[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6201992,"mediaKeyId","3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834","parentId",3788304,"title","Pierce County council adopts broad development‑code package; hotly contested provisions on temporary housing and design rules fail in amendments","audioSeconds",3387,"startMs",3475000,"endMs",6862000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834&start=3475&end=6862","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834/thumbnail_3475000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6201992/Pierce-County/Washington/Pierce-County-council-adopts-broad-developmentcode-package-hotly-contested-provisions-on-temporary-housing-and-design-rules-fail-in-amendments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201992-d5ce6f747a4782e0f897ff6f2ac08f7a/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852772&Signature=kZblepY3LYtAOdFmD8OS8vK3qN9jDVqTaRETc4wpwF5GSrzu08GLOxfvBmh~K07CE8D-bNLswfaAF-bdPqcF9tvGwYIPsb0lUQ0GM6AJIXeyRpy02PiK1oQ5zVDw18wB~5KyGwgGGNo7U7C7pNd-~pZ9OIfXdkv7ZM0JEoK0fx0kBjDpTLqvCkMRjYE3HZ2TJtlghXEicmdTzd88QXtYOiqn4XM7vVVo7DrM-CKLGZOJsqZ4ejADWiGMFHliw-7G66Fi4cP9SEu8xRFN8zNFD~1n4g-RCfDyFp5xdWZfJUf8-jKTeZGLRIBgi2qwdNJ6heVS59SOKuPQiwBz1SLFCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pierce County, WA","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","Pierce County Council on June 10 adopted a large substitute ordinance implementing amendments to multiple titles of the county code to carry out the 2024 comprehensive plan update, changing zoning categories and development standards across the unincorporated county.

The ordinance, O2025‑516S, amends impact fee rules, building and construction codes, the zoning code, conservation program cross references, design standards and the County Zoning Atlas. The bill followed a committee due‑pass recommendation and included 10 council amendments debated on the floor.

Mr. Mike Krueger, senior planning staff, introduced the package as a broad set of implementing regulations that “would adopt various amendments to Pierce County development regulations, including impact fee code, building and fire codes, our county sign code, our conservation programs, design standards and guidelines, and implement zoning,” and said the work responds to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) and the county’s 2024 comprehensive plan update.

Key changes in the adopted ordinance include:
- Impact fee changes and an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) fee structure that sets fees for ADUs at 50% of the principal unit fee in certain cases.
- A construction code exemption for temporary structures up to 120 square feet within a temporary housing community, with no building permit required for those small structures.
- Revisions to zoning classifications to introduce new middle‑housing and suburban residential categories, update residential density and dimension standards in urban growth areas, and eliminate a “rural bonus density.”
- Provisions to authorize EV charging infrastructure, allow medical services as an accessory use to civic uses countywide, and modify procedures for rezonings and conditional uses.
- Numerous design‑standard provisions for “middle housing” (small‑scale multiunit housing types) intended to shape form and street presence.

Council members offered a series of targeted amendments; several were approved while others failed in close votes.

Temporary housing communities was a major focus of the floor debate. Multiple amendments would have restricted how the county handles temporary housing communities: one sought to limit the duration a temporary housing community could occupy a given site to three years; another would have prohibited tent encampments as an allowable housing type within the temporary housing community rules. Council member Herrera sponsored the 3‑year limit amendment and argued it aligned with practices in other jurisdictions; council member Denson opposed time limits and said the county needs flexibility to meet the variety of needs among people experiencing homelessness. The council rejected the three‑year cap by a 4–3 vote and also rejected a proposed ban on tents after extended public testimony and debate. As a result, the adopted code allows temporary housing communities under the new rules without the specific 3‑year cap and does not categorically ban tent‑type structures.

Design standards for middle housing drew vigorous public testimony from builders and housing advocates. Developers and the Master Builders Association of Pierce County warned that very prescriptive design rules (for porch dimensions, façade treatment, glazing and garage placement) would raise costs and complicate meeting state energy code limits for small homes. Several council members proposed converting hard “shall” requirements to discretionary “should” language; those amendments were not adopted, and the council ultimately declined to relax the new design standards in the vote.

Council members offered differing views on density. Some members urged upzoning near transit and major corridors to meet regional housing targets and to curb sprawl; others argued the county lacks the transit infrastructure and market to realize high minimum densities in some suburban corridors and urged more flexibility to enable immediate housing production. Multiple amendments to reduce minimum density levels in corridor and town center zones were considered but not adopted.

Public comment was extensive on this ordinance. Speakers included local builders and a Master Builders Association representative urging more flexibility on design standards; housing advocates and county staff supporting the package as the legal implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan; and community members weighing in on temporary housing and neighborhood impacts.

The council adopted O2025‑516S, as substituted, by a 4–3 vote. The adopted ordinance includes the amendments that received majority support on the floor and preserves a regulatory path for temporary housing communities and for middle‑housing design standards as written in the substitute.

Why this matters: The ordinance implements the county’s 2024 comprehensive plan periodic update and will shape where and how the county grows—affecting zoning, allowable housing types, minimum densities near corridors, impact fees, and the county’s approach to temporary housing. The defeated amendments show council division on balancing urgent housing production with neighborhood impacts and on how prescriptive design rules should be.

Looking ahead: Implementation will require administrative rulemaking, design of permit review processes and possible future budget decisions for programs tied to the plan. The council and executive will likely return to specific regulatory or incentive measures in coming months to address housing production, design flexibility, and siting criteria for temporary housing communities.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Pierce County council meeting June 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Pierce County Council adopted a comprehensive set of development‑code changes on June 10 to implement the county’s 2024 comprehensive plan update, including new zoning classifications, impact‑fee rules and design standards, while rejecting amendments that would have limited temporary housing duration and banned tents.","taxTitle","Pierce County, Washington","taxId",2674,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6201997,"Pierce County council approves stipend program to reduce financial barriers for low‑income board members",1257,2939000,4196000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834&start=2939&end=4196","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834/thumbnail_2939000.jpg","/articles/6201997/Pierce-County/Washington/Pierce-County-council-approves-stipend-program-to-reduce-financial-barriers-for-lowincome-board-members","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201997-acfc760c10814a475c8c79ca9df48e3a/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852772&Signature=dcvSLnhHCvJDgZHafZMBN56ejGpV0Lue7A4d7Ud~ZPJWG21P5GgsE3Ls8KTsHsBkRaAwZnl-yOSmOgxg9FalhP-G3OZ837cPPfVplMA8gtCjk7dXJFCH7qesR1hlvqhjxQZR5PhYKmHzxP~xqLWsGS3jyQYs6vgLK93ieQSSkIQp8af7e2yF6uCSTdWtP-t3rOM4EQ66FM9brdDpGup4JM55lggkZNN~ld5VRT~iyKgXiK8ZkgOrtI2AxyHAENbuQFh0C2wG5cgaxvOrGhdGuFtBaNn1b7X9iZqm1O6kqDxdZg5mDwC-pD5eMSzAkiApzTjft77Z~hoeetCBGg3rAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pierce County Council on Tuesday adopted an ordinance to create a new county code chapter that allows limited daily stipends and expense reimbursement for low‑income residents appointed to county boards, commissions and similar advisory groups.

The ordinance, O2025‑513, directs county staff to establish a Community Engagement Financial Support program under a new Pierce County Code Chapter 2.4 and sets an effective date of Sept. 1, 2025.

County staff told the council the change responds to a 2022 performance audit showing underrepresentation of lower‑income residents and younger people on county advisory bodies. Keri Waterland, staff for council, summarized the ordinance as creating “community engagement financial support” and described the audit findings that two‑thirds of board members reported incomes above $100,000 while roughly 30% of county residents earn less than $50,000 annually.

Under the ordinance, eligible appointees who meet a low‑income threshold (defined in the ordinance as up to 300% of the federal poverty limit) may receive up to $50 per day for attendance at official meetings or approved duties. Youth age 24 and under who meet the low‑income threshold may receive up to $100 per day. Stipends are limited to a combined maximum of $1,200 per recipient per calendar year; eligible individuals may also seek travel and lodging reimbursements consistent with Pierce County Code 3.92.020. The ordinance says compensation is subject to available funding and will not be paid retroactively prior to the effective date.

Julie Murray, executive counsel, told the council the program will rely on participant attestation for income verification: “We are going to ask people to attest to their income, and we will trust their submittal,” she said.

Supporters argued the targeted stipend is a modest way to remove a practical barrier that keeps working families, younger residents and lower‑income people from serving. Council member Yambe, who moved the ordinance for final action, said the measure is a small investment that can yield broader participation in county decision making. Council member Ayala described $50 as the difference that can cover a few hours of childcare or allow someone to take time off work to participate.

Opponents said the move would dilute the volunteer spirit of advisory service and risk creating a precedent for paying all volunteers. Council member Morell said he saw the proposals as reducing the definition of volunteerism and pledged to vote no. Council members expressed differing views about scope, verification and whether other supports (daycare, different per diems) should be part of the program.

The ordinance requires the finance department to provide a report by Dec. 1, 2026, summarizing spending, utilization, recipient demographics and recommended changes for the one‑year period following the Sept. 1, 2025 effective date.

The council voted 4–3 in favor of O2025‑513. Supporters said the ordinance is meant to be narrowly targeted to remove economic barriers; opponents said it raised questions about the role of volunteer service and the limits of county funding.

The ordinance references existing county code provisions on reimbursement and creates a delivery and reporting schedule intended to allow the executive branch to develop administration procedures before payments begin.

Why this matters: The stipend program is intended to broaden participation on county advisory bodies by removing a predictable financial barrier for people with limited incomes. The ordinance includes a short reporting timeline so the council and executive can evaluate how the program is used and whether it increases representation from underrepresented income and age groups.

Looking ahead: The program’s uptake, the accuracy of income self‑attestation, and available funding will be evaluated in the December 2026 finance report required by the ordinance.","The Pierce County Council on June 10 adopted an ordinance creating a new Pierce County Code chapter to allow limited daily stipends for low‑income individuals appointed to county boards, commissions and committees, effective Sept. 1, 2025, with reporting requirements for the finance department.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6201984,"Council rejects resolution objecting to pride and Juneteenth flags after two‑hour public debate",5705,11930000,17635000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834&start=11930&end=17635","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3788304-6a250ee5d84fde9bca092fd945cf6834/thumbnail_11930000.jpg","/articles/6201984/Pierce-County/Washington/Council-rejects-resolution-objecting-to-pride-and-Juneteenth-flags-after-twohour-public-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6201984-ff8f0769dbd95617f2a73c60df630622/orig.mp4?Expires=1774852772&Signature=i6JAmw9wGu~K6NhZ78Tldt4NWQuG50XhqVPVCp3HyWtMTjdbwnKJqQV2Zw9BNS2wSX6XvVVs8CSJl1AZTMC7lSyIwPjh1gbIL61GHAMZxB0iFEXCij4qp-mnFox-0jxCYYSDYsshTvnmL1We2rO7ZYY2deMLgbRBixCnMcBaSf~GDf0gHLeT19UvA6wLyHMdzMlMJ6ioCuvlCi9SlcDCRIHAdV2CE0ysHwAOwznsVi-DvS-k6XtUXC9zJZV~DT9NcmkxkTHS~q15NcGVUFZSyWETEaXI-rJn5k41fFvjBLSeHeOvdN105gaF782KWJp9XGfex-HkbAWYrGpgu7EGxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pierce County Council declined to adopt a resolution on June 10 that sought to object to the executive’s planned display of a pride flag (June 3–July 14) and a Juneteenth flag (June 17–20) at four county facilities.

Council member Morrell introduced Resolution R2025‑158, which formally objected to the executive’s decision to display the two flags on exterior county flagstaffs at the County‑City Building and other county facilities. Under the county’s special flag policy, the executive may authorize special flags and must notify the council at least two weeks in advance; the council may object by resolution and the executive must remove the flag within 24 hours if the council adopts an objection.

Morrell framed his objection as a process and respect concern: he said his principal objection was that “the council was not given the opportunity to really debate the policy” and that the council had not been included in shaping a flag policy that places certain special flags on the same pole as the American flag. He said he objected to “any special flag being flown under the American flag,” citing respect for the flag and veterans’ sacrifices. Vice Chair Herrera and other members also described the importance of protecting the flag’s symbolic standing.

Supporters of flying the pride and Juneteenth flags argued the displays are forms of recognition and inclusion for communities that have faced historic exclusion and that flying the flags does not supplant or disrespect the American flag. Dozens of citizens testified over two hours, representing a wide range of views. Speakers who opposed the executive’s action described it as inappropriate government endorsement of particular causes and argued the county flagpole should be reserved for federal, state and county flags and the POW/MIA banner. Supporters of the flags described the displays as important symbolic recognition for LGBTQ+ residents and for descendants of enslaved people; several speakers said the flags signaled welcome and affirmation in a time of national debate over civil and human rights.

The council heard legal and procedural viewpoints on the rights of government to display flags and the risk of perceived endorsement; speakers cited the U.S. Flag Code, the Washington State constitution and county policy in debate. Some council members asked for clearer rules and a regular calendar for special flag displays so the council and community would have predictable notice.

After public comment and deliberation, the council voted on resolution R2025‑158. The roll call was: Council member Cruver (aye), Council member Morrell (aye), Council member Herrera (aye), Council member Ayala (nay), Council member Yambe (nay), Council member Denson (nay), Council member Hitchen (nay). The result was 3 ayes and 4 nays, and the resolution failed; the executive’s displays remained authorized under the current policy.

Why this matters: The vote exposed sharp divisions among council members and the public over symbolic recognition and the appropriate role of government property in displaying community flags. It also highlighted procedural concerns about how special‑flag displays are authorized and whether the council should have a larger role in setting a scheduled calendar for non‑governmental flags.

Looking ahead: Council members discussed possible policy changes and greater clarity about the flag‑display process, including the possibility of a standing calendar for requests and clearer guidance on pole assignments (which pole is used so the American flag is not flown beneath other banners). The debate signaled lawmakers and the public will continue to contest where and how local government expresses official recognition of community groups.","On a 4–3 vote the Pierce County Council declined to adopt a resolution that would have objected to the county executive’s display of a pride flag and a Juneteenth flag at county facilities; the floor debate and public comment were extensive and sharply divided.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pierce County council adopts broad development‑code package; hotly contested provisions on temporary housing and design rules fail in amendments

Pierce County council approves stipend program to reduce financial barriers for low‑income board members

Council rejects resolution objecting to pride and Juneteenth flags after two‑hour public debate