Tacoma voters back 4 of 6 amendments to the city charter, a once-in-a-decade opportunity

Tacoma voters on Tuesday appear poised to approve four of six proposed amendments to the city's constitution.

As part of the once-in-a-decade charter-review process , a committee was tasked with coming up with potential changes to Tacoma's guiding document. That committee forwarded 24 recommendations to the City Council, and local leaders then sent six amendments for voter approval.

Multiple proposals popular among advocates did not appear on the Nov. 5 ballot, including a change to the city's form of government . Neither did a recommendation that would have created an Office of Policing Accountability nor another that would have paved the way for ranked-choice voting .

So, which six amendments did the City Council agree to place before residents, and what are voters deciding?

After Tuesday's first tally of votes, here is what's likely headed to the city charter.

Amendment No. 1: 54.2% voting in favor

This amendment would strip or replace the word "citizen" in the charter when describing a Tacoma resident's activity or status, plus remove the "prohibition upon employment" of those who aren't U.S. citizens, as noted in the local voters' pamphlet. It will also swap the word "handicap" for "disability" and mandate recurring review of city anti-discrimination rules.

The committee pushing for this change pointed out that the word "resident" encompasses "citizen" already. Committee members argued that this proposal would allow for greater inclusion and fair treatment for all city employees and applicants, and let everyone feel welcome in Tacoma.

The argument against this update said, in part, that the "word change makes the critical role of citizen involvement and citizenship meaningless" and that it isn't necessary to change the word "'handicap' to 'disability' (which occurs in one place)."

Amendment No. 2: 69.2% voting in favor

This amendment will ditch the ban on City Council from holding more than one regular meeting per week. It will also raise the minimum yearly regular-meeting amount to 70, up from 46.

The statement for this amendment in the local voters' pamphlet argued that it would boost opportunities for residents to contribute to important city discussions. No one submitted a statement against the idea.

Amendment No. 3: 68.2% voting in favor

This proposal will grant the city the ability to sell or transfer its waterfront property, as noted in the local voters' pamphlet. Restrictions apply here: The change will only allow such sales or dispositions be made to public agencies and with the stipulation that the property stays publicly accessible, in public ownership, in perpetuity. The land will always be used for park structures, open space or park purposes.

In the statement for the amendment, three members of Metro Parks' board wrote that some waterfront parks, as well as Point Defiance, are still technically owned by the city. They cited previous transfers from the city to Metro Parks, including Wright Park and Catherine Ushka's Gas Station Park .

The statement against the change partly argued that it is too hurried, with too much still unclear. It also pointed out that Metro Parks isn't the only public agency around and said the term "park purposes" lacks clarification.

Amendment No. 4: 61.9% voting in favor

This amendment will add a section to the city's constitution clarifying council members' work commitments. It will also let such city leaders contract with or employ people to help or advise and report to council.

The argument for this proposal reasoned that it would allow the City Council to adequately prioritize their work and better respond to constituents' needs.

The statement against the idea said that the wording about council members' duties was too vague, but that the second half of the amendment "addresses valid staffing concerns."

Amendment No. 5: 56.8% voting against

The Planning Commission would have increased from nine members to 11 under this amendment. The change would have erased background requirements for council-appointed members and "the prohibition upon compensation," and also added a diversity requirement, per the local voters' pamphlet.

Proponents of this amendment wrote in the "for" statement that it allows for greater flexibility in terms of members' expertise. Plus it calls on council to foreground the diversity of Planning Commission members when it comes to gender, race, ethnicity and backgrounds.

However, the statement against the idea raised concerns about the removal of expertise criteria. Such a move could allow the commission to feature folks who prioritize profit over residents' well-being and health during important urban-planning decisions, the statement said.

Amendment No. 6: 60.3% voting against

Approval of this amendment would have meant city officials can stay in office a couple years longer. The term-limit shift would have been applicable to those elected in 2025 or later, spiking tenure from 10 consecutive years to 12 . Put another way, that's three, four-year terms in a row.

Backers have argued that this change is necessary to retain institutional knowledge, and to allow officials to better see their vision through.

Critics feared that longer term limits could foster complacency among officials, plus hamper transparency and fresh ideas.