Puyallup council approves 2044 comprehensive plan after contentious public comment on equity and tribal history

The Puyallup City Council adopted the second reading of the 2044 comprehensive plan update on July 22, approving the ordinance by a 4-3 roll-call vote after an extended public-comment period in which dozens of residents urged the council either to keep explicit equity language and references to the Puyallup Tribe’s history or to change the document to avoid potential conflicts with state and federal rules.

The decision comes amid sharply divided views in the community about proposed amendments that would replace the word “equity” with “equality,” remove or revise explicit references to the Puyallup Tribe and to the Medicine Creek Treaty, and change climate-related wording. Supporters of keeping the original language said deleting equity and historical language would erase lived experience and risk state funding; supporters of the amendments said the revisions seek race-neutral, legally defensible language and to avoid future litigation.

Councilmembers and community speakers framed the stakes differently: critics argued deleting equity and tribal-history language whitewashes the past and contradicts state expectations, while supporters said the revisions focus policy on measurable disadvantage rather than ancestry. The council heard repeated warnings during public comment that altering the plan could jeopardize state approval and associated funding; Jeff Watson, a resident and auditor, explicitly cited “Revised Code 36 .78 .070” as a state statutory requirement (as referenced in the meeting) and urged the council not to replace “equity” with “equality.”

Most of the public speakers — residents, educators, faith leaders and tribal members — urged the council to keep explicit equity language. Commenters invoked local history including the Medicine Creek Treaty and the Puyallup Tribe’s long presence in the region, and many said removing those references would feel like erasure. Several speakers also raised climate concerns and urged explicit climate language be retained in the plan.

Council discussion before the vote reiterated competing priorities. Councilmember Whiting said she would not support second reading and called for more work; Councilmember Adler said the draft and the community engagement behind it deserved passage as written and said she would vote no on the amended version; Councilmember Dorr said he would vote no, citing representativeness and legal risk. Councilmember Johnson moved the second-reading motion; after debate the council took a roll-call vote. The tally: Adler — Nay; Johnson — Aye; Deputy Mayor King — Aye; Gilliam — Aye; Whiting — Nay; Dorr — Nay; Mayor Kasemath — Aye. The ordinance passed.

The council’s final measure adopts the planning commission’s periodic update with the contested edits in place as of the second reading. Councilmembers who opposed the measure said they would continue to seek more public engagement and expressed concern about potential state compliance and litigation. Those who supported it said the amended language targets measurable disadvantage rather than ancestry and aims to keep the plan legally defensible while still recognizing community needs.

The council did not adopt further direction at the meeting to reopen or delay implementation; several councilmembers and many public commenters urged additional outreach and possible follow-up language refinements. Implementation details, including how the plan’s language will guide future land-use and housing decisions, are expected to emerge in staff briefings and subsequent meetings.

Residents who addressed the council during the public-comment period included longtime Puyallup residents, teachers, veterans, faith leaders and tribal members; many asked the council to delay action or to preserve the planning commission’s original phrasing. The council clerk limited each speaker to three minutes under the standard public-comment rules.

With the vote concluded, the update is now in effect as the city’s guiding comprehensive plan for the next 20 years. The council and staff signaled intent to continue community outreach on particular implementation items and to track whether the revised language affects state review or funding approvals going forward.