Tumwater committee advances comprehensive plan amendment including required Capital Facilities Plan to council

A city planning staff member presented Ordinance O2025-009 to the Tumwater General Government Committee on Nov. 12, outlining proposed comprehensive plan amendments that include the Capital Facilities Plan, a required element of the comprehensive plan.

The staff presentation explained the Capital Facilities Plan lists six years of capital projects implemented by transportation, engineering and water resources departments and that it is being advanced as a city‑sponsored amendment despite the committee’s earlier suspension of routine amendments. "This capital facilities plan is a required element of the comprehensive plan, so we will need to do it in order to update the comprehensive plan," the staff member said.

Staff recapped prior review: Public Works Committee reviewed government and transportation projects in September and water/sewer/stormwater projects in October; the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval to the council. Staff proposed scheduling a joint work session with council on Nov. 25 if needed, with council consideration on Dec. 2 (and a separate joint Planning Commission/council work session on Dec. 9 for the 10‑year update).

Committee members discussed a separate county-level issue raised by United Way about a possible reduction to the percentage cap for housing development in the urban growth area (UGA). Lita Dahlhoff said she had heard United Way leadership and other jurisdictions were discussing lowering that cap and asked whether city staff had been approached. Tom Waters, a city staff member, responded: "I'm not familiar with that," adding that the county cap in question functions more as a recommendation than a binding policy and that the city's housing and employment forecasts produced by TRBC guide planning assumptions.

Council member Joan Cathy said the amendment package had received sufficient prior scrutiny and indicated no additional work session was necessary. The committee signaled informal consensus (a "thumbs up") to move the ordinance forward to the city council for consideration; no formal committee vote on the ordinance was recorded in the transcript.

Earlier in the meeting the committee approved the minutes from the Oct. 8 General Government Committee meeting after a motion by Jerome Cathy and a second by Lita Dahlhoff; those present voiced "aye."

Next steps: staff will prepare the ordinance and related materials for city council consideration (staff requested council consideration on Dec. 2 if a Nov. 25 work session is not needed).