Presenter John outlines 12 recommendations to update Tacoma’s council action memorandums

City staff presented a report of findings to the Operational Strategy and Administrative Committee on May 8 that includes 12 recommendations to revise the Council Action Memorandum (CAM) and related committee memo processes, and committee members directed staff to draft updates and return with an example and pilot.

John, the staff presenter, opened the review by summarizing the project’s scope and process, saying, “There are 12 recommendations.” He told the committee the review drew on interviews with council members, workshops with department staff and directors, and an attached PDF report that contains the full findings.

The recommendations are aimed at making CAMs clearer and more useful to both council and staff. Key proposals include explicitly stating the purpose or purposes of a CAM or council consideration/contingency request; tailoring memo content to different use types so irrelevant detail is filtered out; and adding a short problem statement to explain what each recommendation is intended to solve.

On equity, John said the current equity-analysis prompt relies heavily on a geographic equity index and can miss impacts to nongeographic vulnerable populations. He recommended broadening the equity prompt so authors can describe how a proposal advances access, opportunity and belonging beyond the index. “The equity index is limiting in some citywide or population-specific cases,” he said.

On fiscal analysis, staff recommended simplifying technical bookkeeping details that do not assist decisionmakers and instead surfacing fiscal trade-offs and opportunity costs when staff time is diverted to new initiatives. John said some CAMs report “no fiscal impact” because work is absorbed with existing staff time, which obscures opportunity costs that might influence decisions.

Committee members generally expressed support for the recommendations while urging caution about staff workload and the risk of turning certain sections into rote or anecdotal exercises. One member asked for clearer naming conventions to avoid confusing CCR acronyms (council consideration request vs. council contingency request); John said the naming conventions could be cleaned up with council direction.

Members discussed the alternatives section and favored a two-part approach: (1) practical options council might consider in deciding whether to act, and (2) a descriptive account of alternatives considered during staff development that explains why some options were not recommended. Several members emphasized that meaningful alternatives should be substantive rather than perfunctory.

On process, John proposed moving the staff or sponsor recommendation (the “headline”) closer to the start of the CAM so that decisionmakers see the recommended action earlier. He also recommended clearer expected timelines and checkpoints in the evaluation/follow-up section.

John told the committee he will incorporate the feedback, conduct follow-up interviews, prepare a draft update and a guidance document for staff, and aim to return with a draft and a sample CAM in late Q2 (late June–early July). He recommended the next iteration also be presented to full council.

The committee gave general assent to the approach and thanked staff for outreach. With no public commenters signed up, members then moved a scheduling motion: they approved cancelling the May 22 OSAC meeting and rescheduling those agenda items to the June 12 OSAC meeting, and directed staff to bring back an updated draft incorporating the committee’s feedback. The meeting was then adjourned.

The committee’s direction requires staff to produce a draft template, update guidance materials, and provide at least one worked example for the committee or full council to review in the coming weeks.