2026-11-09 - City Council Study Session

Good evening everyone. I would like to

call to order the Lakewood City Council

study session.

[opening remarks on a court staffing transition omitted; personnel matter]

Um, so the basic overview that I kind of

want to give just as an update for what

the court saw in 2025 and also a little

bit of what we're seeing so far in 2026.

Um, I think most of the council members

know we are a court of limited

jurisdiction. Uh we are the court of

limited jurisdiction for the three

communities that the court serves.

Obviously Lakewood and then the two

municipalities that have contracts with

the city of Lakewood for municipal court

services and Dupont. We presently have

eight full-time court employees. We have

one part-time court employee. Um, we

also have a they're not a court

employee, but we are really fortunate to

have a sergeant from the Lakewood Police

Department who is tasked to the court

usually for a 12-month period of time.

Uh, currently that is Sergeant Vince

Cankio and so he is also full-time with

the court. He's embedded with us and

overseas court security operations.

Um

we provide uh and preside over gross

misdemeanor misdemeanor criminal cases

that occur in those three

municipalities. Uh the court also

presides over court code enforcement

infractions

uh that u require a hearing. Uh that is

something that we were dealing with last

week. It was our code enforcement

calendar. Uh we also uh preside over

traffic infractions that are issued in

uh those three municipalities. Uh as the

council knows um that's divided into two

groups. Uh the officer issued traffic

infractions, but there's also a healthy

apparatus of photo enforcement

infractions that the court sees.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Just very quickly, it's a very high

number. Almost 19,000 of our 25ish

thousand are photo infraction. Is that

normal for a jurisdiction of this size?

>> I believe the answer to that is yes. And

and one of the things that you probably

saw in the materials that were provided

is we're actually seeing a decrease. Uh

and it's interesting in talking to the

officers that represent the two

municipalities

um that issue those photo enforcement

infractions. The city of Lakewood and

and the city of Dupont. Uh the city of

Lakewood, they really haven't changed

their parameters. What the officers that

represent the city at those hearings

tend to attribute the decrease in

numbers to is frankly education. Right?

People have become more aware that this

is a photo enforced school zone that I'm

driving into. And I know that because

either I've received a prior infraction

or someone I know has received a prior

infraction. Um the intersection at the

State Route 512 in South Dakota way is a

great example. I think that was a a red

light photo enforcement uh uh

intersection. It was a one of the

earliest ones and I think people have

learned uh that that is a photo

enforcement controlled intersection and

it is it has impaired or affected the

way in which they drive in those

intersections. Uh the PD will tell you

for the better. There's been a decrease

in collisions and accidents.

That is not to say that there aren't

still a lot of infractions that are

issued. They are. What you tend to see

is a lot of the infractions that are

issued in those areas are non Lakewood

residents uh who are passing through

that intersection are not otherwise

familiar with the fact that there is

photo enforcement.

>> So, one of the things we've talked about

here in council is if we were to have mo

more photo enforced uh cameras, should

they move? Do you have any thoughts on

that?

>> That's a really interesting question. I

I I I can see I can definitely see

advantages to it. I don't know really

what the cons would be. The advantages

would be if there are other areas of the

city where the police department is

saying we are seeing uh a high

prevalence of excess speed. We're seeing

more motor vehicle collisions then

certainly there is an argument for

moving that photo enforcement apparatus

to that location in an effort to curb

that. Right? That I think that would be

the the the pro to that approach. Um,

one of the nice things about having

long-term photo enforcement, uh, and we

have certain school zones, again, once

people have been educated on the

existence and the presence of that photo

enforcement, it impacts, it changes the

way they drive and they enter those

areas. That's not necessarily going to

change just because the photo

enforcement apparatus has been moved to

a new location. That muscle memory, if

you will, is still kind of built in. So,

I I think there probably is a pretty

strong argument if there are other areas

of the city where u the city would like

to see drivers pay closer attention and

slow down, uh that would certainly be an

argument for for moving that apparatus

to those locations. Yeah, you're

welcome,

>> Council Member [name removed].

They, you know, judge, the

along with the conversation that we've

had about getting more cameras and would

we would would more cameras be more

effective if they were

rotated between

locations. the um

as we have put in cameras in the past

and as other jurisdictions have put in

new cameras, Tacoma most recently added

some. They they tend to have a period of

time of when the cameras at a specific

location are consider

rather than infractions, they become

warnings.

Okay. And so

how would that work if we were going to

have

cameras that moved around? Is is that is

that

that doesn't seem to be a realistic a

realistic strategy? But is there what

what is the the the

argument for when you put a camera in

having a period of time of when there is

a

amnesty period?

>> Yeah, there is that notice provision. Uh

and this is really kind of the area of

the city attorney's office. So I don't

want to I don't want to step on their

toes, but the the legislature Yes. The

legislature clearly when they passed the

section of title 46 that allows

municipalities and counties to utilize

this type of equipment um they very

clearly wanted to make sure that drivers

had advanced warning uh that uh that

those types of technologies were being

used and and that is we see that with

the amnesty period that you're

discussing. We also see that with the

signage requirements that are in the

statutes that the cities have to comply

with in order for those infractions to

be enforcable. Um so yeah, I I I don't

know exactly um what the requirements

are under the RCW. I haven't looked at

those those uh

statutes in a while where the parameters

that have to be complied with for a city

or a county to implement a new location.

Um, but I believe that there is

something in the statutes about prior

warning to drivers in that area.

>> And

generally, what type of

protests

do re people who received infractions

I I mo most people who receive an

infractions, you know, their response is

to write a check.

>> Portion portion. Uh but but but but the

ones that that actually choose to appear

before you.

>> Yeah. You know

what do they have uh hubers about?

>> Yeah. And and that's a great question. I

I will tell you that in 2025 we had if

I'm remembering correctly uh we had

somewhere between 800 and 900 hearings

uh that were generated by photo

enforcement issued infractions between

the cities of Lakewood and Dupon. And

frankly, um, council member, the a lot

of the times it is individuals coming to

court who have not reviewed the

evidence. Um, they don't realize

that there is a video of them running a

red light, for example, until it's

played for them and everyone else in the

courtroom. Um, other individuals like to

come and and protest the fact that they

don't think these are fair. Uh, that

they don't appreciate the fact that uh

these uh devices have been utilized or

set up by the city of Lakewood or by the

city of DuPont. Um, I tend to hear that

frankly more on the city of DuPont cases

than I do the city of Lakewood. Uh, the

city of DuPont charges a lot more uh for

their citations than the city of

Lakewood. Um they're also very

um stringent in their enforcement. Uh

now one of the things they've done is

they've reduced the hours in their

school zones which is one of the things

you'll see reflect in the materials uh

that were provided. So we've seen a

sharp decrease in the numbers but yeah

there there are not a it's not an

insignificant number of people who

simply want to come to court uh and

express their displeasure with having

issu received one of these citations.

Now for the court, from the court's

perspective, the question is very

limited and very straightforward uh

municipalities have the right under

state law to implement these types of

devices and this type of enforcement.

And as I explained to them, the question

then for the court is whether or not the

city can prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that they committed the

infraction for which they were cited.

And the technology and the equipment is

very very good and very very precise.

And so I would say probably in close to

99% of cases uh the city is able to meet

its burden.

>> So if

council is successful in the new new

bianium of installing additional cameras

to create

12,000 more annual infractions.

What's the impact on the court? Uh it

it's it could be considerable. Um the

reality is is that every one of these

infractions

generates a case. Now, you're absolutely

right. The vast majority of them, people

simply write a check in the vast

majority of them. But it still needs to

be processed by court staff. Uh even if

there's never a hearing, it still needs

to be processed by the court. And that

creates work for the court administrator

and the court administrative staff. Um,

every one of those tickets is

at least theoretically a case, right?

So, uh, and then the question becomes

the respondent. How do they choose to

respond? Did they choose to simply pay

it, which is the vast majority? Did they

choose to write a letter to the court of

the written um, uh, procedures that are

allowed under the RCW to either contest

or mitigate? And I read every one of

those. Uh, and I spend a considerable

amount of time. Uh sometimes it's three

or four sentences, sometimes it's three

or four pages. Um so it it just depends.

Uh there that is part of their due

process rights under the issuance of

those citations. And then there are

those individuals who come to court and

either want to mitigate it or want to

fight it. Uh and sometimes they're not

terribly happy. Um, I think frankly

the most u animated hearings that the

court has are the photo enforcement

infractions.

>> The um [clears throat]

later on this this evening, we're going

to be reviewing the draft

uh 2728 bianial budget. And it it it's

there where we sort of embedded the idea

of a affording more cameras, being able

to go and do that. But in your portion

of that budget,

is is there something in the budget

we're going to be reviewing as relates

to the court that anticipates

that increased workload?

Um, I I don't know. I I I can tell you

that I've um this is conversations that

have come up in in discussions between

myself and the city manager. So I I I

know the city manager is aware that

there is an impact to the court and to

court staff and processing an increase

in the number of infractions that are

issued either by the city of Lakewood or

by the city of DuPont. Um but whether or

not that's been factored into the

budget, I I'm not I'm not aware.

>> Thank you. Thank you, Deb.

Okay. Uh, so yeah, I'm just going to

kind of go through this uh pretty

quickly. So, yeah, you I I do want the

council to be aware the officers are

also still very busy. Uh, the officers

issued nearly 5,000 infractions. Uh,

those also generate hearings. Um, but

the officers are issuing a lot of

officer issued infractions as well. We

had 95 94 code enforcement cases. Uh

2,169 criminal cases. Um this is the

breakdown of domestic violence cases and

impaired driving cases. Um I bring these

up because some of you I know heard me

talk about this last year. Those are

cases that the legislature has indicated

they want courts to prioritize and

emphasize and and I think with good

reason. Um they they're the most

dangerous cases that the courts of

limited jurisdictions see. Um every DUI

is potentially a vehicular homicide. Uh

domestic violence cases can uh turn very

ugly very quickly as any law enforcement

officer can tell you. And so in those

cases, the court is typically taking

five years of jurisdiction over the

defendant as opposed to the statutoily

prescribed two years for all other

offenses or two years for all other

gross misdemeanors, one year for simple

misdemeanors. And what that means for

purposes of court resources is it is

potential there is a potential for a

defendant, especially if they are

non-compliant or if they have other

future law-abiding behavior issues, to

find themselves coming back before the

court repeatedly. And so in in one

domestic violence case, for example,

over the life of that case, it's not

necessarily unusual for there to be 20

hearings uh for that one particular case

from the time that it initiates to the

all the pre-trial hearings through

disposition and then five years of uh

postconviction supervision.

Um I know

that um [name removed] when I was here

doing my budget presentation had asked

about some additional domestic

information regarding domestic violence.

So I just wanted to make sure that um I

provided kind of an update with the

trends that we're seeing for for 2026 on

both the issues of domestic violence and

impaired driving. It's certainly not

what I'm hoping for. Um, on the impaired

driving cases in, and let me go back. In

2025,

the Lakewood Municipal Court received

105 cases that were filed by the city

attorney uh charging someone with

driving under the influence. Through the

end of October, uh, for 2026,

uh, we are already at, let's see here,

198. So it looks like we are going to

probably more than double the number of

DUI cases uh that are being filed in the

Lakewood Municipal Court for this

calendar year. Um the trends for the

domestic violence cases uh again in in

2025 we saw 419 domestic violence cases

filed through the end of October were up

to 457. So we're going to significantly

increase the number of domestic violence

cases that have been filed. uh as well.

Uh the bar graph that was in your

materials just kind of provides a I

think just a kind of a visual to give

you an idea that that is a four-year

capture 2022 through 2025. Uh you can

see there's a pretty good progression in

infraction cases. Those are the officer

issued infractions. Uh the criminal

cases have increased from 2022 to 2024.

2025 they pretty much held steady or

were just slightly less than 2024. Where

we're seeing a drop off is in the photo

uh enforcement infractions. Um there has

been a decrease uh issued by the city of

Lakewood. There has been a stark

decrease uh in the number of cases uh

issued citations issued by the DuPont

Police Department.

uh probation services again courts of

limited jurisdiction because um most of

our criminal cases involve some type of

suspended or deferred sentence or some

kind of diversion agreement. The

probation services that are provided by

their two full-time court probation

officers is absolutely vital. Uh they

supervise and oversee compliance with

all terms and conditions of suspended

sentence. Uh some of the more common

ones that are uh ordered by the court

are alcohol drug abstinence, uh

treatment compliance, whether it be

substance use disorder treatment,

domestic violence treatment. Uh the

court offers a DVMRT program, which we

are very proud of. We think we've seen

uh a lot of success with that. We're at

a point where we're actually receiving

referrals from other courts who are

sending their offenders to us to

participate in the DVMRT program that we

offer. I want to assure the council that

priority is always given to defendants

whose cases arise out of the city of

Lakewood uh Stilicum or DuPont. So those

other jurisdictions, we will take their

defendants for DBMRT only as uh space

and time allows. Uh our probation

department also supervises the uh EHM

scram monitoring. The work crew uh

program has been revitalized and I I

know that council has heard about that.

So that is something that we are

continuing to um really emphasize in our

court.

Our therapeutic court programs we have

two

>> Council Member [name removed].

>> Yeah. I I I used to know what the scram

means. I I don't actually remember. I I

I learned it at some point. It is a

transdermal um alcohol monitoring device

that individuals wear on their ankles.

So it looks technology has actually

gotten a lot better. It's not as obvious

as it used to be, but it kind of looks

like a electronic home monitoring

anklet, but its sole purpose is to sense

whether or not there are any alcohol

coming through the pores of the skin. If

it senses that, then it sends a report

to whoever the monitoring agency is. Uh,

and then they submit, uh, a violation

report to the court and we typically

summons that individual in for a a

non-compliance hearing or a violation

hearing.

Yeah.

Uh, so yeah, we have the the two

therapeutic treatment court programs

that Lakewood Municipal Court offers.

The Veterans Treatment Court has been up

and running since, I believe, 2018. It

is a very wellestablished program. Uh,

one of our court compliance officers,

[name removed], uh, who is a veteran

herself, spearheads, uh, this and we

have had, uh, tremendous success with

our veterans treatment court. Um, that

is part of the reason that we

established our newer therapeutic court,

the community court. Uh, the fundamental

difference between the two is we were

having so much success with our veterans

treatment court. We were looking for a

similar program for individuals who did

not have the qualifying uh militarily

military service and so that led to the

establishment of the community court

program. But it's um the tenants of the

community court program are based upon

the veterans court. We're looking for

individuals who are a um low risk of any

kind of violent crime or anything like

that. These are usually property crimes,

criminal trespass, things of that

nature. and uh the defense is indicating

that there's a nexus between uh poverty

or housing insecurity, things of that

nature, uh that brought them into the

criminal justice system and but for that

issue, they probably wouldn't be here.

And so we we essentially place them on a

diversion program where we work with

them through community court to connect

them with resources for housing,

treatment, uh employment assistance,

employment training. uh that's overseen

by probation as well in the hopes that

uh if they successfully complete the

program their criminal charges are

dismissed and the goal is really to

leave them in a better place than we

found them uh 12 months prior when they

started the program and we've had quite

a bit of success with that as well. So

that is something that we are continuing

to put a lot of time and effort into.

Okay. Um that is

the presentation that I wanted to

provide to the council. And as I said at

the beginning, I know you're all very

busy, but if you have any questions, I'm

happy to answer those for you.

>> Yes. Thank you, Judge. I um Okay,

Council Member [name removed].

>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor, and thank you,

Judge, for presenting. Uh just a few

questions. So, trending data. Uh we hear

from Liquid PD that crimes have been on

the decline for the last three years. Uh

but looks like filings have gone up on

the criminal side. Uh there's a big jump

from 2023 to 2024 of about 30%.

What explain the disconnect for us?

>> I I I don't know. I Yeah, I really can't

answer that question. Um I what I can

tell the council is these are the cases

that the city attorney's office has

filed in our court. Um

there do occasionally come up cases that

there is a lag between the commission of

the alleged offense and the filing date.

Um so that is a variable. There are a

number of good explanations for that.

The most common one is impaired driving

cases where perhaps the city attorney's

office is waiting for blood results from

the state toxicologist. And there's

often a lag of usually around six months

uh from the time that the search warrant

is executed for samples of a driver's

blood and the time that the toxicologist

is able to test those. Um we did see a

slight decrease from 2024 to 2025. It

was not significant. Um certainly not I

think to the extent that we're otherwise

seeing crime in the city decrease. But

short answer is I I I don't really have

an answer to that question.

>> That's okay. It helps me think about it.

So, our our officers issue citations and

then our city attorney decides whether

or not to prosecute and then it comes to

your realm to to do your your So, I get

it. Uh we've talked about increased

public defense needs due to state

changes. Are you starting to see that

impact yet?

>> Uh yes. Uh we have seen additional

public defenders added to the staff for

the firm that provides the lion share of

public defense services. We are in year

one of the 10-year implementation. So

the case load for misdemeanor and gross

misdemeanors which are the criminal

cases we handle has I think it's

supposed to drop 10% every year for 10

years. So we have seen that uh cap this

year go from 400 to 360. Um, so we

haven't, it's not a huge impact at this

point, but it's there and it's going to

continue to grow as long as those

numbers remain where they are.

>> Okay. Thank you. And then my last

question, uh, I heard you say the photo

enforcement infraction costs in DuPont

are higher than those in Lakewood. Um,

how different are they? And is that

something that's restricted by state law

or is that set by those individual

municipalities? How does that work? I

think there's I think it's both. That's

one of those where again I would defer

to the city attorney. Um I think there

is some latitude there. There are

maximum penalties that are prescribed by

the RCW and there's some latitude for

the counties and the municipalities that

utilize the photo enforcement where they

want to set it. Um the differences

aren't huge, but they're not

insignificant either. It's not at all

unusual for me to see a comparable uh

speed related infraction. So let's take

a school zone for example. Um, a school

zone photo infraction uh in Lakewood

could be anywhere from $50 to $100 uh

cheaper, if you will, than if you

received a going the exact same speed in

a school zone that is photo enforced in

the city of Dupont. Thank you. You're

welcome.

>> Thank you, judge. It was a great

presentation. And I also want to say

welcome to [name removed] to the city of

Lakewood. So, we're looking forward to

that also. Thank you.

>> Thank you all very much. I appreciate

your time.

All right. Now, we're going to review

the 2027 lodging tax funding

recommendations. And if [name removed] could come up, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Council

members. Uh the review of the 2027

lodging tax funding allocation starts on

page 12. And uh the process has been the

same as it has in the past. Um, if you

look at page 14, well, one thing I do

want to note is that we paid the debt

service on the McGabic Center. Our last

payment was in 2026.

So, that's that's good. We'll have an

extra $102,000 basically.

So, on page 14, as you can see, there

was a funding request of over $3.4

million and the available funds for

allocation was $2.4 million.

So there's um a lot of reductions in the

amount u of recommended funding compared

to the recommended request. So on page

14 is just a listing of all of that. One

thing I do want to highlight and um one

of our representatives

um had previously mentioned about having

some different scoring methodology and

so that is something that the lodging

tax committee will be taking a look at.

Otherwise the recommendation is $2.4

million. Um a lot of the uh recommending

funding are for applicants who have been

repeats. So, and that concludes my

presentation

um in terms of that. But for the next

steps, this is coming back to you on

November 16th. And just as a reminder,

the city council can approve um or not

approve anything that is on the list. Um

but the city council if there is a

change in the dollar amount or

additional um applications to review

that'll have to come back before the

lodging tax committee um 45 days in

advance of any action by the city

council.

>> Okay, great. Thank you. Are there any

questions from council?

Council Member [name removed]

>> on page 14 and and there's a column for

total project cost and that was a number

provided by the applicants

or

um

based on whatever budget they were using

to support this to be able to go and do

that. And it in most cases it differed

from their ask from the request. Um that

um

[name removed] told us that there was a s

most

folks who made requests that were people

who had received funding previously

were in this list of recommendations.

seeing a recommended lower level of

funding than they received for 2026.

Um,

but there don't seem to be

that many new

requests.

So, is is is

the fact that most folks saw their

requests

year-over-year reduced in terms of

recommended funding,

is that attributed to the uh the city's

HBR capital project request or what

other factors

were in play? Was was there

less less money available in for 2027

than for 2026 or what's the dynamic that

led to that?

>> Sure. So overall you will see similar

applications. So we've done very over

the years um through different

communications managers and uh

methodologies to out for outreach. we're

still getting the same types of

applications or the same um applicants

applying for it in terms of the amounts

that are recommended for the H barn. So

if you recall that there are 7% 4% is

that is restricted just to capital and

the other 3% is for tourism. However,

the entire 7% could be used for capital.

So in this situation here, we had an

availability of uh 3% restricted and

that was going to the H barn and so that

full amount had to be applied towards

capital projects. I think overall

um if you look at last year I believe

there were some that actually received

more than what they had originally um

had requested. Just now it's just an

availability. We have a lot of demand

and just not enough lodging tax dollars

to allocate.

So the division between capital

and non- capital in the recommended

funding does that align with the 4% one

way 3% the other or is it

is it skewed differently? So this is

based on how much money we bring in of

the three and the 4% and it's really

under council policy. So under council

policy the 3% that is restricted that is

um that is because the city council

wanted that. That's not something in

state law that requires us to do that.

But the limitation is when we look at

the ending fund balance of 2.4 million

and the way that we're tracking it. So

the money's coming in what had been

spent previously for tourism versus

capital the amount that was available

for capital was 1.5 million a,543,000

that could only be used for capital

projects and by definition capital

projects is something that the city has

to have ownership in. So all of these

other um these other requests by those

other organizations were not for capital

one because they were not eligible to

request capital funds. But the way that

it's split in terms of funding

recommendations is literally based on

the available amounts for tourism versus

capital. And again the city or the

lodging tax committee could have said

that we'll use the entire $2.4 4 million

for capital projects and not allocate

anything to tourism programs.

I guess the the issue of the allocating

the 1

million 543 544

um or capital projects towards the the H

barn

and is um

does that represent a 4% number?

>> It's actually the 3% restricted

Yeah, it's

>> it represents

>> Yeah, it it represents the amount that

is available for capital funding

>> included some carryover dollars from

previous years. Okay. To be able to to

go and do that. I So I see. And uh

so let me just ask you in your other

city hat. Okay. Um,

what's the significance of 1.54

versus 2 million

um

to the city's

budget work towards the H1?

>> Uh, let's see. So, in Hana, the So, the

city council had already allocated $2

million previously. I think this is

short. I think they were anticipating an

additional uh $2 million for a combined

amount of $4 million. So this is less

than what was anticipated as part of

their capital projects request.

So that would mean that the city

council, we in our pledge of 4 million

towards this project would be looking to

still complete the

pledge in a future year with with with

the 400 and some thousand that

>> correct. they could come back and ask

for 2028

for the remainder or even more depending

how all of the other um anticipated

funding comes out.

>> Okay. Um

and um

that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you,

De Mayor.

What if somebody that we've given elac

dollars to now has reduced their

services or closed their

office things like that?

So at the end of 2026,

I'm assuming this is the question, at

the end of 2026, if there are leftover

unspent dollars by any of the

recipients, that just stays within the

lodging tax. So this goes back into the

lodging tax funds for future.

>> Do they have to report something back to

you? Do they have to like if because you

that Go ahead.

>> So they don't get the dollars up front.

>> Okay.

>> They get it on a reimbursement basis. So

if organization received $100,000, they

have to submit reimbursement receipts

>> up to the $100,000.

Um if they didn't incur the expenses,

they don't get the money.

>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member [name removed].

>> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you,

[name removed]. Uh, my question kind of is

similar to what Deputy Mayor had. Um, so

of these requests, none of them were,

well, only one or two were funded fully

for what was requested. Are there any

programs where the requests come in

where they could not proceed without our

funding?

you know that I could not tell you

without looking at the entire

application and really it would be a

question for the um the the applicants

themselves. I'm not sure that that

question was asked of each of the uh

requesters. You know, in taking a look

at the total project budget of $18.2 $2

million from all um applicants versus

what they've received. Um it would be a

specific question for each of them. Um

there may have other sources that if

they didn't get the city's money that

maybe there were some alternatives or

maybe there was a backup plan in terms

of programs presented for such.

>> Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I was

thinking if there's groups that needed

our money to proceed or had a minimum

and we didn't meet that minimum, then I

would think we would take them off the

list and that funding would go somewhere

else. So, all right. Thank you.

>> Thank you. If it uh Council Member [name removed]

No. Yep. Yes.

>> Thank [laughter] you. Thank you. Um

[clears throat] [name removed], thank you

for the presentation. um the allocations

to the city of Lakewood for the Fort

Stilikum events. Um these are relatively

meager amounts per event except for

Summerfest, but granted that's a uh

that's our signature event. But because

they are small events, I'm just curious

generally do these funds what what do

these funds generally go to? Do they go

to like

staff staff costs or contractors or

>> Sure.

>> maintenance.

>> So for the city of Lakewood programs, it

does go to some staffing. There's about

a.5 FTE primarily for Summerfest and

Farmers Market. So they support those

programs. for those other programs. Um,

and Summerfest as well. Summerfest, the

summer concerts, the streets, uh,

festivals, the Fiesta Defilia, and even

the, um, MLK event. A lot of those are

contractor payments. So, you know,

they'll pay a a tattoo artist or a

balloon maker or performers and um, you

know, music and things like that. So for

the city's portion, it's about a

half-time FTE that supports these uh

lodging tax programs.

>> Got it. Thank you. And then does any of

that time

um that FTE time is that going towards

marketing?

>> It's going through just management the

entire program. It could be marketing,

it could be support services, just any

related to those programs.

>> Okay. Thank you. And then the last

question is of those events um might be

uh easy to assume that uh visitorship

has grown steadily since getting out of

co but in the last four years so since

let's say summer of 2022

um has is is it safe to assume that

visitorship for each of these events has

actually the trend actually has been

steady growth both year overyear or has

there have you seen dips?

>> I would say that the program continues

to grow. Um we see that in a lot while

parking for one is a reflection but it's

just been a lot of promotions and I

believe and in talking with staff it has

grown the programs have just overall

have grown.

>> Great. Thank you.

>> Thank you. and you can't move because

we're going on if we're going on to the

next uh the next topic which is the

review of the 2027 fee schedule

amendments.

>> Sure. And so um this is our annual fee

schedule amendments and in this you'll

see quite a few changes and u primarily

there are five changes and this really

starts on page 20. I'll just start with

the next step for this is um coming back

to the city council for adoption the

five areas and um our planning and

public works director [name removed] and our

parks and recreation and community

services director [name removed] is also

here. They have the biggest chunk of it

um that where they prepared a PowerPoint

um presentation to present to you. But

the first one is an extra duty

contracts. The city's had extra duty

contracts in place. And the one piece

that they have not been assessing is an

$8 per hour for the WCIA assessment. So

the city pays quite a bit in

losses and worker hours. And based on

2025, the per Can you hear me? Okay.

Okay. The per worker hour rate is about

$8. And so we're requesting that this be

added to all extra duty contracts. The

second one, which I mentioned before,

um, and city manager also mentioned, is

the credit and debit card service fee.

That is also reflected in here. It's a

2.9% fee. And then development services

and park fees make up number three and

four. The fifth one is the McGavic

Center. And this is really more

housekeeping. The city council mentioned

during the last fee update to uh

increase that to $2,000 per rental. So

with that,

your name was not on my highlighted list

to call you down. [laughter]

Please come on down and let's see what

Council Member [name removed].

>> Yeah. Yeah. Just one question on this uh

on page 2022 under the McGavoc Center.

Um,

is the January 1, 2026 date supposed to

be 2027 in that sentence

>> to make that I guess. Yeah, sorry.

>> Well, I remember we discussed doing it

for 2026 and decided to delay it a year.

Yeah.

>> Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. and

we noted it in 2026 that the fee would

increase effective January 1, 2027. I

will make that change.

Way to go, eagle eye.

Thank you.

>> All right, so let's hear about uh you

know public works and parks and then the

fee schedule. Thanks.

>> Certainly. Uh good evening. So before us

on the PowerPoint, you'll see the 2027

permit fee update slide that I'll be

walking through. And so

>> and if you're looking for it, it's on

page 64.

>> 64.

>> Ah, today I have control. Last time it

didn't work for me. All right. So really

when we start out and what we're looking

at, we really wanted to start out with

three primary goals that we have in

2027. So, one is about being precise in

what we're looking at and how we're

spending the hourly cost and where we're

at and the fees that we bring in. The

other is also about fairness. So, that's

charging for work the staff already does

today, but that currently wasn't being

recouped on the fees that's spent on

permits. And then clarity, remove fees

that are obsolete or double counted and

fix confusing labels and references that

exist within the system. That's

something we've been doing since since I

started with 26 uh the first update in

24 and we're going to kind of keep

moving through those. All right. So,

we're going to shift through a few

different items. If you've looked ahead,

we'll talk about cost recovery.

So, as we're talking about cost

recovery, there are two things that we

look at. So, there are general

liabilities that we do, which are

general services to the public. Those

aren't permitting services. Those are

people that are coming in and asking

questions at the front counter about,

hey, I'm looking to go and do this. We

can't charge for those. And what we look

at, um, when we do long range planning,

we don't charge for that. That's a

service that's expected and it's a

general obligation of the jurisdiction.

So, what we do look at though is when we

have permit services, looking to be 100%

cost recovery on those hours we spend on

permit services. So, as we look at this,

u we kind of break down into how we come

through our hours. And one of the things

that I look at is how many hours do we

have total for 19.75 employees, right?

So, that would normally come down to

41,000 hours, but we don't charge for

the hours when people are on leave,

vacation, um when they're off on

holidays. Those aren't things that we

work into the rate when we do that. So

when we redact those and pull those out,

we come down from 280 hours to about

1180 hours a year that we have and then

we break that down into covering the

cost of those employees and what they do

and the work they do. Okay. So when we

do that, it comes out to about an hourly

rate of about $120 an hour and what

we're looking at. Any questions on that

so far? Okay, moving the next slide.

So permit services are designed to pay

for themselves 100%. That is the goal.

If they're not paying for themselves,

then we're offsetting private

development with general fund dollars,

which isn't the goal. And before when we

talked about that in 2024, we spoke of

it and that was a goal from the council

also was that permit services would

recover uh what we could to make sure

that we're covered there. All right. So,

as we move through it, uh the 2026

status, permit fees are recovering

currently about 91% of the the cost for

what we're looking at. Now, that's based

on our first three quarters and where

we're at. Um, as well as some

recognition when we went through the fee

schedule that there were items that we

weren't capturing or things that we had

missed when we updated the hourly fee.

So, we went from $92 an hour to 120. We

had a rare permit that comes in. We went

to charge for it and we're like, why

does it still say $92? instead of the

120. So part of the upgrades that you

see in the updates are catching items

like that as we're moving through it.

So we're going to kind of walk through

some of the fee enhancements that we're

looking at in 2027. Right.

So really there are 12 new fees. Um, I

can walk through those if you wish at

their rightway enhance encroachment

permit. Uh, revisions to issued site

development permit. We had that quite a

bit where people would have a site

development permit. It'd be issued.

They'd come back in for work. There was

no fees set in the schedule for us to

recoup any of that rework. Right away,

uh, rideaway and tree permits, some

engineering variance type four, lot

splitting because that was a new

legislative thing that came in. So, we

needed to go ahead and put a fee to

that. legal lot determination because

you've had a few of those where then

when those are coming in they're not

because they're simple they're because

people don't understand what we're

looking at and takes more staff time to

move through that historic nominations

historic designation certificate

occupancy change of ownership name and

then permit reactivation after

expiration and then expedated review

hourly permit rate as well as some gas

piping right now when you go through the

fee schedule there was nothing for gas

piping which is a standard for the

industry

So, one of the ones that we're looking

at is permit reactivation. It fills a

gap that's in the current schedule.

Right now, we have fees for if your

permit is going to expire and you need

an extension, we'll go ahead and charge

for an extension. We're not going to

charge for the extensions anymore. We're

going to give the extension

automatically, and if it expires, then

you would pay for the reactivation

instead. Not only does it reduce the

amount of workload that we're looking at

when it comes time um but it's also just

upfront lets them know from the gate

we're here to be helpful and friendly

you can move forward and build um in

accordance with the code. All right.

Okay. And then one of the things I spoke

about this before but we'll speak to it

is you will see routinely as we start

walking through the fees that by

comparison we are low when it comes to

some of our other supplemental fees that

you would see in other jurisdictions.

Right? So, one of the comparisons we'll

go through for an SFR that you'll see in

a little bit will be 2,000 square ft new

single family residents. And it's really

going to look at the permit fees plus

the school, park, and road impact fees

that other jurisdictions cost on that.

So, we understand exactly where we fall

out in terms of the total. When you look

at that, and we'll have a slide that

will speak to it a bit more, but I'll

talk to it really quick. We're 64% below

the median when it comes to a single

family residence. Now, while that seems

big, we don't do that many single family

residents because we are more infill or

we're doing multifamily. We center more

around major TI's, minor TI's, and

single family residence um remodels. So,

we'll kind of walk through those a

little bit further, but just keep that

in the back of your mind as that median

is really what we're going to come back

to as we move through it. Okay.

>> Council Member [name removed].

>> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah. Be before

we go too much further,

some time ago, a number of years ago,

the city council set a cost recovery

goal

>> and it wasn't 100%.

>> Correct.

You know at that time the discussions

amongst the council was it was

considerably higher than for parks and

things but but the idea was that

some percentage of the benefit that

comes from the permitting process acrru

to the community and to the public. not

not not not 100% of it acrewing to the

permit re requesttor to be able to go

and do that. But you're asking with this

B schedule change to change that to 100%

cost recovery model.

>> It's it's 100% cost recovery on permit

services. When I look at when you look

at the breakdown, there's 41,000 hours.

what I'm looking to recover on. It's

22,000 of those hours, not the full

41,000 that the staff is here. So, it is

less than the 85% cost recovery. You

factor in the vacation, the holidays,

um, and then the items that we can't

charge for when it comes to long range

planning and questions at the front

counter.

>> So,

The council

previous

direction about cost recovery goal was

85%.

That um

what were it looks like you were

achieving 91.

I'm I'm achieving 91 on 50% of the cost

that we bring in. My total FTE hours

annually is 41,000. I'm collecting 91%

on 20 I think I'd have to go back I

believe it's 20 23,000 of those hours.

Yeah, that there's a significant amount

of time for each staff member that is

not directively

productive permit work.

>> Correct.

>> Right. Um,

and so is the

current thinking being that the 85%

number,

why does not the 85% number apply to the

work that you're trying to recover with

fees?

So, if you look at the amount of time

that we're spending, so if I have 43 I'm

going to just use the numbers. I have

41,000 hours of FTE that work on

permits.

I'm only collecting 100% of 50%.

I'm not charging 100% for all of their

hours. I'm only collecting on 23,000

hours out of 40,000.

So that that in and of itself would only

be approximately 51ish% that I'm collect

that I'm trying to collect in fees on.

Then the percentage of that that comes

in is the work no one charges for.

So we're we're definitely under the 85%

because of what we do and how we look at

it. We're trying to collect 100% on

permit services only, which is times on

the permit,

>> but we're going to recover less than 85%

on the total

public works and planning costs.

>> Correct.

>> Thank you.

>> Okay.

Yep. Sorry, getting back to my page.

Apologize. Um, so in what we're looking

at, there are some changes that are

coming and there are new fees that

mostly already being work being done by

staff that we weren't collecting on

before. So when we take a look at this,

there's the rightway encroachment

permit. We know that we've been working

on that. We did go ahead and value out

what we would look at those to add them

in. um because we are making the

adjustment

while we still work with uh council

really on those. The others are some

revisions to issued permits. So those

really kind of move. So we have some

tree permits that routinely we see

people come in and they have a revision

to when they go to do that. So it's $120

an hour rate there. There's a 360 we see

with the rideaway. We're getting a lot

of those coming in mainly because what

we've had with fiber recently, they come

in, they have a contractor, then they

have a subcontractor and another

subcontractor. So, we process that to

get all of their liability and

insurance. So, that is time we're

spending on it. And then what we're

looking at with site development, res uh

resubmission, and then residential and

commercial and what we're looking at

there. The others that we look at are

some of the engineering variances. So a

type four process um when we look at

takes about eight hours for us to move

through it, right? It's not it's not a

quick process. There's hearing

associated with it and everything keeps

moving forward. So we're looking to

collect on that. U revisions for

expedited review. So we've already had

expedited review that existed but we

didn't have anything in for revisions as

to how we recoup the money associated

with that. So this is pointing to that

lot splitting. So the new two lot

subdivision option under the state law.

This is recovery for that. The $600

legal lot determination. We only get

about three to five requests for each of

these a year, but because they're

complicated, they're usually three to

five hours minimum to get through either

of them. Um, historic nomination and

designation, that's staff review time,

the report, drafting, everything that we

look at that. So, they're set at 600 and

960. And then the certificate of

occupancy. So, we did go ahead and we've

modified and made a new model when it

comes to a change of ownership for the

name. So typically when you would come

through and someone would do a change of

ownership, they're looking at their

changing the occupancy, maybe going from

being a business to being a food

producer is how they look at it. But not

everybody does that. Some people come in

and they buy the hair hair salon and

it's going to be a hair salon. We didn't

have a separate path before to go

through that for a name owner change

only. So this reflects that in terms of

being able to do that because it takes

about an hour to process that and move

it through. So this reflects that change

for certificate occupancy.

Right. Looking at the next page, we'll

kind of run through some of the

adjusted, removed, and clarified. So

minor plan revisions. That was one of

the ones where $92 have been left when

it used to be when it had moved to 120.

Mechanical permits did not have the $90

base fee. The $90 base fee when we speak

to that is for the permit tax to handle

and take in that permit. Right? That

way, if we do a refund, there isn't a

tracking or worrying about, okay, if

we've not started review yet, how much

do we give back of that permit, right?

And then the other one was the

pre-application conference. So, has a

$90 base fee that's applied to it like

all the other permits because it had

been missed when we ran through it

before.

So, so some of the ones we've removed,

the MFT certificate extension. So, that

was $625. We removed that. We're doing

extensions without any issues. Annual

oversized load permits. We're not doing

annual oversized load permits anymore.

They're doing those on a case by case as

they come through. We ran into issues of

on a Saturday when no one was supposed

to be moving through. We would be

contacted by the PD letting them know

that we had an oversized load moving

through. So, we've moved to you put in

for your permit. We authorize the permit

and it comes through the town. Right.

And then trade permit issuance. So,

mechanical and plumbing were already

covered by the base fee. So, we went

ahead and removed these fees, the $34

and the $12 that we're looking at. Some

are in here for clarification. So, like

the hearing examiner deposit, when a

person comes in, they needed to

understand that was part of their

payment was the 250. That is a deposit,

right? So, when we go to see the hearing

examiner, a person goes to see the

hearing examiner, they charge against

the deposit and then anything that's not

utilized is returned to the per to the

person. And that deposit is only for the

hearing examiner time. So, that we're

clear on that. That's not staff time.

That's paying for the hearing examiner.

It's a direct pass through. All right.

And then there were some other code

references that were cleaned up. That

was relation to Lakewood municipal code

changes as well as state changes with

the language and what we're looking at.

So those were just clarifications.

All right. So, in looking at the next

page, really what we're doing is we've

been focused on fairness and consistency

and clarity as to what we're really

presenting. It's not been about changing

that bottom line in a massive way as to

what we're looking at. So, if you take a

look at the slide, you'll see the

pre-lication conference, it's going up.

Its annual effect would be a change of

about $23,000 to what we're looking at.

The minor revisions before issuance

going from $92 to 120. That gives us

about another $11,000. That is one of

our permits that we get much more of. We

have a higher volume. Leave a lot

historic and site development revisions.

It's about $7,000. It's not a high

volume permit that we look at. And then

reactivation lot splitting variance. We

not have an estimate for that cuz

they're new. They're we expect they'll

come into play, but we have a whole lot

of them yet. Net change yearly is about

$41,000 based on what we're looking at.

And that's going off the historical

numbers that we have. It's what it's the

best numbers we have to work off of.

It's me.

>> Okay. Does anyone have any questions?

Council Member [name removed].

So with the increase in or I guess with

the net change in yearly revenue as I

understood your presentation that's just

going back towards the cost of

essentially the permit center but is

that paying for um new FTE in the 2728

budget but

>> no no it is not. Okay.

>> No new FTE projected in the 27 budget.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

>> Okay, keep going.

>> All right, so next we're going to look

at some of the fee comparisons to look

at exactly where Lakewood falls with

some of the pure jurisdictions.

All right, so if we take a look at the

next page, I've got two set out here

because these are our two highest volume

permits. They're minor TI and major TI.

So a minor TI is anything that is below

$50,000 in valuation and is

non-structural. a major TI is that's

either structural or over $250,000 in

valuation.

If you look at the bar chart, you'll see

that we fall out um about third or

fourth routinely on these two items, but

there is a significant difference

between where we're at and the median as

to how we fall out. So, we're the fourth

lowest when it comes to minor TI and

we're 29% below the median cost for

those permits and how we look at them.

And then at the same time when we go to

look at the major TI's, we're the third

lowest and we're 40% lower than the

median. And this is against eight other

I'm sorry, nine other jurisdictions that

we're looking at here as we're moving

through it. Okay.

The one thing to point out when it comes

to the major TI's,

those still will have impact fees

associated with it as to where they're

coming in. They're going to be

modifications to existing buildings that

have a more intense use typically as to

what they're looking at. So other

jurisdictions will look at, okay, what

was the impact of having the bakery and

now it's not a bakery anymore. Now it's

a drive-thru, you know, and it's moving

faster. So they they go ahead and they

collect on that difference and that goes

towards the road fund um for any

improvements that are needed to be done.

We don't have that. So that

automatically keeps us below. And I just

want to be clear that I don't have any

impact fees, park fees, or anything

worked into these TI's when we're

speaking to them. The next three we'll

look at are going to be um our CUP

shoreline and some remodel fees. So the

CUP when we look at it, we're about 24%

below. So we're the third in what in

those groupings. The shoreline permits,

we sit about 29% below. And then our

residential remodel, we do pretty good

there. We're only about 5% below the

median in what we're looking at. And

they are one of our higher volume

permits that we look at. Cumulatively,

those come to about 22,000, just under

$22,000 a year. in uh monies that we are

below the median.

Okay. So, when we take a look though at

those five combined, um we're about

$23,000 below the median annually on

what we have for just those five

permits. That's not across all of the

other permit types we have, and that's

not taking into account any of the

impact fees. But just so we're where

we're at.

Any questions on this before I move on

to the future considerations? All right.

Yes,

>> Council Member [name removed],

>> I do have a question, but not on

anything on this slide. Um,

>> sure.

>> But just going back. Um,

do we charge trench cut fees for because

you mentioned earlier a couple slides

ago about fiber companies coming in and

especially because they are expanding.

Um, but they come in and they want to

expand fiber and then um, let's say I'm

just going to pick on Kuster Road for

example where we just did some really

nice pavement restoration work and so

then you get companies that want to come

in and dig and tear that up. Do we

charge trench cut fees for

you know pavement that's just been put

down?

>> So we have a difference in what we look

at. Yes we do. We will call cause a

trench cut fee. The issue that changed

though is when we did title 12 and then

we did the ESM the engineering standards

manual. We called out the moratorium on

those that you can't go across them.

There were thresholds for why you needed

to go across it. We also changed how

they had to pave if they went in to

crunch across it. It wouldn't be they

came in, dug across, did a two-foot

trench, and went ahead and did a five

foot. No, you're looking at over a 100

foot a patch and full lane width that we

require now to go ahead and ensure on

our new roads that we're maintaining

that status.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Yep.

>> Council Member [name removed].

>> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh and thank

you, [name removed]. Uh if we go back up just

to one slide.

So, as I'm looking at this, are we

saying that

for let's take the top line major tenant

improvements? Yep.

>> That our gap is 106,000 per improvement

or 106,000 total for the year

improvements.

>> 106,000 total for the year improvements.

>> Excuse. Thank you.

>> Yep.

>> Yep. No, not a problem. And for the

actual change in what the the difference

is for that, it is about $3,000

for a major TI. And that is on slide 12.

Okay. Future considerations.

All right. So in looking at the raising

the hourly rate, it's kind of fees

against the peer median and also to

cover cost. So, as you take a look at

the chart before you, we have major TI,

minor TI, conditional use permit, and

shoreline permits. When you look at

those, we go ahead and show that first

line at the just above the bars is our

cost recovery.

And then for actual services, and then

there's the peer median that is located

above that. So, as we take a look at

major TI in all four, really it looks at

if you get to just under 140,000, it's

about 136,70

per hour. That is what puts us into

median cost recovery as to where we're

at currently, right? It also

demonstrates where we're at in the peer

median. So, we shored 140150.

The hourly median for jurisdictions

around us is $160 an hour. We didn't put

that on here because that's not what we

need to meet our cost recovery and that

wasn't what we believed would be fair to

the community as they've been planning.

Um we're about making the cost recovery

not um more than that at this time. All

right. So

if you take a look at the next slide,

raising the hourly rate, what each

scenario kind of brings in, um we kind

of walk through them left to right. So

on the left we have our $120 an hour and

in the middle we have the 140. So that

will go ahead and bring us in to meet

cost recovery is what we're looking at.

And then there is the 150 that actually

puts us slightly over cost recovery. The

chart on the right runs through those so

you can visually see exactly where we

fall out for each of those permits. Um

as well as the whole program versus the

cost. So if you look at $120 an hour

that takes us and we're down about

$286,000

but low operating cost. If we shift to

140, it puts us at a little bit about

100,000 over. Now, when we look at that,

the one thing I will say is we are

noticing a decrease in the number of

permits that are coming in across

jurisdictions as well as our own and

what we're looking at. So, these are

based on our previous numbers and a

year's worth of numbers as to where

we're at. Right. So, that's the 120

versus the 160 really is to what the

median is. Any questions on that?

>> Sure.

It's so it's not there because I didn't

have a need. It was so far beyond what

we were looking at in terms of program

recovery that noting also that council

had a goal of 85%. As well as us pushing

to meet cost recovery goals for

permitting services. I didn't put it on

there because I didn't see it as

something

kind of relevant. So are the is the

recommended fee schedule

based on the 140?

>> So no, it's the recommended fee schedule

is based on the 120 because there's some

cleanup that we're doing and

efficiencies that we're seeing at the

same time. The reactivation and what

we're seeing now with rideaway permits,

the fact that we went ahead and put that

in. So there are some items that we've

looked at that we can collect the data

sets on as to what we're looking at

before we make a recommendation to to

move that. But I'm going to kind of walk

through that on the next slide.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. So, the path forward 2026 fee

proposal.

All right. So, what what we're

recommending right now is the $120 an

hour. And that is because we are doing

these cleanup items that we're looking

at that will pick up some of the revenue

that we've been missing. Um, and some of

those aren't aren't quantified when it

comes to like the reactivations or the

resubmitts and what we had with like

rideaway permits. We didn't have a way

to track that before, right? So now

we're tracking that data set. So we're

looking at that change, right? And so

the recommendation was to stick with the

$120 an hour, review that again when we

come to the second quarter because with

the international code council, the

evaluation table comes out twice a year,

right? So we see it in February and then

we see it again in August. So what we

looked at was going through quarter 1

and quarter two doing the assessment of

where we're at based on cost recovery

and then looking to if we need to make

the shift at that point because that

would also be when we had a new

valuation table to better understand

exactly where we fall out and how we're

at. The other options that are there are

to adjust now or the 150 to adjust now.

We can walk through what any of those

are. The 140 puts us about 112,000 above

the staff cost for permit services. Uh

it's a fee raise of about 17%. Um and

TI's reach 71 and 83% of the peer

median. So we're still below the median

even with that shift. Uh the 150 puts us

up by like $300,000. It was just shown

as so there was uh something to contrast

it against and what we're looking at.

and then fees rise by about 25% and the

gap on the peer median on some of the

high volume permits disappears.

Council Member [name removed],

>> so that I understand the the timeline

here is if we

adopt the 120 effective January 1st

that

I guess I don't understand the returning

in June

because you won't have complete Q1 Q2

data.

in June.

>> So we for for permit services, we would

have complete data in the end of quarter

2. So when we came back at the end of

June, so I'm sorry, quarter 1, quarter

two, so it' be the end of June or

beginning of July, we would have that

data because it's in our system as to

what we're looking at. We're monthly

reporting out on where we at and what we

are on cost recovery because we're

watching that every month. As well as

the permit volumes is another thing that

we're actively watching to know where

we're at.

Historically, when we get the

reports of the budget reports with the

quarterly updates, which take a while,

but that it doesn't seem that permit

revenue is linear, you know, the same

every quarter.

>> There are quarters that are high,

quarters that are low, quarters that

that go on.

So,

um

I don't know. I I'm I guess then that

I'm rather thinking that it may make

more sense

to

go to the 140

now

and then we can monitor

when that starts to fall back as opposed

to

anticipating that it will

go in in as short as just six months.

may need to be adjusted.

You you so so I'm kind of thinking that

we keep talking about people who are

trying to do permits and developing

things and do that that um

they want some predictability and but

they also want some comparability. they

they look at what their neighbor paid

last month in in in in in in in setting

up a thing of where it's highly likely

okay and I think it's highly likely that

we would in six months want to start

changing permits to do that. I think it

would be better to go to a permit level

that we're sure is going to get us where

we want to be even and m and maybe is

even sustainable for two years. okay to

to do that as opposed to

taking a minimalistic approach to be

able to do that particularly given where

we are on that pure

um relationship sites that we showed of

where even at 140 we would not be in the

upper tier of jurisdictions and that

that are charging permits for those that

were that that were caught and we can do

a

and it makes more sense and then do a

review a year from now when we're

reviewing the permit thing again to see

whether we've gotten to where where

we've had changes. Um I guess I that's

kind of my thinking listening to the the

presentation that it's not that we're

never going to have to go to 140. It's

that we could

do that. But I'd say if we do it and and

and we and and it does in the short term

better than what we what we wanted

that's just going to be in the short

term eventually. We'll get to that 140

type thing as as as we're moving moving

forward.

as well as the fact that we've got um

a lot of the people involved in the

permitting process are representative

employees that have collective

bargaining agreement spending.

>> Council member

Council Member [name removed] has his hand

raised. I wanted to see what if he had

something to contribute to this too.

>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um I I agree

with Mr. grand setter on um you know I I

I'd rather kind of take a more

conservative approach than than try to

be so minimalistic especially

when it it seems like permits around the

area and development is slowing down.

Um, you know, I I think that we'd be

kind of shooting ourselves in the foot a

bit to to air on the light side of of

collecting fees and and um and that

right now. I I did have a question

though about

so our our last goal was to collect 85%

of

fees and and I guess I I was

interpreting that as like 85% of

the the total expenses that it costs to

run the permit center. You know all the

overhead and you know the complete costs

rather than just the the hours worked.

So it can you can you tell me um and

maybe educate me on on what other

jurisdictions do? Is that common to what

I guess what what are the different

approaches for dealing with permit

services? I assume there's multiple

different approaches I guess. Can you

share some different approaches or or

what you've experienced in different

places and and as it relates to

capturing all fees, some fees, you know,

all including overhead um or just the

time worked on the permits and then how

you know what the relationship is with

the general fund and that kind of thing.

>> So,

oh, I'm still on. Thought I was off for

a moment. Um,

cornucopia would be the best word that I

could give you for really how people

have chosen to do it. There is no set

standard to what each um, jurisdiction

has chosen. If you find one that's

working as a special revenue, they're

going to be focused on cost recovery and

how they're looking at it and they're

going to be doing it hour for hour on

their recovery. There are some that have

choices that they look that they're

heavily subsidized by the general fund.

So, they don't really look at where

where they're moving through or how

they're moving through. Um, there are

some that look at, hey, this is my total

cost of what my staffing is and to run

the department. And if I divide that by

the number of hours they have to work,

this is what the hourly cost is and what

we're looking at. There are some that

are using permit fee multipliers, a

completely different valuation

methodology for building permits than

the majority of the state uses. um

that's far more complicated to move

through it. It really is just kind of

all over the board as to how people are

looking at it. What we're trying to do

is be able to be clear as to exactly why

we're charging for it based off a data

set and where we're at. Um because the

goal when I came and what I heard from

council was we do want to be um cost

recovery on our permitting services.

So because we don't want to be funding

private development, but at the same

time, we don't want to be overcharging

or driving people away because the fees

are too high in what we're looking at.

So it was a balanced approach. So that's

really what I'm trying to stick to is a

balanced approach to fund the department

and the development and give some

predictability to anybody that comes to

work or build here so they know exactly

what they're they're getting.

>> Okay. Thanks. And then um you know with

the with the 120 um and comparing that

to the 140 or even the 150 uh for that

matter um

does does going to 140 an hour does that

build up some sort of I guess if permits

are down next year significantly

um does that kind of help you know and

you're able to build up some savings

does that help float the the department

for a little while or

um you know I I guess I'm just concerned

if if we're you know kind of only

covering only covering our our operating

costs at the at the minimum and our

revenues decrease then then we're not

hitting any targets and we don't have

any money saved up to you know weather

the storm so to speak. Um can you kind

of talk about h how that works and would

this be something that would be

specifically targeted at you know cuts

in in this particular department or is

it spread amongst the the entire uh

department or or how does that kind of

work?

>> So in looking at an hour it would be

approximately based on historical what

we've had for 112

up. Is it going in and out? Is it just

me? I say, is it just me? Um, it'd be

about 113,000 over the operating costs

for the department going to 140 an hour.

And when we went to 120, we made that

shift and it was done in the same manner

with a similar buffer what we were

looking at. And that's why we didn't

modify last year when we moved forward

as to what we were looking at because we

had compensated like you're speaking to.

Um, and yeah, so 140 would seem to have

the same impact as to what we looked at

previously in my opinion when we went to

120 from the 92.

>> Okay.

All right. Well, um, I appreciate that.

I appreciate the presentation and all

the information here and thank you much,

>> Council Member [name removed]. Thank you. So um

so just to confirm if we did want to

or if there for the interest that's

interested in um revisiting in June

would the recommendation at that time

then be raising to 140 or based on

whatever the average is in the in the

data set that you have from the

building. Yeah. So, so I I tend to go

with round numbers and what we're

looking at. Um, and so I would go off

the data set as to what's needed to move

it forward, but the $140 based on what

we have is the number that we would look

at unless there was a precipitous drop

in number of building permits or

something like that, I don't see that

number changing.

>> Got it. So, it's either 140 today or or

in June

>> potentially. Yeah.

>> Okay. Um, thank you. And then I had a

similar question to um council member

[name removed]'s comment. So

um if the 140 an hour rate is adopted

then the extra 112.

So it sounded like then that just goes

to floating the cost of the existing

number of FTE or does that can I mean

can that also go to additional FTE? I

guess I guess what I'm trying to get at

and be careful about is

uh I I I

it looks like there's a surplus, but

then I also don't want there to be the

perception that we're profiting off the

permits from the permit system, which I

understand that we're not, but I'm

trying to

understand for clarity

where the hund where the extra 112 how

that gets allocated.

the so it's not a special revenue

department. So it goes into the general

fund and there could be other there go

to the general fund really as to what

we're looking at. If there was something

else we needed we would be able to make

a request to that. If there was

something else that supplements the city

that would be an option as well would be

able to answer that. Well, so

hypothetically it could go to like say

an extra or a part-time or a limited

term code cone inspector to help also

maintain the expeditiousness of the

permit center potentially.

Oh, basically right now

>> basically right now and I have to just

go off of memory, but the um the cost

recovery has been more than it has been

on the higher end over the 85%.

And over the past few years, we've had

higher permit revenue. So, when we

talked about the 85% cost recovery, my

understanding was that it's not 85% each

year. Some years could be higher, some

years could be lower. Where that money

goes is any of the excess will go sit in

the general fund recognizing that there

will be or potentially will be years

where the cost recovery is less. Okay.

Yes, that makes sense now. Okay. Thank

you. So then I I guess just to add to

the discussion among my colleagues

tonight, yeah, I I would also agree that

um adjusting the the rate now instead of

waiting till June probably is more

prudent. Um, and I I also don't think

it's unfair for anybody that wants to

argue that uh that that that it's unfair

because I think in in the slides that

you've presented so tonight that we've

seen that we are in a reasonable we are

under our our peer cities and we also

are taking in less revenue and we are

excuse me less permit cases. But I think

more importantly, we don't charge impact

fees that other other cities um

gain from. So in that respect, uh I I

don't think it's necessarily unfair to

adjust to make this adjustment today.

And

thank you.

>> Okay. So what I think I'm hearing, uh

Council Member [name removed],

>> thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh I want to

get my a couple of words in as well. So,

I I agree with the rest of council who's

spoken up that uh we need to look at

adjusting now as opposed to coming in

and putting ourselves in a situation

where we're anticipating to be what this

says is 286k under what our needs are.

Um

because if if surplus goes towards the

general fund, then a deficit is going to

go against the general fund and we make

that up through things that impact our

community that uh things like increased

taxes that are not always fair to folks.

And I like fees like this because they

tie directly to projects and it makes

sense to me. Um,

when was the last time

these rates were adjusted?

>> 2025.

>> Okay. Uh, and is this something that

would come back potentially every year

to adjust based on what our costs are or

what our peer medians are, or is this

something we could tie to some sort of

an index like the CPI or uh an index of

our peers?

>> So, there are two ways that people have

looked at it in the past. Some

jurisdictions will look at what the

building valuation data table sets

because it comes out twice a year. U

many jurisdictions do it once a year and

we look at it once a year. We didn't

make an adjustment last year based on

what we had seen from the revenue as

well as u the idea that we didn't have a

full data set yet to understand where we

uh because we had just started Camino.

So in terms of the hour tracking that

was newer to us when we ran through. So

we didn't choose to make an adjustment

then. Okay,

>> for 26

>> and in the column under the 150 an hour,

the last bullet on there says gap to

pure median on high volume permits 203k

plus 97k. Can you explain that to me?

Does or we're still under the pure

median at that point or

>> on the 150?

>> Yeah.

>> No.

>> Okay. So, we would be above the pure

median.

>> Yeah, we wouldn't we wouldn't be under

the pure median. We would not on our

highest. we would still be under with

the number of the permits,

>> but this is speaking to our high five

when we look at it as to where we're at.

>> Got it. Okay. So, in that case, I would

be all for the 140 uh and then

reassessing as we get into next year to

see if it needs to go up or uh stay

level at that point.

>> Okay.

Well, am I dead? Nope. There. I'm good.

[laughter]

I have no problem with going to the 140

if that's what we feel is appropriate

longer term. I don't see revisiting this

conversation in six months if we know

we're going to have it. Yeah.

>> Yeah. I was going to say why holding it

and but you had went over it in all of

your conversation. So, um I think that

it sounds like we prefer the 140.

>> Okay. and would be moving forward with

that.

>> Right.

>> As far as on your path forward next,

>> we'll we'll make that adjustment.

>> Okay.

>> Right. Any other questions?

>> Thank you.

>> No. Thank you. All right.

And now, uh, [name removed],

it's your turn.

made. Well, good evening, council

members. You ready for the next round?

[laughter]

Well, this should look a little bit

familiar. use the same format with some

of the same goals here. Really to look

at completing the fees and charging list

to make sure everything is included, but

looking at fairness and this goes back

to making sure that public resources are

covering things that are of community

benefit and the more private the

benefit, making sure the fees are

reflective of that and then getting some

consistency

across similar categories. and we'll

talk about that specifically um when we

get into some elements where we were

calculating things differently.

So the biggest thing to really start is

just the concept of cost recovery uh for

the department itself and one of the

things in the policy there is an adopted

45% cost recovery and that's not that

every activity is that it's just across

the board that we are looking at how

many things are at what they call the

top of the pyramid or the top of the

pricing range and it's kind of a reverse

index meaning when you see the degree of

subsidy goes up the more there is highly

high community benefit or mostly

community benefit going on. So that's

going to be no cost expectation. Those

things that we do free and having open

park access to everyone and drop in

activities. And then the mostly

community, there is some revenue that is

coming maybe not even directly from the

participants. But when we do events and

we have vendor fees and sponsorship

opportunities and being able to

subsidize those thing that the public

believe public dollars should go to like

our partnership with specialized

recreation. So the participants are

still paying a share of the cost but

there is an underwriting subsidy with

some of the public dollars. Then mostly

individual you're getting folks who are

registering for things. So even if we're

underwriting pieces of it that

individual is getting that value of the

public bene uh program itself and those

things that are the higher end they're

highly individual are often things that

are taking it actually out of public use

for more exclusive use. It's also

something they can find um in the

marketplace or something that might be a

ticketed event or wellness programming

that they're doing here in a public

venue but could also do it elsewhere in

the community.

So some of the changes that we've made

are really very slight um that you're

seeing in the fees and charges list and

one is we just had two categories of

event permits uh from under a thousand

to then above that and picking up. Uh

the reality is that any event uh when

it's at that three, four, even 500 mark

is using quite a bit of the public

resource in terms of our uh restrooms

and parking and the impact on the park

itself in terms of what staff have to do

to accommodate that. So we've added in

um a category here and you'll see when I

show you the comparisons um at the end

with other jurisdictions, it's pretty

common to have three levels across the

board. With the admin fees, we also are

recognizing that minimally for us to do

a reschedule or any activities at least

a half an hour of work. Uh you'll see

across the board moving away from that

$10 for us to change something to a

minimum of 25 for half an hour and using

$50 per hour as an overall standard. And

you can uh ignore the trade permit

issuance down there. That's [laughter] a

leftover. Okay. with boat launch. Uh

recommendation before you is uh to

discontinue the nonresident passes uh

because that was giving a discount to

non-residents. We're keeping the

resident pass that allows the residents

to have the benefit of anything above

the 10 launches and to be able to get a

pass in advance after showing residency.

Also there's an increase in commercial

because we were finding that there were

commercial users that would come down

and utilize the launch very frequently

uh with a pass in order to test out

their services. Um and so again that's a

private use of a public asset. So

looking at a crease in that category

with vendor application fees. Um, one

thing that we're looking to activate,

the list already had uh a fee just for

people to apply to be a vendor and that

is again another labor intensive process

because making sure it's complete, that

insurance is there, collecting all the

data in order to then have a vendor be

part um of our events and activities.

So, we wanted to activate that one and

we did a peer review and show that the

25 that was listed uh was quite a bit

lower than most other locations. So

bringing that into more of a range and

there is a variation that between what

they're selling and what their revenue

potential is that sets that up

different. One of the things is the

existing just had a one-day vendor

market fee and it said it didn't apply

to vendors at our own events. So, this

really is if we allow somebody to be a

vendor at American Lake for one day to

do an activity, they can get a one-day

permit, but we use that in order to

create and put in the package for you uh

a similar scale that then does apply to

our city events so that we can be

transparent and put those out there. and

there's variation then the length of the

event, the size of the event and the

anticipated uh number of attendance all

flow into why there is a variation of

fee and why you would pay more for

Summerfest compared to the street

festival for example.

So picnic shelter fees I think you've

seen we um have a couple great new

shelters in our inventory in particular

Wards Lake Park. We also saw where

there's a quite a bit of difference in

our shelters. So, we move from two

categories into three categories that

has the premium uh shelters that are

extremely popular and sold out very

quickly at Fort Silicon Park and then a

more medium category that are community

uh picnic shelters and then kept our

lowest rate for those that are rustic

and they don't have services. That's a

big part associated. Does it have

electricity? Does it have water? Does it

have barbecue? So, we've been able to

categorize uh the shelters in that way

that really describes our pricing out.

The pavilion, we did a market research

and the pavilion um is an enclosed

facility, but it has the rollup door. In

comparing to the size of it and what it

can accommodate, we actually found

because we do have a minimum number of

hours and we also have a cleaning fee

that it would we think we will have a

greater market advantage at $150 per

hour instead of the 200 keeping our

minimum. That'll increase the rentals

overall and that hourly rate still makes

sure that they are recovering what it

costs for us to have staff there. So,

you know, all this we kind of look at

the market and what people's choices are

uh and then looking at what they're

willing to pay for that unique niche

given what each vet can accommodate

within our sport field fees. Uh most of

these really have remained the same. Uh

there is one dis difference with our

full day rate for a single turf baseball

field. And as I'll show you, what's very

distinctive about our fields is that

they are turf infields. So it puts us

right between a place between fury

turfed and grass fields. And our pricing

really reflects that overall. But we saw

the language in here was a little bit

different between youth soccer leagues

and baseball leagues. And so one of the

things um in the document itself is

you'll see that we really went more to

consistency for how that was calculated.

So, the soccer fields, because they're

grass, have a $50 uh per uh prep field

for the fields. The baseball are turf,

so we don't have to line those, but the

turf reduces has a different grooming,

right? We still have to replace the

pebbles and uh manage that surface uh in

a unique way. So both of them are more

at the $50 per game which is different

than the broader market which would pay

a per hour rate and I'll show you those

comparison for other places because most

games then are two to two and 1/2 hours

and so doing the onetime prep. So,

there's been a lot of tailoring these uh

prices particularly to the youth

leagues, but also really calling that

these are youth leagues for Lakewood

youth and that there are also our

priority partnership where we place

those in for their 12 uh to 14 week

season before we take any other bookings

as well.

So, some things that weren't in here

that are added now is just calling out

that we do have sponsorship fees and

those are really paid in order for a

marketing benefit and we have a very

strong marketing program. Uh, program

fees are always very variable because a

lot of times we have contracted

instructors and it really takes

calculating each of those programs

overall. But there are some rights that

we're providing both from our garden uh

plots as well as a right to be able to

do concessions and earn money on our

property. So it was just adding clarity

to those aspects as well.

In general, these are really just going

to make a very incremental change to the

income potential. And I'll point out

that even already I think in the budget

that was present uh presented to you

there was an increase around events of

about 15,000 based on acknowledging that

we've been above and beyond the

sponsorship threshold the last couple

years. Uh but by kind of right sizing

our picnic shelters and our vendor fees,

we see that uh being an additional uh

15,000 to come with that. Uh Fort

Silicon Park has a target of about

$100,000 uh dollars a year uh in

contributing back and that's across the

board everything that's earned at that

site. Our other parks collectively are

closer to 30,000 in that rate overall.

Uh so this really this increase is going

to bring a little bit to that aspect.

And I'll point out that of the 100,000

at Fort Silicon Park. Um over half of

that comes from our turfed sport fields.

So that's a little bit why we're uh

manage the capacity of that and protect

that asset a little bit. And it is able

to do that because those become year

round. They're booked from February to

October, November uh each year.

So in fee comparisons

um broken them into three of our largest

categories and the first is the sport

field uh complexes overall. The only one

that's a full day rate is that very

first one where we just do full day for

those um because they are popular for

the whole day and then we're not

changing teams in and out. Again, the

only exception to our full day rule is

our um USport leagues going across the

board. Everything else you see on there

is a per hour rate. [snorts] And again,

in most games are up two to two and a

half hours. So the H Highleberg field is

the most like our large field one home

complex. And they're $250 per hour for

that field. Uh you'll see anywhere from

that 70 57 uh 8582. Everything that's

turfed is closer to that 60 to $85. And

then the ones that are more grass and

standard fields are $35 to $50. So our

fields that are uh more universally

playable are coming in at that $50 uh

per hour and then the you sport league

per game.

On the right there are our other fields.

So these are more non-complex.

It's uh lining and prep if they actually

wanted that would be additional, but

just to reserve a green space um for

practices is $20 per hour, which is less

than the peer rates.

Special use permits overall, again, this

you can see that um there's multiple

lines for our closest jurisdictions

there. And there's a common theme that

if you kind of look across that bottom

at a thousand or more um dollars almost

aligns almost perfectly to participants

of at least a,000 as well. So

comparatively at a,000 people were at

$1,000 where Tacoma hits that rate at

1250 and then when you're over uh 2,000

people were at 2,000 again and there the

1875.

uh some of them don't have any venues

that allow that big and so they're

falling under that uh 500 to a thousand

individuals across the board. The other

part is ours really is an inclusive base

fee where a lot of the others will also

add uh commissions on top of what

they're doing and a lot of individual

additional charges. We do require people

to bring in Santa cans and some

additional elements, but we don't do um

a concession uh agreement in terms of

cost share just due to the calculations

of that. But if they do are going to

fund raise or bring in money, that moves

their permit fee into that higher

category.

So, our picnic shelters, again, I

mentioned we have three categories. Some

jurisdictions only have two between

their uh small or small medium large

type of shelters overall. So ours being

at 80 for a limited service uh aligns

with other ones and 125 is very

consistent for medium and shelters that

allow services overall. And then the

larger more premium ones uh Lacy is 200.

We're recommending 225 for our large

premiums in uh Parks. Tacoma has their

premium at 415 for places like Owens

Beach.

Yeah.

Now, the indoor spaces by hour, again,

there's quite a range and again each

space is very, very different. Um, so

Pollips Pavilion and the Pagota are that

300 and 380. We really placed ours at

the 150 we talked about because it

aligns a little bit more with some of

the banquet rooms in the area in terms

of size and capacity. Okay.

So overall with our recommendations, you

know, our path forward from the study

session,

>> uh, Council Member [name removed],

>> sorry,

>> on that slide, what is Cross Park?

>> So, it's the Frederickson Community

Center. It's a refurbished barn uh that

hosts about 60 folks in the Cross Park

facility. It's a Pierce County facility.

>> Never been there, but that's fine. Thank

you.

>> Okay. And that's it. You know, really

our goals overall is to be affordable

for our residents and the local business

in including the the vendor elements,

but to attract really consistent usage,

right? because we want people utilizing

in a return on this public investment

from both the community to um the higher

level pay-to-play involvement and to

honor that cost recovery and to make

sure we're not gifting public resources

but also keeping our market advantage

and positioning them in the advantage uh

you know first for our residents but

across Pierce County especially because

folks are looking for the type of venues

that we offer.

>> Right. I just would like to say I really

like the pricing for the pavilion. I did

not realize that that was the cost and I

feel like that should be promoted

heavily. Like why are people not renting

that all the time? So, and it has a full

like a full kitchen too. So, I that that

I'm really I'm excited about. But these

I think are really great adjustments um

and right sizing and the things that we

had asked for. So, thank you. I'm not

sure if anybody else has any other

questions or comments.

Council Member [name removed],

>> do you feel like this adequately

distinguishes between a lakewood based

sport and all the others that may want

to use the field?

>> Yes. And I think part of that now

there's a little bit we've um like I

said we've massaged the language a

little bit in the thing to really

clarify that agreement and I think the

agreement should verify the things that

we've talked about that it's for

Lakewood youth that it's recreational

that it's right here at home. Um, and so

with that verification to be able to

make sure the the prices are um,

manageable and are being clear and

what's kind of harder than that, as

people describe, the older you get, we

don't have um, enough teams to just play

themselves here. So, they're going to

have to do some traveling. And part of

that means that they're using us more as

a home field. But that also puts the

game more on Saturday, which is really

where the variation came in their

increased request for Saturdays is

because as they get kids, which is good,

staying in the program, rebuilding that

uh 10 and 12U and up to 14-year program

means that um one, even though they're

going to travel more, they're still

going to need practices and they're

going to need the Saturdays. And that's

what's uh takes some of our inventory

away, which is the catch 22. Um and and

many of the tournaments that get rented

and pay the full rate. Uh our youth

tournaments uh but they are collecting

those fees for that competition. And so

um that's a very standard and we're

attractive for that reason because their

odds of being rained out are lower if

they book with us.

>> Council member Bransteader.

So to clarify,

one of the requests that the council

heard last month

involved youth baseball

and they were asking specifically

for some accommodation regarding their

costs in the uh

the fees for fields.

So

in the adjustment to create parody

between soccer and baseball,

um

is that moving in the direction of

impact that the baseball club was the

baseball

folks were were seeking?

So the parody between the two really

comes to the same dollar amount. It just

calculates it through a per game in a

more um

fair and clear process uh in order to

show in the um pricing next year would

be the same. And again the difference

with the baseball and the pricing was

their increase in what they're asking

for. So

Yeah, from uh my understanding of the

conversation back on the 19th, there was

a question about looking at some form of

a discount for a Lakewood Youth League.

Um I know the discussion that I've had

with several since then was, you know,

parody amongst the other leagues. So you

weren't doing something for one, then

we're immediately hit by the other, but

trying to create that. So my

recommendation is, you know, we have the

recommended fees for all these fields.

We wouldn't recommend changing those,

but do a blanket adjustment for, you

know, any Lakewood youth league,

athletic league that we do a reduction

of X percentage. Um, I'll just 50% out

and just apply that to youth Lakewood

leagues and it basically hit baseball

and soccer. and

we count on are estimating about 26,000

for fees from those uh entities for next

year. So a reduction of 50% would make a

pretty significant impact for their

operations be about $13,000

impact to our estimated revenue. We can

take that as a general loss and make it

up through general fund or you can apply

uh that 13,000

to uh the Lakewood Promise under the

human services because they're already

there for youth functions and to keep

youth activities going. Um that would

make it whole. We'd also look at, you

know, one of the discussions was making

it whole. Well, that 13,000 or the

26,000 total um is just for those

rentals. We are going to assume that

we're going to lose out on some weekend

rentals of the uh one field because if

we have our local youth league running

that out, we're going to miss out on

some tournaments. So, if you want to

increase that 13 like up to 20, you can

do that as well. But our recommendation

is to make it simple and easy is just do

a reduction for rent it out to Lakewood

youth uh recreation leagues for for

that. That way it wouldn't do the

oneoffs. It wouldn't do for out of town.

Be pretty simple and straightforward in

our mind.

>> So is that what is in the draft

schedule or

>> No, that that need to be a motion made

um at the next meeting because the

agenda item was continued

um for human services. So I guess yeah,

if we had that direction because this

has not been uh put up yet, we could add

this in if council likes that. we could

make this as an asterric for youth

athletic liquid youth athletic leagues

and bring it back to council for

approval.

>> So if we were to collectively want to

make by consensus decide that we would

like the fee schedule adjusted to

accomplish what you just said uh which

would benefit both baseball and soccer

uh youth leagues. Um, you know, if we

had a consensus on that tonight, Deputy

Mayor, then just like we were

>> just like the 140

>> having the other part of the fee

schedule come back different. We could

have this come back to accomplish that

goal.

>> We have one other question, Council

Member Loricella, and then we'll get

back to that.

>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh, I think it

might be easier to keep the rates

exactly what they are and instead have a

subsidy for local teams. That way it's

paid for out of a different bucket. Um,

and I wouldn't limit it to just baseball

and soccer, but we could say local or

Lakewood sports team events like

baseball, soccer, cricket, ultimate,

basketball, whatever makes sense in that

space. Yeah, there you go.

Uh I think that keeps that rate what it

is and then it's paid for out of that uh

whether it's liquid promise or other

human services funding.

>> Well that would then be changing and I

don't know where you're asking that to

come from. So then the rates would be

the same. It'd come back as the same

for approval at the next meeting. Then

be council deliberation on how you want

to

Yeah. in terms of that creating that

subsidize. This would just basically cut

that in half for for that. So, we're

comfortable doing whatever council wants

to do with it. Um, I can tell you our

recommendation would go the simple way

and just cut it in 50%. And then that

takes care of the fee schedule

component. And if uh you want to bring

that money back to the city that we

would otherwise lose, you can do that

through either the human services fund

and the Lakewood Promise or it would

just be managed within [clears throat]

basically anything that we don't

generate that we planned on would

probably impact the amount that goes to

debt that we' finance otherwise next

year as we look at a a financing package

for some of the improvements that we

have coming up next year like Edgewater

Park.

Is it uh easy to write the qualifying

criteria so we know what groups would

qualify for that discount?

>> So the ones we'd have proposed would

basically be baseball and uh soccer.

That's really the the league that we

have there for for youth activities.

>> Those are the only leagues. And you'll

notice in the actual packet there's a

note on both of them that says with

agreement. And so what could just be

added to that is like these are what the

fees but then a 50%

discount could be is applied. Um and if

another league comes along that's a

different league than what's in here

then that same philosophy could come

forward. But right now nobody else runs

a league just for Lakewood. And when we

require the agreement, then we can make

sure those terms that you were talking

about um are well defined and we'll make

sure those agreements happen with both

soccer and baseball as well.

>> Okay, that works. I just don't want to

leave folks out unnecessarily and give

people a path if a local group that

wants to be able to get kids out to

enjoy our parks that we enable that.

And it sounds like you would make those

amendments and things in moving forward

if that's the way we went and that would

accommodate what you're asking for then

too. Okay. So, what I what I think I'm

hearing is and uh and council member

[name removed] has his hand raised before I say

anything. So, we'll get him.

>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Um, I I from

what I've heard, I think that I'm on the

same page as as Council Member Loisello

on on um

having these the fees stay the same

here, but then actually having like a

set aside through the human services,

you know, that we can we can set aside

some some money from the human services

um funds for youth sports. And so I I I

would um that would be the route that I

would want to go and and that way we can

create something that is um

I guess every year we know that we're

going to have x amount set aside for for

Lakewood youth sports and um we don't

have to, you know, worry about adjusting

fees or or whatever the fees are um and

impacting our parks department. um

trying to finesse that, but rather that

we would just have um fees set aside to

to help facilitate uh Lakewood sports.

>> Well, yeah. Well, and if I could because

actually leaving them in here allows us

to calculate it in order to tell you

what 50%

is because there is already a defined

fee,

>> right? And it sounds like um that the

funds are wanting to go back to the

human services like that is and I think

that's what I was hearing from everybody

>> that's an option

>> as a possible option

>> because of Lakewood's promise being that

it's already in in your human services

something the city administers versus

>> trying to set up something different

with various organizations.

Council Member [name removed], I

>> I do think though that is a departure

from the way that we have done human

services funding

historically

because we have never committed other

than for the

well, we've never we've never committed

to uh human services funding to any

organization or any project for more

than the bienium.

And then every bienium we start

over with a set of rules and

applications being able to go and do

that. and to permanently carve out

something

um that will always go to youth sports

every year is is a bit of a a deviation

from that process that would be

I'd be uncertain as to how that would be

received by the greater human services

community.

Uh although I think it's a viable use of

human services dollars. Okay. Just not

locking it in as as permanently every

year. We'll do this is

going on.

>> Council Member [name removed].

>> Yeah, I really appreciate pointing that

out. I do think

in the Lakewood baseball example, unlike

many of the applicants for human

services, a lot of these are volunteers

and this is stuck together by duct tape.

Um, and giving them some additional

predictability

um, and some additional stability uh,

moving forward can be meaningful. And I

appreciate that we're not just doing it

for one particular applicant, we're

doing it for category. I think that's

helpful.

>> Thank you. I I do hear what you're

saying, Council Member [name removed]. Um

I would love to give everybody who

applies predictability. So I see what

you're saying that it could be perceived

very interestingly within the community

that applies for human services. So um

Council Member [name removed], it looks like you

want to say something.

>> Thank you. I I think that's my Yeah, I

mean that's that's my only concern with

that

um with this concept. I'm not

is is just is is just that is is that

what so if it becomes a permanent carve

out then what is that amount every year

um set aside for youth sports? Is that

approximately 15,000 to 20,000 or more?

But nonetheless, it's still that much um

it's that carve out that's then less

available for

uh 1% of of of the general fund. So

unless we want to adjust the 1% policy

to 1.25 25 or 1.15

to try to make up for that. I mean, I I

suppose that's one way, too. But that's

why I think that the propos the concept

that staff has brought us tonight is

fair in that regard and and that we're

not um asking our human services

1% policy to take that to absorb that

um to absorb that cost. Council

member Branser.

>> And I I I would note that the the human

services funding policy, the 1% policy

to do that, but right now it has five

five categories of human services that

persons apply for to be able to go into.

To be honest, I thought the Lakewood

baseball clubs fit into one of those

categories when they're in their

particular thing. And if they had filed

a complete application, it would almost

probably have gotten funded because they

were applying for not things that

related to field rates. Okay? They were

applying for funds for scholarships for

lowincome students that wanted to play

baseball. that. Uh but we as a council

every year uh do get to set the work

plan for the community services advisory

committee and we can establish

saying that in their process we want

them to create a category for future

cycles uh that includes youth sports.

And we have we have made changes in

those categories periodically from time

to time and then they they they

implement

what they say sometimes with gritting

their teeth but sometimes will going

forward. So I so I think we can we we

can make that change looking going

forward. The question is whether to do

it

this year to create a category that

didn't exist at the time everybody

applied is what what would be

problematic. But if we want to find some

one-time funds for this next bienium and

then but also then

make sure that youth sports is a

subcategory of of human services in

future cycles. That would be

reasonable to do.

Council Member [name removed],

>> I I guess and I'm just thinking out loud

here too is that I I guess the other

thing too that comes to mind is that in

what staff has proposed tonight, we've

raised the fees on the other um on

vendor services and and special events

to make this to to kind of, you know, if

if I'm understanding it, kind of cover

for those reductions that we're taking

um that we're able to offer. refer to

youth sports to make it all work in the

fee schedule and particularly I don't

think that's necessarily an unfair thing

to do because the youth sports um has

some of the biggest physical impact

because it requires mowing, striping,

painting, maintenance, redusting of the

fields, managing of the parking lot,

lighting and all those

watering, irrigation

and all of those costs. costs that come

with um that come with all the benefits

that they get for Fort Stilicum Park.

Now, unless we want to

um activate other parks like Kowanas

Park to to offer that or or market that

park to expand uses so that there's at

least

maybe not so much competition and and

stress on Fort Silicon Park. Maybe

that's part of some augmentable option

too. But I guess what I'm what I'm

trying to say is that I think that it's

you know we we've taken our fee schedule

to look at a way so that we could we can

offer the benefit

to the youth sports leagues of

um not being burdened with as high of

the cost but yet still being able to

utilize Fort Silicon Park and yet still

making

the rest of the services and and and

um

the rest of the park

functional and usable

um for all the things that we do there.

>> Just for clarification, um the fee

schedule was basically in play well

before this discussion was had. So it

doesn't account for any potential

reduction, but your statements are the

same in terms of doing something for

youth sports. It has the same concept.

So I just want to make it clear. We

didn't make any adjustments to the rate

schedule based on an anticipated

reduction in the youth um sports. Still

have no problem making that

recommendation. If council wants to

reduce them, we would just put that into

the fee schedule um from that avenue.

We're we're and like I say, it can

either just be something that's made up

within the general fund or something

that is then back filled in potentially

through human services.

>> Okay. Uh Council Member [name removed].

>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh listening to

what Council Member [name removed] said, I

like a lot of portions of that. I I I

like not having a permanent carve out

until we have a better solution, but

maybe it's a one-off for the next

bianium. And when we talk about the work

plan for the community services advisory

board, it's a new category for youth

health, wellness, and fitness or

something like that that could

adequately

serve for applications for this from

those groups

or from part of the parks department on

behalf of

organized sports activities for youth in

Port Silicon Park.

Okay.

City manager has something to say.

>> Yeah. Yeah. What I'd recommend is, and

we don't have to come to a complete

agreement tonight. I think there's going

to be more discretion when it comes to

the human services funding

recommendations. What I'd recommend is

in the fee schedule, we at least make

that notation of Lakewood Youth Athletic

Leagues are eligible for a 50% reduction

in their field rentals. And if council

then wants to amend that out, you

certainly can, but you don't have to

amend it back in. And then you can

decide whatever you want to do with

human services or any other funding

revenue.

>> And and I think that's what it's

definitely sounding like um that we want

to take a look at the permanent no about

the not a permanent carveout in the so

in the future and that we would do a new

category. We'd like to look at that. But

it also seems like you all are saying

everyone is kind of um about the

one-time carveout for the leagues

um right now. So that's something else.

Council member Bransteader, I I I would

say that that's that's right, Deputy

Mayor. I think the discussion has to be

is where does the carveout come from to

do that? You know, you know, one thing

that I and I got a lot of respect for

the All Things Baseball, Lakewood Youth

Baseball League to do that is, you know,

they they submitted a an application for

human services funding for it. And I I I

think the primary reason that it didn't

get considered, okay, in the issue isn't

that it wasn't was it was was not

viewed, you know, it didn't get

considered is that it didn't follow the

rules of applications

and and I've got a lot of respect for

the folks in that group because they

have not come back to us and said change

that human services recommendation.

Okay? I mean they are a group of people

who are view themselves primarily as

mentors to young people in around

baseball which is a sport that is based

on following the rules. And so they they

recognize that they didn't quite follow

the rules and so they're their request

for us is not to adjust the human

services

to make up for for that. But I think

that uh you know I I'm certainly looking

forward in the future to say that that

could be a human services category but

not retroactively to take the money this

year from human services but to take it

from

somewhere in

you know in in in in in the in the in

the 30 million budget that we that we've

got.

I hope you have some clarity on I I'm

pretty sure [laughter]

I

>> think we have for the fees and charges

specifically in the notation of the 50%.

And it sounds like there'll be more

conversation and just

>> definitely more conversation on this.

But

>> this is one just remember if you create

a new category you create new

competition that isn't just covering

this right

>> where the lakewoods promise is already a

city managed in the size and scale of

what's in that is something that you

control without requiring more

applications.

>> It does and council member Branser is

right. It needs the process. It needs

everything needs to really be locked

down. So, it's very equitable for

everybody. So, I think I think we're

good on on direction there. Okay. Oh,

except Council Member [name removed] needs to

talk.

>> That's okay. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And this is not about the baseball or

that piece of it. So, it's other part of

the presentation and it's just some

clarification. So, uh fees for facility

rentals. We rent spaces by the hour like

pavilion. We have event fees. If someone

wants to have if a nonprofit wants to

have an event in the pavilion, do they

get charged both of those fees or is it

just one or the other?

>> Many of our special use permits, if they

want to add on the pavilion, will

include all of it. And there's sometimes

where not using the pavilion, maybe it's

a shelter rental, but they want to use

the field in another avenue. So, we try

to package them together in the most

coste effective way. Yeah, the pavilion

is often included with a larger special

use event if they want that particular

facility. And then um you know, we only

do so many special use permits because

the site can only handle so much.

>> Sure, that makes sense. And then I

didn't see the McGavoc Center listed as

spaces by the hour that get rented. I

know there's they can be sectioned off.

How do those costs compare to the delay?

>> Yes. So, um, in your packet, and this is

really because the Macavic Center

itself, if somebody was to rent it

directly out and pay full cost, is over

$5,000

uh, for a day for their sites. Because

of that agreement, the city has city

days and are able to then award those

days for $2,000, you know, each. And uh

it's my understanding that the revenue

from that then is going to the public

art fund of itself. So because it's not

for our own facilities, it's on that

agreement. It is listed in the fees and

charges, but I didn't include

presentation.

>> Thank you. And then those city days

agreement with the folks in the Gavic

Center, how far into the future does

that go now that we've made our final

payments?

>> Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for all the

feed stuff and we will continue on with

the uh [name removed] show. She's gonna

stick with us.

Thank you, [name removed].

All right, we're going to talk now about

the review of the 2027 26 proposed

bianial budget.

Did I skip some? Oh, no, we did. Sorry,

I had it checked off. It's the review of

the credit and debit card fee

resolution.

Okay.

All right. If there are no questions on

that then

all right. So then we are going to the

review of the 2027

uh sorry 28 proposed bianial budget.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions or

comments about the proposed changes?

We've been over this multiple times, so

I think that we're pretty well verssed.

I hope we are. We should be. But Council

Member Branset. So, I I'll just comment

that I am uh

based on the discussions at the South

Zone 911 board after they approve doing

this and the mechanics of doing it is

that definitely will be something that

comes to the city in 2027.

It won't come next month. So, um but but

the amount is is is right to do that.

the um the um and then I guess my my my

last question has to do with the last

the last bullet is that if we were to

look to

um

do a youth sports allocation in the

budget

that could be a a portion of this

181,000 that's projected to be

unallocated.

Okay. And and you know so so for

instance if we were to say

21,000

for that and then and then then then

then this would become 160,000

you know it it seems that that's a

flexible amount if we wanted to play

with this 181,000

in in any way.

Is that

Mhm.

Mhm.

[clears throat]

Sorry about that.

I think I saw a lot of head nods with

that that suggestion. So, I think that

that is probably a good a good uh

consensus there.

I I think that's Yeah. So, it would be

Yeah.

We can pick come back and adjust too.

Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Yes. Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

And now I would like to call the

information technology man manager

[name removed] up and we're going to go over um

chambers audio and video upgrades.

very apppropo because you know welcome

[name removed] I don't think that we have uh we

have had you in front of us before

>> awesome thank you

>> yep so uh over the past several months

it worked with a partners to evaluate

the [clears throat] console chamber

audio visual system and try to find the

most effective way most effective

long-term solutions for the console

chamber system. So we try different

approach and um so we can we are looking

for uh continue repair manage services

uh target component replacement and

complete system uh replacement uh based

on it assessments. It believes that uh

moving forward with one diversified

complete system replacement will be the

best approach. Uh the post approximately

$190,000

and after review the available options I

believe the solutions provides a best

combinations reliability support ability

and long-term value for the city in

addition the upgrade the system will

automatically switching the camera view

based on the active microphones

improving the meeting broadcast

experience for both console and the

topics for the streaming and the

proposed solution replace the aging

infrastructure and model full

uh platform and establish a long-term

support partnership with the vendor and

they provides the uh SLA support and

guarantee to provide

uh

um

uh SLA support to support our

system

and this is it recommended solution. So

if you have any question you could ask

us and uh the item will return to

council

city council to consider to approval on

November 16.

>> Thank you. So just to to clarify too it

would be replacing the cameras. So we

have three cameras in here correct?

>> Yes. And obviously this beautiful

situation, the audio.

>> Yes.

>> The audio here, the audio of the podium,

audio up here.

>> Yes.

>> That would all be and then a handheld.

Would that be

>> part of it also? Okay. And it would not

take an operator, an extra operator. It

would still be the city clerk that would

be over there. It wouldn't be like

someone that would come in and be

switching the cameras. There's no extra

things on this. like we can't put lower

thirds on there. This is kind of just

some really basic upgrades that we're

looking at in here.

>> Essential upgrade.

>> Okay.

>> And uh that will including the

touchcreen the operations from the uh

city cut that's touchcreen there device

that will be replaced

>> and also the back end in the AV room.

has a press.

>> Yeah.

>> System is also uh uh will be replaced

and the mixer

>> because uh we have some songing issues.

Some of the audience uh has uh feedback

that the center area has not have a good

uh uh hearing experience uh and there on

the side will have a better receptions.

>> So there's a so many issue that will be

addressed at the same time.

>> Okay. Will there be room for expansion

with this? Because like I just mentioned

this is very basic level of stuff. Will

there be room for expansion of you know

for our playback and like we don't play

we don't do a Facebook live feed and

that would be something that would be

part of the system here that I would

like I think that would be a great

portion not just something that hooks up

to YouTube. So things like that and then

like I had mentioned like a lower third

the graphics package those types of

things. Would this system be able to um

handle those types of things at a future

date?

>> So that there will be two components of

that. These are the one this solution is

the hardware pieces. So it's based on

the infrastructure to help to modernize

the whole infrastructure and the one you

mentioned is more the uh the application

size.

>> Well, you were mentioning about the

systems that you were replacing. So

that's why I wondered about that because

those things are already there and then

you just kind of

>> come in on top of it. So I just know if

we would have room for growth.

>> Yes. And it will be uh more easy to

integrate.

>> Yeah.

because he's more compatible with the

latest technology.

>> Okay. Does Yes, Council Member [name removed].

>> So, I really like what you brought up in

terms of making sure we're not adding

additional labor. There's hardware out

there that will do automatic switching.

I think it's a Blackmagic ATM. Have we

thought about if that'd be helpful? We

have multiple cameras, but we don't have

to have somebody go in and edit or do

anything live. That seems helpful,

right?

Uh

when you say edits like what do you uh

meaning edit? You mean the editing the

video feeds or live

>> switching? He's talking about

>> or live monitor. Yeah. So if we have

multiple cameras in the room

>> deciding what people see we we ideally

don't have a person behind that if we

can help it.

>> So so there there's hardware that will

do that. There's software. Have we

thought about that?

>> So we we are going to do the Pog

Pogming. This is uh part of the scope of

work that we will uh work with the

vendor to programming the uh each

microphone with the uh camera angle. So

when whoever the the uh the speaker talk

uh each one of the d to speak up the

camera will check it and they will focus

on it. you will based on the speaker to

check the the the camera focus

>> and so that is in essence like switching

but I think what you're talking about it

does I know that like black magic things

like that but it's not you do need a

person if you have someone there you

need the lower thirds to come up with

their name or if you're going to switch

to a presentation

but no yeah it's

>> in the tech uh tech tactical uh

standpoint the one I mentioned is audio

switching and like motion Motion

checking is more like the camera motion

checking will be you will become the

camera will be zoom back and forward

moving back that will be really bad

experience. So that's why we we

programming the auto audio switching. So

at the top checker the microphone you

will automatic switch the camera.

>> Great.

Oh Council Member [name removed].

>> Uh thank you deputy mayor. U with these

new systems or upgraded systems are we

going to have higher resolution video?

Yeah, it will be 4K and also it depends

on the uh the the zooms uh the the plan

the configurations if we set up as a

default it will be 4K.

>> Okay. And with that we're going to need

significantly more bandwidth. Have we

looked at the amount of throughput that

we would have to make sure we can meet

those increased

>> feed rates? The infrastructure for the

city hall is uh meeting all the

requirement.

>> Okay. Uh and in addition with a lot of

4K video, we'll need storage capability

for that. Do we have enough here uh and

availability to store that and have it

accessible for folks who want to view

things afterwards or is that all we need

some local but I know a lot of it would

be through our YouTube channel and store

it on the cloud.

>> Uh per my understanding uh currently all

the uh video we don't store in the local

we all uh store in the YouTube right now

at this moment. So, we don't have

hosting any storage.

>> Okay. Yeah, I'm thinking we'll have much

larger file sizes with 4K video than we

do with our current system. Uh, and then

from a funding standpoint, is this all

part of what's coming back in next

week's overall

budget proposal?

>> Yes.

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah, funding for this.

That was not intentional.

Funding was was in the 26 carryover. We

applied uh funding for an upgrade.

>> Well, I think it's all really great. I

love that there's room for growth

because we need to start somewhere

obviously. Um we I think the audio is

like the biggest I you know thing is

that people need to hear. So, uh I think

that that's fabulous. I love that you

guys have been working together and that

uh if it's something that the city clerk

also I know that she's been a part of

this also since she's the one that's

here. Um I really appreciate that. So I

we've been waiting for this. Well I I

know I have for quite some time. So

looking forward to it.

>> Thank you [name removed].

>> Thank you.

>> Oh still talking.

>> All right. All right.

Okay.

have a highlighted line.

>> All right. So, um

that we have the items tally scheduled

for Monday are listed here and

I don't read those. [laughter]

All right. I know. I know. There we go.

They're they're helping me. All right.

And then um I want to see the city

manager is it will reports by the city

manager now.

>> Yeah. And one correction that funding

for the audio visuals not in the

carryover but in the 26 mid bienium

adjustment. So that was added in coming

into this fiscal year. So it's just

putting those to work. Uh couple

neighborhood association meetings this

week. Tomorrow night atom woodbrook and

Thursday night the lake city

neighborhood association.

Um

see

uh one of the agenda items next week is

uh the cancellation of the third meeting

in December. Apparently that is a

historical activity but would need to be

done by resolution. So we'll plan on

that unless there is any concessence

objection and council really wants to

meet on Monday, December 21st.

Seeing not a whole lot of stuff that

says yeah let's keep that on. We'll go

ahead and have that agenda item to

cancel that meeting outright. Um

>> December 21st.

>> Yeah.

>> So there in December there will only be

>> the two meetings.

>> Two meetings. Yeah. Okay. Is that Well,

you're going to be in

[laughter]

>> it sounds like that's been historical.

>> I think that Yeah, Mike is good with

that.

>> Yeah, I know.

>> Right. Uh Council Member [name removed].

>> Well, I I don't have an objection to

that, but I I do

I guess for next Monday's meeting, um,

and it could it's totally fine if it's

just me, but um, we do have a couple

presentations plus the commissioning

ceremony plus a public hearing and then

two presentations at the end. So, I'm

just wondering if it

may be

easier to move either um the Pierce

Conservation District update and the

Camp Murray master plan presentation to

the following meeting or maybe just the

master plan presentation

just to I if if December can accommodate

that.

with the third council meeting.

>> Is that something we could take a look

at? I don't have the agendas in front of

me right now. Sorry.

>> And we could come back to that too if we

need to.

>> Yeah.

>> But I think that's a really solid

suggestion. Actually, it seems very

packed.

>> Yeah. If if council would like to do

that, we can do that. We can move those.

>> I think that that's a great because it

is a very that's a very full agenda.

Yep.

We will want to check with our um

to make sure that's acceptable for

because some of those are dependent on

other people.

>> Yes.

>> So, we will reach out to see if they're

acceptable to that

>> adjustment and if if they are, we'll we

can move those into December.

>> Okay, that's doable then.

Okay, it it's still you.

>> Yeah, just uh let's see.

Um still getting information from Telkom

Community Center on the question from

last week about uh the total cost of

their project. Is it two phases versus

one phase? What that would be and then

the information related to we'd have to

adjust the work plan and and what those

funding is already allocated to in our

community development block grant funds.

So that information will still be

coming. And then lastly, there was some

questions last week uh related to food

trucks. I sent out some information

related to that. Uh so put it up to

council if you're interested in several

directions. Um but one I guess is

council interested in having a work

session related to food trucks related

to what our current regulations are.

It's part of the comprehensive docket

but that can be removed. Council wants

to consider working with the food truck

association for their potential pilot

program. So I guess question is would

you like us to schedule a work session

related to food trucks food truck

regulations?

>> I believe that's a yes from Yeah.

>> I would also like to make sure we have

some kind of public input early in the

process rather than later in the

process.

>> We just need to hear about it first. So

then and then it would follow the actual

process from there. But that's a great

suggestion and they will have everybody.

We always have public I mean we don't

know what we're coming forward with

>> so we just need to hear about it. I

would love to hear any sort of

information um about the potential

people that we could do things with the

food truck association which is in

Washington which is great. So all of

that. So yes, I think that that is

something that we all want to hear on a

study session.

>> And that is all I have.

>> Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll go to

city council comments. I'm looking this

way. Council Member [name removed], you've been

you've been not with us. I I have been

not with you for a while

>> and it it feels good to be back. So,

thank you for for keeping the the ship

floating uh and going the right

direction. So, I have listened to the

meetings that I haven't been to and I

appreciate what people have said and

done and we're in good hands. So, I

appreciate everyone here. Uh

about a week and a half ago and I'm

guessing uh council member Tabo talked

about it last week uh had a chance to go

tour EFN, the emergency food network in

their facility. Um, that is really a

cool place that does great things for a

lot of people. So, the more we can

support them and get our community to

support them, the better it is for

everyone. So, um, yeah, big shout out to

the folks there. Thank you for the tour.

Thank you for council member Talo for

setting that up. That was really cool

and I look forward to volunteering there

in the future. Uh this week on Friday we

will have our uh ASCA meeting which is

our u alliance for sustainable climate

action. Uh we're talking about our

legislative agenda which goes well with

our city legislative agenda for things

to uh to benefit Pierce County. But

speaking on behalf of Lakewood, one of

the items on the list is funding for the

Telecomwood Brook Community Center and

resilience efforts there. So, lots of

people are are fighting for us. So, it's

always good to hear. Uh, other than

that, happy to be back. Thank you.

>> Awesome. Thank you, Council Member [name removed], are you there?

>> Yes. I was just cruising around on my

calendar. Um, thank you. I

[clears throat] tonight I uh provided

some remarks at the uh virtually anyway

um at the Clover Park school board

>> [clears throat]

>> uh meeting um filled them in on some of

our upcoming events and and some of the

things um that we've been completing

recently. Passed on some gratitude for

bearing with us uh with some of our road

projects. um we all know how those

impact school buses and um kids and you

know pickup lines and all that stuff. So

um I'll be uh out of town this week so I

won't be able to attend um anything this

week but um I did I I did have a

question I guess maybe I should have

asked of the city manager. Are we doing

a 22 Striker Brigade um dinner or

anything this year? I didn't see

anything on the calendar and maybe I

just missed it.

>> That's something we've done in the past.

>> They're talking.

>> We usually do it at Thornwood and it's

in December and on our calendars by now.

>> We we will reach out to them and see

where that's at. I know that they have

had that significant deployment.

>> Yeah. last year, but so we can reach out

and see what that's at. Uh, thank you

for bringing that up, council member.

>> Yep.

>> Okay. Did you have more or is that it?

>> No, that's it for me. Thank you.

>> Okay. Hope you feel better.

>> Yeah, likewise. [laughter]

>> All right, Council Member [name removed].

>> Nothing tonight, Deputy Mayor. Thank

you.

>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member [name removed].

Uh this Friday is the next meeting of

the of the working group that's working

on the uh unified plan around

homelessness to be able to go and do I

haven't seen the agenda for the Friday

meeting yet. So I don't know if there is

anything significant on it other than

staff updating the the group on on where

where things are. But uh I'll be uh be

attending that. That's That's why I have

>> Thank you, Council Member [name removed].

Uh, okay. So, this evening I thought I

was going to be late um tonight and so I

prefaced Brianna

um Madame Clerk, but I was let off the

hook. But next Monday I unfortunately

will definitely be on the hook to um

work extended and so I will be late to

next uh Monday's council meeting um

hopefully arriving between 7:30 7:45

p.m. So um and then I did attend the SS

SSMCP

the uh uh South Military Partnership

Breakfast last week. um a lot of

coordination. I the theme of that um um

breakfast along council member um

[name removed] was there along with our city

manager and our mayor. But the theme

from that breakfast was coordination

coordination just that uh SS SMP

continues to coordinate with um as many

jurisdictions and inter agencies um

focus on at least pharma capital side

continuing to focus on procuring as much

funding as we can for the Msquali I5 uh

bridge project. Um and so speaker

remarks also from that breakfast too.

But I think, you know, nothing that we

haven't heard before necessarily, but

just continued emphasis on coordination

in the region. Um,

and then this tomorrow I will try to

make it to TICUM

and

I think that's it. Great. Thank you.

That SSMC

Okay, I get them. Now I'm all confused.

They are CP, right? SM. Anyways, SSMCP.

Fantastic. And um I'm really glad that

you guys are all there. So, while you

were there, I was here at the doing

business with JBL for small and

medium-siz local businesses. And let me

tell you, Chambers was packed. There was

every seat was full. There was extra

chairs all around, people in the back

standing. a lot of really good

connections and networking and

presentations. So that was just it was

so encouraging to see a so many small

businesses here. And then today um we

did have small business veterans small

business workshop and uh I came for that

too and it was really good. They just it

was the small business association doing

some presentations, some talks. It was a

little bit more intimate, but it was

still um just doing some really good

connections with with that and working

with uh JBLM, our small businesses and

medium-sized businesses. But it was just

really encouraging and great to see. I

also did um attend I am not on the

committee but I went to the sister

cities meeting last week and I thought

that that was fabulous trying to um see

where that's going maybe making some

more connections. People are very

excited about it. So that's always

exciting and always really really good

things come out of Sister Cities.

So I believe that that's all that we

have for the night. So, I want to thank

everybody and we'll see you next