The Operational Strategy and Administrative Committee of the City of Tacoma on Oct. 10 reviewed proposals to alter council staffing and requested staff to explore feasible process improvements with the city manager’s office.

Why it matters: Council staffing determines how much research, constituent service and policy support each council member receives. OSAC explored options that would change workload distribution, create subject‑matter expertise aligned to council committees, and add communications and constituent relations capacity. Those choices carry recurring personnel costs and affect how council and staff interact administratively.

Current state and priorities: Staff reported the mayor currently has a dedicated policy analyst and office manager while the remaining council members share two policy analysts (a roughly 1:4 ratio). There is also one constituent relations analyst supporting the mayor and council. Staff summarized repeated requests to improve policy analysis capacity and to consider a council communications function and a professional manager (chief of staff) to oversee council staff.

Options and costs: Staff outlined four scaling concepts with ballpark, fully loaded annual costs (estimates were presented as ranges and subject to classification and comp review): a chief of staff ($160,000–$190,000); policy analyst ($140,000–$155,000); constituent relations or communications analyst ($120,000–$140,000); and administrative staff ($115,000–$120,000). A modest proposal to add two policy analysts to change the ratio (roughly 2:1 support) was estimated at about $300,000 per year. Expanding constituent relations and communications work was presented as an additional roughly $420,000 per year. A larger “shared pool” model adding four FTEs was estimated in the range of $2.1–$2.3 million per year when combined with communications and constituent support; staff said such a build‑out would make a chief of staff position advisable to manage the group.

Scope and reporting: The committee discussed whether council staff should remain administratively managed by the city manager’s office with a dotted line to council, or whether a new chief of staff should report directly to mayor and council while the city manager remains the operational head of the city. Staff noted council members generally favored professional day‑to‑day management of staff by a manager rather than direct oversight by individual council members. Counsel asked whether a revised reporting relationship was allowable; staff responded that the wording of the recently passed charter amendment permitted the option in principle.

Process improvements: OSAC also asked staff to pursue lower‑cost, near‑term process improvements that could reduce council workload, including: scoping and streamlining the front‑end of policy drafts to reduce rework; standardizing pre‑read and agenda formats to reduce information overload; redirecting appropriate constituent inquiries to operational departments and 311; and improving coordination with community boards, commissions and committees so council receives clearer, prioritized recommendations.

Committee members discussed tradeoffs between preserving dedicated one‑on‑one policy partners for individual council members and creating subject‑matter analysts aligned to council committees. Presenter Ben summarized what he heard in interviews: “the most common thing that I heard would be if we could just improve that ratio somewhat so that it isn't 1 to 4,” and members suggested several hybrid arrangements that would preserve individual relationships while building committee expertise.

Public comment: Sally Perkins (District 3) urged the committee to consider a second‑day format for finalists and said she “think[s] the staff people for the council ought to be independent of the city manager to allow for a broader range of ideas.”

Action: OSAC voted to direct staff to explore continuous‑improvement initiatives with the city manager’s office and report back on feasible items. That motion was moved, seconded and adopted by voice vote (committee recorded “Aye”). Staff will return with a staffing proposal timed for next year’s biennial budget process and report back on the potential process improvements this year as capacity allows.

Fiscal and schedule notes: Staff said classification and comp work for new positions would take about three months, recruitment and hiring three to six months per position, and that staffing proposals timed for the 2027 budget cycle would likely mean hiring could begin in early 2027. Staff presented a recommended timeline that ties comprehensive staffing changes to the 2027–28 biennial budget process.