up or drives
[1:27:59] down the area mean income. But generally
speaking, there has not been any efforts
[1:28:03] to actually change how AMI is calculated
um by the Department of Housing and
[1:28:07] Urban Development.
>> Yeah. Because Yeah. the median income
[1:28:12] might be going up, but the poverty level
is also going up. And so those two
[1:28:18] things are are getting farther and
farther apart. And I just wonder how as
[1:28:23] as a [clears throat] city or coming
together with our constituents, no, our
[1:28:29] I mean our leaders here in Thirstston
County or whatever.
[1:28:33] I think some adjustments need to be made
or we just have a lot of people that
[1:28:38] aren't going to make it because I know
lots of people who can't pay that kind
[1:28:42] of rent.
>> Sure. Yeah.
[1:28:45] » It can it concerns me that uh and
conversations about doing big things can
[1:28:53] start right here in a seven member
council.
[1:28:57] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:28:59] » Eric, before you consider Thank you,
Joan. Eric, before you continue, Brandon
[1:29:03] had something.
>> Okay. Sorry about that. We can't see.
[1:29:05] » I don't know. Do you in particular, but
what mechanisms or
[1:29:14] areas are we able to go ahead and choose
this on? Yes, this to me is
[1:29:18] » we don't change the definition. You
choose the percentage. Right. Council
[1:29:21] chose 80 to 150. You can choose the
percentage. We don't change the federal
[1:29:27] definition.
>> Okay.
[1:29:28] » Correct.
You could say on MF you could go down to
[1:29:31] as low as 50% AMI,
>> but that doesn't necessarily mean a
[1:29:35] developer is going to build that
project, right? And that's the what
[1:29:38] we'll get into here in a second, right?
Setting a lower set standard doesn't
[1:29:42] necessarily mean that those projects
will get built.
[1:29:46] » I understand that to me though, it's
just it's disgusting. $2,150
[1:29:51] for one person for a studio. That is not
affordable. That's not a team. So
[1:29:57] » train.
>> That's an example, right?
[1:30:01] » We're not.
>> Yeah.
[1:30:04] » Yeah. Well,
>> yeah. It's very difficult. But I
[1:30:08] understand what you're saying, but it's
very difficult for anybody to get to
[1:30:12] those numbers as a single person to
spend 2,100,
[1:30:15] » right? It's based on what you're making
that, right? So if you're not making
[1:30:19] that, then this is not. So thank you.
just
[1:30:24] » correct.
>> Yep. And what I'll show in a minute is
[1:30:27] that in reality people in Tumb Water,
most people in Tumb are not paying that
[1:30:32] in rent. So I'll I'll demonstrate that
here in a second. Um so what we did here
[1:30:37] was looked at this is what we did. We
pulled data on what current rents are in
[1:30:41] Tumb Water, right? So you'll see here in
the green bar chart, those are the
[1:30:47] current observed rents,
average rents for new construction
[1:30:52] multif family projects built between
2020 and 2026, so this year. Um, and
[1:30:58] current rents on average across the city
range between a studio and a
[1:31:03] three-bedroom unit from 71% of the AMI,
so 1500 about $1,500 a month in rent to
[1:31:10] 81% AMI for a three-bedroom, which would
be about 20 nearly $2,500 a month in
[1:31:16] rent. So, as you can see, um, we, you
know, the the rent that I showed in the
[1:31:22] previous chart, that 2150 isn't actually
a rent that's being, you know, common
[1:31:27] rent in in the city. The common rent is
roughly between that 60 and 80% AMI
[1:31:33] range. So, that is what we're currently
observing as the market rate rents. And
[1:31:37] the orange chart demonstrates that. So,
the rents affordable at 100% of the area
[1:31:42] mean income would have to be at 200
2,150. and that would be above what
[1:31:47] we've observed in terms of the data. So
that's not really what rents, you know,
[1:31:51] are are um happening in in or achievable
rents that are being observed in in the
[1:31:57] city right now. So So the main point
here is that the actual rents uh are
[1:32:01] below what we would say as 100% of the
area income and are actually below what
[1:32:06] you're saying is the 12-year program. So
it actually most of the time they're
[1:32:11] below the 80 to 115% that the multif
family tax exemption currently requires
[1:32:22] and here is just demonstrating that on
same thing. So market rents are below
[1:32:27] the 12-year MFT AMI range right now. So,
um, again, the current new construction
[1:32:33] average rents are 72% to about 77% in
terms of area median income in terms of
[1:32:39] rent.
[1:32:46] One point I'd like to make and I think
it's really critical to to highlight
[1:32:50] this point in the data is we also looked
at older properties um in in Tumbwater
[1:32:55] and what we observed is actually the
rents you know that you all just spoke
[1:32:59] to trying to get to like 50 to 60% AMI
for example are actually found in what
[1:33:05] we call naturally occurring affordable
housing. And so naturally occurring
[1:33:08] affordable housing are older properties
that simply can't command high rents
[1:33:14] because they lack some of the amenities
that new construction projects often
[1:33:18] provide or they're they some you know
they're older properties that are just
[1:33:21] less attractive to a lot of uh
individuals or families. And so actually
[1:33:25] the rents that they can charge are below
what most new construction multif family
[1:33:31] properties are. And so you actually have
a good bit of supply right now.
[1:33:36] » Yeah.
Eric, thank you. Hold on a second. And
[1:33:39] then Megan has as I'm listening to Eric,
I'm literally thinking home energy
[1:33:43] score. How would that impact
these homes that Megan? Go ahead.
[1:33:50] » Home energy.
>> I'm looking at this chart.
[1:33:54] » Uh, a question about the chart that
you're sharing right now.
[1:33:58] » Uh, are you
saying that homes built in the 1980s are
[1:34:02] available for rent in our community for
$788 a month?
[1:34:07] Um, yes, there are a few properties.
Part of the challenge is there are only
[1:34:10] a handful of actually properties that
still exist in the city that were built
[1:34:14] in the 1980s. And of those that do
exist, the rents are quite low because
[1:34:19] the quality of the product can simply
not command high rents. So those those
[1:34:24] buildings may actually be in need of
some repair. Um, they may be located in
[1:34:28] less desirable neighborhoods for
compared to what other market projects
[1:34:32] have been built. And so actually the
rents that they can achieve on those on
[1:34:35] those units, the owner or the developer
um are quite low and they don't need to
[1:34:40] be high because they don't have any debt
for example sitting on those properties.
[1:34:43] They don't need to cover debt a lot of
times. And so you have what we call
[1:34:47] again naturally occurring affordable
housing happening in the city that are
[1:34:50] just in older properties.
[1:34:54] » Multifamily are these multif family in
these are all multif family units.
[1:35:02] And again, there's not a large supply.
[1:35:08] » Yes. Again, these are probably legacy
renters who have been there for decades
[1:35:12] and maybe they're, you know, live in
the, you know, in a unit that's next
[1:35:16] door adjacent to, you know, a a land
owner and they've been stay they've been
[1:35:21] there a long time and this is the
observed rent that's been been in place.
[1:35:24] Um, I obviously don't know the ins and
outs of those individual units, but I'm
[1:35:29] just speculating on what they may be.
[1:35:34] So, the whole point here is that you
actually have a good bit of supply of
[1:35:37] affordable housing in some capacity. And
on the one hand, you're incentivizing
[1:35:41] the construction of new trying to
incentivize the construction of new
[1:35:45] housing, but the existing affordable
units that may be existing in your
[1:35:49] community are receiving no incentive to
actually stay affordable.
[1:35:55] One more follow-up question. This
doesn't quantify like how much supply is
[1:36:01] affordable. I'm very curious because I
see the dollar amounts, but I don't
[1:36:04] know. Does this represent like two units
or 200 units?
[1:36:09] » Good question. We can certainly come
back to you and provide the information
[1:36:12] at our next uh council hearing. We we
didn't provide the full number. That
[1:36:15] would have been a good data point to
include. Thanks.
[1:36:20] » So, this isn't about homes. talking
about houses. This is just all
[1:36:25] multifamily.
>> This is all multif family because that's
[1:36:27] where the tax exemption applies to just
multif family tax exemption and it only
[1:36:31] applies to multif family developments.
[1:36:36] » So this is just one category of
affordability or not affordability.
[1:36:42] » It's one category of housing type.
Correct. So but multif family also could
[1:36:46] be as small as a forplex right and go up
to 100 units. So it can it covers a v
[1:36:52] wide range of housing um types
>> but it's not people living in single
[1:36:59] houses or
>> it is not single family homes
[1:37:02] » group something like that.
>> Yeah a duplex or triplex could count
[1:37:06] would count um as a multif family
>> project.
[1:37:14] Uh next slide is just giving you a
little overview about our approach to
[1:37:17] our analysis. So this is our
methodology. um we call it a performer.
[1:37:21] It's a very technical term but really it
is just like a financial analysis. What
[1:37:23] we're doing is taking the costs what it
costs to build a building a new multif
[1:37:28] family building and looking at the
revenues that that project could
[1:37:32] achieve. So basically taking again those
market rents that we've observed in the
[1:37:36] data and comparing what how much of the
revenue can cover the costs and how much
[1:37:42] of the land budget exists. So what we're
solving for is land because in order to
[1:37:46] build any multif family housing you need
to identify a parcel of land to be for
[1:37:50] the project to be built on. And so if
the land budget exceeds what we observe
[1:37:56] as the median or typical land price then
we determine and based on the revenues
[1:38:02] and costs we can identify whether a
project is financially feasible to do.
[1:38:07] If the land budget is too small, what
could the project can afford compared to
[1:38:11] what we observe as the typical land cost
that we have a little gap and you'll see
[1:38:15] that in the bottom chart and we call
what we there's a little gap between the
[1:38:18] land cost and the land budget. Uh that
gap means that the project's going to
[1:38:23] need some subsidy probably of some kind
public subsidies, grants, other programs
[1:38:26] to help make sure that project is
financially feasible.
[1:38:35] As part of that this analysis, we also
looked at what we call prototypes. So we
[1:38:39] looked at a couple different housing
types that would qualify for the multif
[1:38:42] family tax exemption. So we have town
homes.
[1:38:45] On the left we have threetory woodframe,
you know, small lot we call small lot.
[1:38:49] So this would be like a, you know, a 40
to 50 unit building with surface parking
[1:38:53] as you can see in the image. And on the
right we have a threetory wood frame uh
[1:38:57] that has something more like a tuck
under or a large lot. Sorry, a large
[1:39:01] lot. So, a bigger site um that can
accommodate maybe up to 100 units. And
[1:39:06] then on the bottom one, we have a
fivetory woodframe um building. This is
[1:39:11] going to be your um uh your highest
density type of multif family housing.
[1:39:17] So, it's going to be could be surface
parked or it could have what we call
[1:39:20] tuck under parking where there's a
little bit of parking that goes
[1:39:23] underneath the building. Um and that
would be the highest highest density um
[1:39:27] type of multif family housing we
analyzed.
[1:39:30] Eric, for just a moment, all of these
examples are are actually in Tumblr
[1:39:34] water. The town homes are up on top of
Tumblr Hill. The wood frame is the North
[1:39:39] Street Apartments.
>> Uh and then the other two examples are
[1:39:43] Kingswood and Rockwell over in Little
Rock.
[1:39:47] » Yeah, thank you, Brad. Appreciate that.
Helpful.
[1:39:53] » Next slide. So this is really what the
gist of our analysis is is we're looking
[1:39:58] at market rate development. Okay. And
we're looking at those different town
[1:40:02] homes and trying again trying to solve
for land. So what we observed in the
[1:40:07] data is that most vacant underutilized
land comes around somewhere between 12
[1:40:13] and $21 per square foot. That's how much
it costs to acquire what we call vacant
[1:40:18] or under utilized land. This is going to
be a parcel that's been sitting there.
[1:40:21] Hasn't really been used for much. it's
maybe dirt or maybe there is a small
[1:40:27] building next to a large empty lot and
that would be something we consider
[1:40:31] underutilized. It isn't built out. Um so
what we've observed is that most land
[1:40:37] costs at least for that type. So vacant
or underly utilized land is around $21
[1:40:42] to $12 a square foot um or sorry $13
roughly $14 a square foot. And then we
[1:40:49] also looked at well what is the median
price of land in Twater? So that's that
[1:40:53] black line you see up top roughly about
40 48 $49. Um that tells us where
[1:40:59] roughly the middle in the market is.
What is land transacting for currently?
[1:41:04] Um and that we're and what we've
observed is that's roughly around $49
[1:41:07] per square foot. Now going again going
back to the prototypes, the types of
[1:41:11] housing we analyzed in our approach. So
town homes, threetory wood frame, the
[1:41:15] threetory foot frame with a larger lot,
small lot and then the fivetory wood
[1:41:19] frame. You can see here the orange bars
are telling us based on market rate
[1:41:25] rents that we've observed in the data.
This is how much land per square foot
[1:41:30] these types of buildings can achieve can
afford.
[1:41:34] So, as you can see, only the threetory
wood frame, the $14 uh per square foot
[1:41:41] can only is the only prototype, only one
that can actually be built on
[1:41:46] potentially if they're able to find a a
piece of land that costs $14 per square
[1:41:50] foot. The other ones do fall short. They
do they cannot pay the price of land.
[1:41:56] So, that means they're infeasible. They
cannot be built. And again, these are
[1:42:00] projects where there is no multif family
tax exemption, right? there's just like
[1:42:04] they're paying their property taxes.
They're trying to build a a new multif
[1:42:08] family building, but unfortunately they
are financially infeasible. And this is
[1:42:12] part of the reason why I think as I
showed you in the map earlier of where
[1:42:16] the developments have occurred, you
don't see very much multif family
[1:42:20] development that is not taxexempt being
built in the city currently, at least
[1:42:24] since 2020.
[1:42:29] Next slide. Now, if we apply the 8-year
multif family tax exemption to those uh
[1:42:35] five different prototypes of housing of
multif family housing, you can see
[1:42:39] there's a it's a big change. So, now
going from the orange bars from the
[1:42:45] previous slide to the now green bars,
you can see most of those housing types
[1:42:49] can now afford most of the vacant and
underutilized uh land that may exist in
[1:42:56] the city. So they can, for example, town
homes can now achieve about $23 per
[1:43:01] square feet in land. The threetory wood
frame, both large and small, can get 29
[1:43:06] between 29 and $19 per square foot in
terms of the cost of land. The only one
[1:43:11] that has a negative land budget is the
fivetory, the higher density housing
[1:43:16] type. Part of the reason for that is
that is a much more expensive. It costs
[1:43:20] much more to build that housing type.
And so given what we've observed in
[1:43:25] market rents, even with the tax
exemption, that project wouldn't be
[1:43:31] built with the 8-year program. And
that's actually what we've observed.
[1:43:35] We've seen that most of the multif
family housing development that's been
[1:43:38] built in Tumb Water, at least since
2017, has mostly been your threetory
[1:43:42] woodframe
um uh developments, uh three or fourtory
[1:43:48] woodframe developments with mostly
surface parking. And I think that we
[1:43:51] showed you in the in the sides as well
as some town homes for example as well.
[1:43:55] Um,
>> any questions on this?
[1:43:59] » I I I have a question. So, how how many
take one of these what's what is the
[1:44:06] rent going to be?
>> So, we're taking that average rent.
[1:44:11] » Pardon?
>> As part of our analysis, we're taking
[1:44:14] that average rent that I showed earlier.
>> Okay.
[1:44:17] » Let me go back to the slide just really
quick so I can just give you that.
[1:44:20] So this see these green bars here. We
took average rents and applied it to the
[1:44:26] unit types within the prototypes that we
built that we designed here for the
[1:44:30] analysis.
>> And that gives us roughly what the all
[1:44:34] the revenue that a project could
generate depending on the size versus
[1:44:38] the cost of building that project
>> and not paying taxes for 12 years.
[1:44:45] Well, so the first slide here shows
they're still paying taxes and which
[1:44:50] shows that they're in feasible. The next
slide says, okay, the green bars,
[1:44:54] they're not paying taxes for eight years
and now they can actually afford to
[1:44:58] acquire more land and actually
potentially are feasible if they were
[1:45:02] able to acquire or able to find land at
that price.
[1:45:06] » I thought we were talking only about 12
year.
[1:45:09] » This is the eight-year right now. This
is just giving you an example of if the
[1:45:13] eight year were applied to these
different housing types, how are they
[1:45:18] feasible? Okay.
>> And do we qualify for the 8-year here?
[1:45:23] » Uh you have two districts that currently
offer the 8-year um as an option.
[1:45:30] » And if it was 12,
>> Eric, the 8-year,
[1:45:34] sorry, the 8year does not have the
affordable housing option. We don't It's
[1:45:39] just production. Yeah. You don't you
don't have to you don't have to
[1:45:43] designate anything affordable living,
right? Affordable.
[1:45:46] » Yeah.
>> That's
[1:45:51] because it's quite a thing. If you look
at the one of the charts that you sent
[1:45:55] us or that we we saw, you know, there
was 600 and some units and
[1:46:03] 110 of them were affordable. I mean,
that seems to be the ratio. That's
[1:46:09] that's bad. I mean, from my point of
view, but uh
[1:46:15] » well, I like to Joan, I like to
challenge that because what I what I
[1:46:18] showed you earlier is actually market
rents are at those same rents. What
[1:46:23] you're saying is affordable as in part
of MFT program. You're saying it's
[1:46:27] between 80 and 115%. But actually what
the market has been delivering in
[1:46:31] Tumbwater since since uh 2020 has been
rents that are below that at 77 to 72%
[1:46:39] AMI.
So you're actually getting
[1:46:42] » I'm gonna jump in for a second. Eric,
I'm gonna jump in. Thank you Joan. One
[1:46:48] um we don't need to challenge council.
So I'd ask that language next time.
[1:46:53] » And then also I'm just noting the time.
There's a lag on technology. So, Eric,
[1:46:57] you're talking over us because there's a
lag.
[1:47:00] » Um, it is almost 8 o'clock. This was
just supposed to be a heads up to all of
[1:47:05] you. So, I think I'm getting confused by
Eric's presentation right now. So, I
[1:47:10] would like us to wrap this up, go to the
key takeaways and next steps and have
[1:47:14] council follow up with additional
questions because there is not enough
[1:47:18] time tonight to go over this and I have
more questions now than I did before
[1:47:22] this started. So, can we get to the
summary and we will follow up next time?
[1:47:27] » Okay. I'm sorry if I came across as
challenging or questioning what you were
[1:47:32] I was I was just repeating things that I
thought I read and I I may not have had
[1:47:38] all the all the different uh you know
numbers and amounts in the right
[1:47:44] district.
>> Sure. And I wasn't I wasn't
[1:47:46] » John. You don't have to apologize. Joan,
you are on council. Your job is to ask
[1:47:50] questions. You are golden. Brad,
>> I just like to offer staff is also
[1:47:55] available for the individual council
members to answer some of these
[1:47:58] questions and I it took me a couple
readroughs to understand it. Yes.
[1:48:02] » So, I'm more than happy to explain what
I could understand as well.
[1:48:05] » That's perfect. Thank you. Did uh
Angela, Peter, Jones, did you hear that?
[1:48:09] Uh connecting with Brad and Sharon about
this more thoroughly because this is
[1:48:12] going to be an ongoing conversation.
Thank you. All right.
[1:48:15] » Can we ask for Can we ask for a one on
one uh one hour presentation or sit down
[1:48:22] and talk about this because I have more
question than I that I could think of.
[1:48:27] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. Agreed, Peter. Great idea. Yes.
[1:48:30] Like we're just beginning this and so
Peter, all of council is shaking their
[1:48:34] head in agreement with you. So yes,
we'll work with that with Brad and
[1:48:38] Sharon. before we get to Paul Eileen.
>> So, and just to clarify for them is that
[1:48:44] we're not even we won't be looking at
this until 2027 and it's not even until
[1:48:48] December of 2027, right? Yeah.
>> Because we're waiting for him to finish
[1:48:53] his preliminary finding,
>> right? And so, so that I just Yeah. I
[1:48:57] wanted to kind of
>> So, this is perfect timing, right, to
[1:48:59] really dig into this, right? We have a
year
[1:49:02] » his report. It's really good.
>> We're not rushing this, right? So, great
[1:49:06] comment, Peter. We'll do that, right?
And thank you, Joan. And then Paul,
[1:49:10] » I was just gonna say that I'll have uh
Britney reach out and coordinate
[1:49:15] meetings with Brad and Sharon. Uh we'll
have Britney or Jessica, one of one or
[1:49:19] the other. We'll reach out and schedule
uh offer meetings for you to schedule on
[1:49:23] your team.
>> Yeah. Perfect.
[1:49:26] » And I think we're going to the key
takeaways now.
[1:49:29] » Yeah. So the main the last slide here
and I'll go to the key takeaways was
[1:49:32] just pointing out the going to the
12-ear. If we apply the 12-year, you can
[1:49:37] see most in the green bars, it actually
then becomes even more feasible across
[1:49:40] all these different housing types.
[1:49:44] » Can you can you jump to the last slide?
Key takeaway slide, Eric, and maybe walk
[1:49:48] through. Yeah.
>> So, the key
[1:49:51] » on technology
>> just to reiterate some of the points
[1:49:53] I've I've tried to make is um the
current program is influencing housing
[1:49:56] development outcomes. So, you are
getting housing built as a result of the
[1:50:00] program, which I think is really
important. We need supply just as much
[1:50:02] as we need affordability. And part of
getting affordability is actually having
[1:50:06] supply of housing. Um the second point
is market rate rents are within the
[1:50:11] affordability requirement. So the point
here is that you have a 12-year MFTTE
[1:50:16] program, but you're really just
delivering more market rate housing
[1:50:20] because most of the affordable units are
actually roughly at market rate rents in
[1:50:27] the city. So you're not actually
delivering any deeper affordability
[1:50:30] result. Uh third point is older again
older properties are a source of what we
[1:50:35] call again naturally affordable housing.
So you you are h you do have affordable
[1:50:39] housing in your community and I think
it's critical to also think about
[1:50:42] maintaining that affordability on
existing units is an important thing. Um
[1:50:46] fourth point is without MFT most market
again most market rate wouldn't projects
[1:50:51] wouldn't be possible. So you wouldn't
get the supply of housing that you
[1:50:56] actually started you need to have in
your community regardless of what you
[1:50:59] think about rents. Um so it's really
important to get supply as as a as as a
[1:51:03] driver to drive down rents as well. U
with MFTTE prototypes you know um most
[1:51:09] of them can afford vacant or
underutilized land but doesn't mean they
[1:51:13] can afford all parcels of land. So MFT
helps again on feasibility. And then the
[1:51:18] second point which I didn't get to to
show on the slide was if you ask if you
[1:51:23] require the MFTTE goes even deeper in
terms of affordable housing requirement.
[1:51:28] So let's say you set 20% of the units at
70% of the area median income. Most of
[1:51:34] those prototypes then are no longer
feasible. So you're not going to
[1:51:37] necessarily get those units built even
if you ask you know demand deeper
[1:51:41] affordability. So this is a calibration
exercise. We're trying to find the right
[1:51:46] affordable set aside to make sure
development still continues to occur
[1:51:50] without making it too burdensome to be
able to achieve the actual housing
[1:51:54] development that the community really
needs.
[1:51:58] So some I guess questions for the city
and priorities, you know, should MFT
[1:52:02] focus on delivering as many deeply
affordable needs as possible or should
[1:52:05] it be about incentivizing housing
production? Again, we need housing
[1:52:08] supply just like we do also need
affordability. [snorts] Uh should
[1:52:12] geographic areas stay the same or be
revised? Um this question for you all. I
[1:52:16] don't know you know your community
better than I do. So curious if there's
[1:52:20] other geographic areas you think where
this would be better applied in terms of
[1:52:24] trying to get housing outcomes that you
want to see. And then third is should
[1:52:28] the city place greater priority on
preservation? Again going back to that
[1:52:31] point that you do have affordable
housing in older properties and
[1:52:34] preservation of those properties and
preservation of those affordable rents
[1:52:37] is an important and as well.
Um, so just in terms of next steps,
[1:52:43] again, we're doing task three is coming
up. We're doing a deeper analysis of the
[1:52:46] multif family tax exemption design.
We're that includes looking at a 20-year
[1:52:51] MFT option. So that's something we'll
look into. And then task four will
[1:52:55] provide a final report as well as a
fiscal analysis looking at the fiscal
[1:52:59] trade-offs of this program versus um not
having it, for example. Um so that's
[1:53:04] something that'll be included in our
task for final report. And then our next
[1:53:07] meeting um in terms of the council
meeting will be on in January 12th and
[1:53:11] we'll present report back on where
things have landed.
[1:53:15] » One thing I'm going to ask is the next
presentation be in person, whatever that
[1:53:18] looks like, because there's a lag and
now I'm even more annoyed because of the
[1:53:22] lag. So I'd like the next one to be in
person, please.
[1:53:25] » Sounds good.
>> Happy to do it.
[1:53:31] Yeah. So when we come back in January,
we'll be bringing a staff report with
[1:53:34] recommendations what code changes what
we think we would propose because we're
[1:53:38] trying to achieve two goals. One is
housing production and one is
[1:53:40] affordability. And this is tied to the
other uh consultancy. They're looking at
[1:53:44] um other ways we could achieve
affordably. Maybe MFT isn't the best way
[1:53:47] to try to meet every goal. Maybe it's
better to just have it be for housing
[1:53:51] production and have other programs
available for hopefully.
[1:53:56] » Right. And this in the interim one-on
ones with staff and any other updates
[1:54:01] can also come to council but also
general government, right?
[1:54:04] » We'll be seeing this in general.
>> Yes. So ongoing work. This is just the
[1:54:09] beginning phase. We all have questions
which means we're all engaged and we're
[1:54:12] all dedicated to figure something out to
serve our community. So this is awesome.
[1:54:15] » You're also welcome to email if you have
want to email questions and we can get
[1:54:18] them answered and then we can share them
with all of you. So that might be
[1:54:21] another way to have it ready.
It's just noting the time. It's 7:57.
[1:54:28] Mayor Protown, what did you have?
>> I I just wondered what other and this
[1:54:32] goes to the planning commission and
equity commission to
[1:54:37] » So, this is not an actual we're not
taking the code through yet. We're just
[1:54:40] looking at what do you want to do with
it? So, when we come to you in January,
[1:54:44] they're like, "Here's some options. What
would you like to do?" Then you'll be
[1:54:47] directing us. We want to do this. Then
we do the code change and then it goes
[1:54:50] through the whole
>> this came from the when Michael also
[1:54:53] were on council with Joan Cathy and
myself in general government right
[1:54:56] working with Brad there were like is
this even working are we like it's so
[1:55:01] arbitrary are we making up these
percentages and so the concept was yeah
[1:55:04] we allow it right now but then we got to
study it and figure out in the scheme of
[1:55:08] water and the regional housing council
and all the other inner city transit
[1:55:12] TRPC what does it really look like for
Tom water and so that was the
[1:55:16] negotiation we let this keep going and
we figure out how we're going to move
[1:55:20] forward and what that really looks like.
>> Well, we come back to you with those
[1:55:23] findings, then you'll direct us, yes,
you want to do this or that, and then
[1:55:26] we'll do the
>> And then I think that's where the
[1:55:28] engagement of the equity commission and
the planning commission, whomever else
[1:55:32] you think needs to be talking about.
>> John, did you have something?
[1:55:36] » I don't want you to sign me up with Brad
because it'll make his hair stand on
[1:55:41] Anderson. He's talked to me so many
times [laughter]
[1:55:45] and had many talk.
>> His body posture right now, Jim.
[1:55:50] » So, don't don't put me on don't put me
on my his his list for people to talk
[1:55:56] to.
>> I'm gonna have you circle back like
[1:55:58] we're at.
>> Yeah, I'll circle back.
[1:56:01] » Make us both dizzy.
>> We have mayor, city administrator's
[1:56:06] report. My report is at 7:59 and I'm
done for the day. Paul,
[1:56:10] » if you're done, I'm done.
>> Meeting at 7:59. Thank you everybody.