Tacoma committee discusses ‘Get to yes’ permitting, business outreach and winding down Opportunity Zone work

Tacoma’s Economic Development Committee on May 13 reviewed Objective 7 of the city’s economic development strategic plan, a set of actions staff described as “how we do business,” and debated next steps on permitting, business engagement and use of federal Opportunity Zone designations.

Debbie Bingham, business and economic development manager for the Community and Economic Development Department, told the committee Objective 7 aims to “formalize economic development as a city's intermediary,” to “enhance the value proposition of Tacoma” and to “get to yes on development permitting.” She described routine work the department already performs, including weekly project review panels, business retention and expansion visits, and maintaining the MakeItTacoma web resources and related newsletters.

The committee focused most of its discussion on three priorities Bingham raised: deepening engagement with the business community, clarifying the city’s role in permitting to reduce delays and costs, and whether the plan should continue to treat Opportunity Zones as a distinct program. Bingham said the city conducted outreach to property owners in the federally designated Opportunity Zone census tracts and marketed key sites to investors; she recommended removing a separate Opportunity Zone strategy from the next plan update because the city's outreach work on that designation is largely complete.

Council members and staff explored several steps to strengthen the city’s ability to measure and respond to business needs. Council members proposed quarterly economic updates that would couple permitting and licensing data with staff outreach metrics; suggested a lightweight “exit” or follow-up process for lapsed business licenses or abandoned permits to learn why projects stop; and recommended improving the city’s storytelling so businesses know “who to call” when they need help. One council member described a prior quarterly package in another city that combined permit counts, new-business counts and a short qualitative question about what keeps business owners up at night.

On permitting, Bingham and council members described a close working relationship between Community and Economic Development (CED) and Planning & Development Services (PDS). Bingham said permitting staff, including Noah Yacker (referred to in the meeting), “answers his phone right away” and will join site visits to help small-business owners understand likely permit needs. Committee members nonetheless pressed for clearer, shared goals linking permit throughput to the city’s broader job-creation and housing targets. Bingham said the department tracks job and housing outcomes and “touches” with businesses, but that setting numeric targets for new businesses is challenging because openings depend on market forces.

Members repeatedly returned to time and predictability as policy levers the city can influence. Several council members noted they cannot change national materials or interest-rate costs, but said the city can act on permitting timelines, infrastructure sequencing and financial tools. One committee member suggested using the city’s local sales-tax retention or other local funds as public investment for catalytic redevelopment parcels, citing downtown blocks near Amtrak and the former Greyhound site as potential uses. Another recommended exploring loan guarantees, targeted incentives, or coordinated infrastructure work so public projects overlap private construction and lower total cost for developers.

Committee members also discussed construction innovation and workforce. Bingham and council members noted Tacoma has updated codes to allow newer methods (for example, mass timber and higher overhangs) and suggested the city convene forums with developers, financiers and workforce partners to examine prefabrication, modular construction and other approaches that might shorten schedules or improve predictability. A council member proposed adding deconstruction and salvage strategies to the plan so reusable materials recovered from demolition could be reused in local projects.

On business outreach, committee members suggested several near-term actions: (1) reviving or redesigning a mayoral business advisory council or creating recurring sector-based roundtables; (2) ensuring every new business receives a clear welcome message with links to MakeItTacoma and Tax & License resources; (3) expanding the business resiliency team’s proactive outreach and using targeted data (for example, utility arrears) to identify businesses at risk; and (4) exploring lightweight annual or quarterly surveys (three questions was proposed) to track services used and what “keeps business owners up at night.”

Bingham said some data gaps complicate analysis: business contact info in state records can be outdated, and lapsed-license contact rates are low, making exit interviews difficult. Staff offered to bring examples of quarterly reports the committee could adopt and to consult permitting on metrics that would align permit-processing goals with economic outcomes.

The committee did not vote on substantive policy at the meeting. Chair Daniels closed the session after the discussion and Anna Lee announced upcoming committee dates, including a June 10 meeting that will include further strategic-plan work.

The discussion produced several staff directions for follow-up rather than final decisions: staff were asked to draft options for a quarterly economic dashboard, provide sample survey wording and outreach approaches, and return with concrete ideas for aligning permit metrics to the city’s housing and job-creation goals.