[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.

City Council Work Session, Aug. 25, 2026

Transcript