Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Forum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to replace regular community forums with five district events draws sharp public opposition in Tacoma
Summary
City staff proposed replacing frequent in-chamber community forums with rotating district forums—shorter, action-focused events with translation, childcare and food. Dozens of public commenters urged keeping the existing forums, criticized removing Zoom access and warned the change would reduce accountability; the committee forwarded the proposal to staff for cost and logistics analysis.
City staff presented a first draft March 13 that would move community engagement from recurring in-chamber forums to a smaller number of district-based forums with an emphasis on neighborhood-specific briefings and on-the-spot service requests.
Chair Edson framed the proposal as a way to improve access and action: ‘‘The forum serves as a space for community input that informs council policy decisions, addresses service issues, supports civic education, and helps build trust,’’ he said. The draft envisions rotating one forum per district each year, 30 minutes of community fellowship with food, a short staff briefing using 311 and TPD data, on-site translators and childcare, and a facilitated resident comment period recorded for the public record but without a live Zoom participation option.
The plan prompted sustained public opposition during the meeting’s public-comment period. Dozens of residents told the committee the change would reduce access, sever cross-district organizing, and—by removing live Zoom—exclude those who rely on remote participation. ‘‘Once we lose these hours in front of you guys, we’ll never get them back,’’ said Abby Greenfield, a frequent commenter. Andrea Hope urged keeping Zoom access and suggested adding a dedicated Zoom moderator so online participants are not cut off.
Multiple commenters said the proposal appears to trade quantity of access for curated, small events that are less likely to sustain citywide accountability. ‘‘Cutting community forums down from 20 plus a year to 5, that’s a 75% loss of access,’’ speaker Sally Perkins told the committee. Several speakers called for any new district forums to supplement, not replace, the current city-chamber community forum schedule.
Council members expressed support for district outreach, translation and childcare but acknowledged the public’s concerns about predictability and access. Some asked staff for budget estimates and stressed the need for a requirement that a quorum of council or city decision-makers attend the district gatherings if they are to serve as substitutes for in-chamber forums.
The committee approved a motion directing staff to incorporate the day’s discussion into administrative analysis—costs, logistics and staffing—and to prepare details for a study-session review by the full council. The committee did not immediately adopt a replacement; staff will return with the requested analysis and options that preserve accessibility where possible.
The immediate next step: staff will provide administrative context (cost, logistics, staffing) and alternatives for how a district forum model could run while preserving remote participation and sufficient frequency for access and accountability.
